Evidence-Based Project, Part 4: Critical Appraisal of Research

Critical Appraisal Of Research:- Evidence-Based Project, Part 4: Critical Appraisal of Research

Evidence-Based Project, Part 4: Critical Appraisal of Research

Realtors rely on detailed property appraisals—conducted using appraisal tools—to assign market values to houses and other properties. These values are then presented to buyers and sellers to set prices and initiate offers. 

Research appraisal is not that different. The critical appraisal process utilizes formal appraisal tools to assess the results of research to determine value to the context at hand. Evidence-based practitioners often present these findings to make the case for specific courses of action.

In this Assignment, you will use appraisal tools to conduct a critical appraisal of published research. You will then present the results of your efforts.

To Prepare:

• Review the Resources and consider the importance of critically appraising research evidence.
• Reflect on the four peer-reviewed articles you selected in Module 2 and analyzed in Module 3. 
• Review and download the Critical Appraisal Tools document provided in the Resources.

The Assignment (Evidence-Based Project)

Part 4A: Critical Appraisal of Research

Conduct a critical appraisal of the four peer-reviewed articles you selected and analyzed by completing the Critical Appraisal Tools document. Be sure to include:

• An evaluation table
• A levels of evidence table
• An outcomes synthesis table

Part 4B: Critical Appraisal of Research

Based on your appraisal, in a 1-2-page critical appraisal, suggest a best practice that emerges from the research you reviewed. Briefly explain the best practice, justifying your proposal with APA citations of the research.

Resources:

Melnyk, B. M., & Fineout-Overholt, E. (2018). Evidence-based practice in nursing & healthcare: A guide to best practice (4th ed.). Philadelphia, PA: Wolters Kluwer.

• Chapter 5, “Critically Appraising Quantitative Evidence for Clinical Decision Making” (pp. 124–188)
• Chapter 6, “Critically Appraising Qualitative Evidence for Clinical Decision Making” (pp. 189–218)

Williamson, K. M. (2009). Evidence-based practice: Critical appraisal of qualitative evidence. Journal of the American Psychiatric Nurses Association, 15(3), 202–207. doi:10.1177/1078390309338733. Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.1022.62&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Fineout-Overholt, E., Melnyk, B. M., Stillwell, S. B., & Williamson, K. M. (2010a). Evidence-based practice step by step: Critical appraisal of the evidence: Part I. American Journal of Nursing, 110(7), 47–52. doi:10.1097/01.NAJ.0000383935.22721.9c. Retrieved from https://journals.lww.com/ajnonline/Fulltext/2010/07000/Evidence_Based_Practice_Step_by_Step__Critical.26.aspx 

Fineout-Overholt, E., Melnyk, B. M., Stillwell, S. B., & Williamson, K. M. (2010b). Evidence-based practice, step by step: Critical appraisal of the evidence: Part II: Digging deeper—examining the “keeper” studies. American Journal of Nursing, 110(9), 41–48. doi:10.1097/01.NAJ.0000388264.49427.f9. Retrieved from https://www.nursingcenter.com/nursingcenter_redesign/media/EBP/AJNseries/Critical2.pdf

Fineout-Overholt, E., Melnyk, B. M., Stillwell, S. B., & Williamson, K. M. (2010c). Evidence-based practice, step by step: Critical appraisal of the evidence: Part III: The process of synthesis: Seeing similarities and differences across the body of evidence. American Journal of Nursing, 110(11), 43–51. doi: 10.1097/01.NAJ.0000390523.99066.b5. Retrieved from 

https://www.nursingcenter.com/nursingcenter_redesign/media/EBP/AJNseries/Critical3.pdf

Rubric:

Part 4A: Critical Appraisal of Research

Conduct a critical appraisal of the four peer-reviewed articles you selected and analyzed by completing the Critical Appraisal Tools document. Be sure to include:

·   An evaluation table
·   A levels of evidence table
·   An outcomes synthesis table–

Levels of Achievement:Excellent 45 (45%) – 50 (50%) The critical appraisal accurately and clearly provides a detailed evaluation table. The responses provide a detailed, specific, and accurate evaluation of each of the peer-reviewed articles selected.

