Telecoaching plus a portion control plate for weight care management: a randomized trial

Telecoaching plus a portion control plate for weight care management: a randomized trial

Part 1: Write a two-page critique on the article Telecoaching plus a portion control plate for weight care management: a randomized trial

Part 2: Complete the Johns Hopkins Quantitative Research Appraisal Tool (Links to an external site.).

Content of critique should include at a minimum:

1. Participant sampling,

2. Questionnaires/tools,

3. Ethics,

4. Analysis of findings,

5. Limitations,

6. Discussion section,

7. Summary: Application (translation) to practice specialty, and future implications.

Preparing the Assignment:

1. APA Format According to 6th edition.

2. Word Doc per assignment requirements

3. Word Doc Format:

Cover page, no abstract, introduction (no heading per APA), body of the paper/review, reference list, appendix with Johns Hopkins appraisal doc. For review sections refer to your readings and the Johns Hopkins Research Appraisal Tool.

· Article title, author, journal, publication date

· Evidence level and quality

· Analysis of the study methodology (specific to study type, e.g., qualitative versus quantitative versus non-research)

Reference List should include the chosen article and other resources used to construct the review, such as course textbook, Johns Hopkins Evidence Based Practice: Model and Guidelines (2018), and How to Read a Paper by Greenhalgh (2014).

Rubric

NR505NP WK4,5,6 Article Critique_SEPT19

NR505NP WK4,5,6 Article Critique_SEPT19
Criteria Ratings Pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeIntroduction Required content for this section includes: • Introduction to chosen article • Succinct overview of assignment focus. 10.0 pts Excellent Content includes well-written, succinct, information that includes: Article topic/focus, authors and specific aim of assignment. 9.0 pts V. Good Content is well-written but omits or is thin in one area. 8.0 pts Satisfactory Section content is basic in its explanation of the article (overview) and the purpose of the assignment but lacks specific detail and depth. 5.0 pts Needs Improvement All content is included but difficult to piece together in its explanation of the article (overview) and the purpose of the assignment OR a piece of the content is missing, for example, overview of assignment focus, yet what is written is well stated. 0.0 pts Unsatisfactory Missing OR Section content is vague in its introduction of the article (overview) and the purpose of the assignment is missing OR article overview is missing, and purpose of the assignment is vague.) 10.0 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCritique of Article Required content for this section includes: • Methodological review specific to type (non-research versus research): (use text and resources) • Ethical review (not always present with guidelines or systematic reviews) • Analysis of findings • Limitations • Discussion • Application to practice (translation) • Future implications 50.0 pts Excellent All content is included in the critique with comprehensive definitions, examples and with in-text citations that support the article evaluation with depth. 46.0 pts V. Good All content is included in the critique. One or two sections may be included without depth: For example, Definitions, examples and with in-text citations that support the article evaluation with depth. Or: All content has explanatory depth of analysis including definitions, examples and in-text citations supporting the analysis, however, a content area may be missing (such as ethical review or limitations) 42.0 pts Satisfactory Two or three content areas are missing, or all content areas are included but there is inconsistent depth/ integration of definitions, examples and in-text citations that support the article evaluation with depth 25.0 pts Needs Improvement Four or more content areas are missing, or all content areas are included but there is little to no depth/ integration of definitions, examples and in-text citations that support the article evaluation with depth. 0.0 pts Unsatisfactory Critique is vague, without structure, without discernible integration of definitions, examples, and in-text citations that support the writing. 50.0 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeJohns Hopkins Appraisal Tool 50.0 pts Excellent All sections of the Appraisal Tool are completed for the correct article review (for example, the non-research tool is used for guidelines, the qualitative tool is used for qualitative review). 46.0 pts V. Good Tool is included, is the correct tool, and is missing: A. Non-Evidence Tool: 1 of the 6 sections B. Evidence Tool: 1 section missing 42.0 pts Satisfactory Tool is included, is the correct tool, and is missing: A. Non-Evidence Tool 2 or 3 of the 6 sections B. Evidence Tool: 2 sections missing 25.0 pts Needs Improvement Tool is included and is missing: A. Non-Evidence Tool 4 or more of the 6 sections B. Evidence Tool – 3 more sections missing. 0.0 pts Unsatisfactory Tool is missing or the wrong tool is used. 50.0 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeOrganization & Format Requirements: • Cover (title) page • No abstract • Introduction • Body of paper and reference page must follow APA guidelines as found in the 6th edition of the manual. This includes the use of headings for each section of the paper except for the introduction where no heading is used. 15.0 pts Excellent All aspects of paper follow APA guidelines (cover, no abstract, introduction, headings (not on introduction), body of paper and reference page 14.0 pts V. Good 1-3 APA errors 12.0 pts Satisfactory 4-5 APA errors 8.0 pts Needs Improvement 6-9 APA errors 0.0 pts Unsatisfactory 10 or greater APA errors 15.0 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeSyntax, grammar, spelling Rules of grammar, spelling, word usage, and punctuation are followed and consistent with formal written work as found in the 6th edition of the APA manual. 5.0 pts Excellent There are no grammatical, spelling, word usage or punctuation errors. 4.0 pts V. Good 1-3 grammatical, spelling, word usage or punctuation errors. 3.0 pts Satisfactory 4-5 grammatical, spelling, word usage or punctuation errors. 2.0 pts Needs Improvement 6-9 grammatical, spelling, word usage or punctuation errors. 0.0 pts Unsatisfactory 10 or greater grammatical, spelling, word usage or punctuation errors. 5.0 pts
Total Points: 130.0
 
Looking for a Similar Assignment? Order now and Get 10% Discount! Use Coupon Code "Newclient"