The critical appraisal accurately clearly provides a detailed levels of evidence table. The levels of evidence are accurate and fully aligned to the peer-reviewed articles selected.

The critical appraisal accurately and clearly provides a detailed outcomes synthesis table. The outcomes synthesis accurately describes in detail the relevance of the peer-reviewed articles selected and is fully aligned to each of the peer-reviewed articles.Good 40 (40%) – 44 (44%) The critical appraisal accurately provides an evaluation table. The responses provide an accurate evaluation of each of the peer-reviewed articles selected with some specificity.

The critical appraisal accurately provides a levels of evidence table. The levels of evidence are accurate and are adequately aligned to the peer-reviewed articles selected.

The critical appraisal accurately provides an outcomes synthesis table. The outcomes synthesis accurately describes the relevance of the peer-reviewed articles selected and is adequately aligned to each of the peer-reviewed articles.Fair 35 (35%) – 39 (39%) The critical appraisal provides an evaluation table that is inaccurate or vague. The responses provide an inaccurate or vague evaluation of each of the peer-reviewed articles selected.

The critical appraisal provides an inaccurate or vague levels of evidence table. The levels of evidence inaccurately or vaguely align to the peer-reviewed articles selected.

The critical appraisal provides an inaccurate or vague outcomes synthesis table. The outcomes synthesis inaccurately or vaguely describes the relevance of the peer-reviewed articles and is inaccurately or vaguely aligned to each of the peer-reviewed articles.Poor 0 (0%) – 34 (34%) The critical appraisal provides an evaluation table that is inaccurate and vague or is missing.  

The critical appraisal provides an inaccurate and vague levels of evidence table or it is missing.

The critical appraisal provides an inaccurate and vague outcomes synthesis table or it is missing.Feedback:

Part 4B: Evidence-Based Best Practices

Based on your appraisal, suggest a best practice that emerges from the research you reviewed. Briefly explain the best practice, justifying your proposal with APA citations of the research.–

Levels of Achievement:Excellent 32 (32%) – 35 (35%) The responses accurately and clearly suggest a detailed best practice that is fully aligned to the research reviewed.

The responses accurately and clearly explain in detail the best practice, with sufficient justification of why this represents a best practice in the field. The responses provide a complete, detailed, and specific synthesis of two outside resources reviewed on the best practice explained. The response fully integrates at least two outside resources and two or three course-specific resources that fully support the responses provided.

Accurate, complete, and full APA citations are provided for the research reviewed.Good 28 (28%) – 31 (31%) The responses accurately suggest a best practice that is adequately aligned to the research reviewed.

The responses accurately explain the best practice, with adequately justification of why this represents a best practice in the field. The responses provide an accurate synthesis of at least one outside resource reviewed on the best practice explained. The response integrates at least one outside resource and two or three course-specific resources that may support the responses provided.

Accurate and complete APA citations are provided for the research reviewed.Fair 25 (25%) – 27 (27%) The responses inaccurately or vaguely suggest a best practice that may be aligned to the research reviewed.

The responses inaccurately or vaguely explain the best practice, with inaccurate or vague justification for why this represents a best practice in the field. The responses provide a vague or inaccurate synthesis of outside resources reviewed on the best practice explained. The response minimally integrates resources that may support the responses provided.

Inaccurate and incomplete APA citations are provided for the research reviewed.Poor 0 (0%) – 24 (24%) The responses inaccurately and vaguely suggest a best practice that may be aligned to the research reviewed or are missing.

The responses inaccurately and vaguely explain the best practice, with inaccurate and vague justification for why this represents a best practice in the field, or are missing. A vague and inaccurate synthesis of no outside resources reviewed on the best practice explained is provided or is missing. The response fails to integrate any resources to support the responses provided.

Inaccurate and incomplete APA citations are provided for the research reviewed or is missing.Feedback:

Written Expression and Formatting—Paragraph Development and Organization:
Paragraphs make clear points that support well-developed ideas, flow logically, and demonstrate continuity of ideas. Sentences are carefully focused—neither long and rambling nor short and lacking substance. A clear and comprehensive purpose statement and introduction is provided which delineates all required criteria.–

Levels of Achievement:Excellent 5 (5%) – 5 (5%) Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity.

A clear and comprehensive purpose statement, introduction, and conclusion is provided which delineates all required criteria.Good 4 (4%) – 4 (4%) Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity 80% of the time.

Purpose, introduction, and conclusion of the assignment is stated yet is brief and not descriptive.Fair 3.5 (3.5%) – 3.5 (3.5%) Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity 60–79% of the time.      

Purpose, introduction, and conclusion of the assignment is vague or off topic.Poor 0 (0%) – 3 (3%) Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity less than 60% of the time.

No purpose statement, introduction, or conclusion was provided.Feedback:

Written Expression and Formatting—English Writing Standards:
Correct grammar, mechanics, and proper punctuation.–

Levels of Achievement:Excellent 5 (5%) – 5 (5%) Uses correct grammar, spelling, and punctuation with no errors.Good 4 (4%) – 4 (4%) Contains a few (one or two) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors.Fair 3.5 (3.5%) – 3.5 (3.5%) Contains several (three or four) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors.Poor 0 (0%) – 3 (3%) Contains many (five or more) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors that interfere with the reader’s understanding.Feedback:

Written Expression and Formatting—The paper follows correct APA format for title page, headings, font, spacing, margins, indentations, page numbers, running head, parenthetical/in-text citations, and reference list.–

Levels of Achievement:Excellent 5 (5%) – 5 (5%) Uses correct APA format with no errors.Good 4 (4%) – 4 (4%) Contains a few (one or two) APA format errors.Fair 3.5 (3.5%) – 3.5 (3.5%) Contains several (three or four) APA format errors.Poor 0 (0%) – 3 (3%) 

Critical Appraisal Tools Worksheet Template

Evaluation Table

Use this document to complete the evaluation table requirement of the Module 4 Assessment, Evidence-Based Project, Part 4A: Critical Appraisal of Research

Levels of Evidence Table

Use this document to complete the levels of evidence table requirement of the Module 4 Assessment, Evidence-Based Project, Part 4A: Critical Appraisal of Research

* Evidence Levels:

· Level I

Experimental, randomized controlled trial (RCT), systematic review RTCs with or without meta-analysis

· Level II

Quasi-experimental studies, systematic review of a combination of RCTs and quasi-experimental studies, or quasi-experimental studies only, with or without meta-analysis

· Level III

Nonexperimental, systematic review of RCTs, quasi-experimental with/without meta-analysis, qualitative, qualitative systematic review with/without meta-synthesis

· Level IV

Respected authorities’ opinions, nationally recognized expert committee/consensus panel reports based on scientific evidence

· Level V

Literature reviews, quality improvement, program evaluation, financial evaluation, case reports, nationally recognized expert(s) opinion based on experiential evidence

Outcomes Synthesis Table

Use this document to complete the outcomes synthesis table requirement of the Module 4 Assessment, Evidence-Based Project, Part 4A: Critical Appraisal of Research

Clinical issue of interest

Silifat Jones-ibrahim

Walden university

Clinical issue of interest

Psychiatric interventions focus on effectively engaging patients through improving the level of interaction. Integration of evidence based practices provide a better environment where it is possible to outline specific measures that can be used to handle different patients conditions.

There is need to create a strong outline which help define important changes which help maintain an improved level of focus.

Psychiatric services provide a detailed understanding on specific concepts which help create a better emphasis on important concepts which can help improve individual physical and psychological wellbeing.

Violent behavior is associated with different factors including lack of therapeutic interventions as well as groups.

Therefore the research aims at determining whether lack of therapeutic activities and presence of groups increase violent behavior over a two week period.

Formulation of picot question

The Picot question focused on understanding the key interventions that can help improve inpatient psychiatric hospitals because of the increasing violent behavior among patients.

Aggressive behaviour in patients with psychiatric disorders has many possible causes.

Different psychiatric patients have different mental and psychological concerns which require a strong emphasis on specific aspects which can help improve quality of care.

Thus the research sought to understand the causes of violent behavior where two aspects were investigated within a two week period.

Formulation of picot question

Therapeutic activities have been associated with different factors which provide a detailed emphasis important changes which help outline a strong emphasis on violent behavior among psychiatric patients.

Therefore understanding the effect of therapeutic activities and or group will provide a detailed focus on the development of psychiatric patients behavioral development.

The picot question development focused on these factors which help outline specific aspects which help understand psychiatric patients behavior.

Research databases

Choosing database provide a detailed emphasis on important changes which help outline a strong understanding on the underlying research literature based on the picot question. The databases that were included in the study are:-

PLOS One peer reviewed journal database

Physiology & behavior database

Aggression and Violent Behavior database

Neuropsychiatric disease and treatment database

References

Hallett, N., Huber, J. W., & Dickens, G. L. (2014). Violence prevention in inpatient psychiatric settings: Systematic review of studies about the perceptions of care staff and patients. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 19(5), 502-514.

Iozzino, L., Ferrari, C., Large, M., Nielssen, O., & De Girolamo, G. (2015). Prevalence and risk factors of violence by psychiatric acute inpatients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PloS one, 10(6), e0128536.

Kamphuis, J., Dijk, D. J., Spreen, M., & Lancel, M. (2014). The relation between poor sleep, impulsivity and aggression in forensic psychiatric patients. Physiology & behavior, 123, 168-173.

Latalova, K., Kamaradova, D., & Prasko, J. (2014). Violent victimization of adult patients with severe mental illness: a systematic review. Neuropsychiatric disease and treatment, 10, 1925.

Levels of evidence

Hallett, N., Huber, J. W., & Dickens, G. L. (2014). Violence prevention in inpatient psychiatric settings: Systematic review of studies about the perceptions of care staff and patients. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 19(5), 502-514.

This article provide a strong emphasis on important aspects which help define a unique understanding violence prevention in inpatient setting. Primary and secondary prevention methods are crucial in creating an improved environment. care staff and patients have an important role in creating a conducive environment.

Levels of evidence

Iozzino, L., Ferrari, C., Large, M., Nielssen, O., & De Girolamo, G. (2015). Prevalence and risk factors of violence by psychiatric acute inpatients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PloS one, 10(6), e0128536.

The article highlights that the prevalence of violence among psychiatric acute inpatients has increased significantly in recent past due to inability to control existing risk factors.

Factors associated with levels of violence in psychiatric units are similar to factors that are associated with violence among individual patients.

Levels of evidence

Kamphuis, J., Dijk, D. J., Spreen, M., & Lancel, M. (2014). The relation between poor sleep, impulsivity and aggression in forensic psychiatric patients. Physiology & behavior, 123, 168-173.

The study highlighted that to a large extent the results of this study support the hypothesis that poor sleep is related to impulsive, aggressive behaviour in forensic psychiatric patients.

Therefore , it is worthwhile to examine the protective effect of treatment of sleep difficulties on aggressive reactivity in (forensic) psychiatric populations.

Latalova, K., Kamaradova, D., & Prasko, J. (2014). Violent victimization of adult patients with severe mental illness: a systematic review. Neuropsychiatric disease and treatment, 10, 1925.

The article highlights that victimization of persons with severe mental illness is a serious medical and social problem.

Thus, prevention and management of victimization should become a part of routine clinical care for patients with severe mental illness.

the strengths of using systematic reviews for clinical research

The strengths include focus on evidence based outcomes which provide a detailed emphasis on issues that are being addressed.

It is easier to relate with the findings because they focus on past literature in informing the existing gap in research.

It follows a systematic approach which is crucial and help identify positive research outcomes.

ADDITIONAL INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE CLASS

SCORE A+ WITH HELP FROM OUR PROFESSIONAL WRITERS – Evidence-Based Project, Part 4: Critical Appraisal of Research

We will process your orders through multiple stages and checks to ensure that what we are delivering to you, in the end, is something that is precise as you envisioned it. All of our essay writing service products are 100% original, ensuring that there is no plagiarism in them. The sources are well-researched and cited so it is interesting. Our goal is to help as many students as possible with their assignments, i.e. our prices are affordable and services premium.

• Discussion Questions (DQ)

Initial responses to the DQ should address all components of the questions asked, including a minimum of one scholarly source, and be at least 250 words. Successful responses are substantive (i.e., add something new to the discussion, engage others in the discussion, well-developed idea) and include at least one scholarly source. One or two-sentence responses, simple statements of agreement or “good post,” and responses that are off-topic will not count as substantive. Substantive responses should be at least 150 words. I encourage you to incorporate the readings from the week (as applicable) into your responses.

• Weekly Participation

Your initial responses to the mandatory DQ do not count toward participation and are graded separately. In addition to the DQ responses, you must post at least one reply to peers (or me) on three separate days, for a total of three replies. Participation posts do not require a scholarly source/citation (unless you cite someone else’s work). Part of your weekly participation includes viewing the weekly announcement and attesting to watching it in the comments. These announcements are made to ensure you understand everything that is due during the week.

• APA Format and Writing Quality

Familiarize yourself with the APA format and practice using it correctly. It is used for most writing assignments for your degree. Visit the Writing Center in the Student Success Center, under the Resources tab in Loud-cloud for APA paper templates, citation examples, tips, etc. Points will be deducted for poor use of APA format or absence of APA format (if required). Cite all sources of information! When in doubt, cite the source. Paraphrasing also requires a citation. I highly recommend using the APA Publication Manual, 6th edition.

• Use of Direct Quotes

I discourage over-utilization of direct quotes in DQs and assignments at the Master’s level and deduct points accordingly. As Masters’ level students, it is important that you be able to critically analyze and interpret information from journal articles and other resources. Simply restating someone else’s words does not demonstrate an understanding of the content or critical analysis of the content. It is best to paraphrase content and cite your source.

• LopesWrite Policy

For assignments that need to be submitted to Lopes Write, please be sure you have received your report and Similarity Index (SI) percentage BEFORE you do a “final submit” to me. Once you have received your report, please review it. This report will show you grammatical, punctuation, and spelling errors that can easily be fixed. Take the extra few minutes to review instead of getting counted off for these mistakes. Review your similarities. Did you forget to cite something? Did you not paraphrase well enough? Is your paper made up of someone else’s thoughts more than your own? Visit the Writing Center in the Student Success Center, under the Resources tab in Loud-cloud for tips on improving your paper and SI score.

• Late Policy

The university’s policy on late assignments is a 10% penalty PER DAY LATE. This also applies to late DQ replies. Please communicate with me if you anticipate having to submit an assignment late. I am happy to be flexible, with advance notice. We may be able to work out an extension based on extenuating circumstances. If you do not communicate with me before submitting an assignment late, the GCU late policy will be in effect. I do not accept assignments that are two or more weeks late unless we have worked out an extension. As per policy, no assignments are accepted after the last day of class. Any assignment submitted after midnight on the last day of class will not be accepted for grading.

• Communication

Communication is so very important. There are multiple ways to communicate with me: Questions to Instructor Forum: This is a great place to ask course content or assignment questions. If you have a question, there is a good chance one of your peers does as well. This is a public forum for the class. Individual Forum: This is a private forum to ask me questions or send me messages. This will be checked at least once every 24 hours.

• Guarantee

  

• Zero Plagiarism
• On-time delivery
• A-Grade Papers
• Free Revision
• 24/7 Support
• 100% Confidentiality
• Professional Writers

• Services Offered

• Custom paper writing
• Question and answers
• Essay paper writing
• Editing and proofreading
• Plagiarism removal services
• Multiple answer questions

We will process your orders through multiple stages and checks to ensure that what we are delivering to you, in the end, is something that is precise as you envisioned it. All of our essay writing service products are 100% original, ensuring that there is no plagiarism in them. The sources are well-researched and cited so it is interesting. Our goal is to help as many students as possible with their assignments, i.e. our prices are affordable and services premium.

Looking for a Similar Assignment? Order a custom-written, plagiarism-free paper