AScholarlyArticleReview

Scholarly Article Review (NR320/326) Criteria Ratings Pts This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeIntroduction 10.0to <9.0pts Outstanding • Introduction is present and distinctly establishes the purpose of paper. • Introduction is appealing and promptly captures the attention of the reader. 9.0to <8.0pts Very Good • Introduction is present and generally establishes the purpose of paper. • Introduction has appeal and generally captures the attention of the reader. 8.0to <7.0pts Competent • Introduction is present and generally establishes the purpose of paper. 7.0to <0pts Unsatisfactory • No Introduction. 10.0pts This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeArticle summary 30.0to <27.0pts Outstanding • Statistics presented strongly support the significance of the topic. • Key points and findings of the article are clearly stated. • Thoroughly discusses how information from the article could be used in your practice by giving two or more specific, relevant examples. 27.0to <25.0pts Very Good • Statistics presented moderately support the significance of the topic. • Key points and findings of the article are vaguely stated. • Adequately discusses how information from the article could be used in your practice by giving two or more specific, relevant examples. 25.0to <22.0pts Competent • Statistics presented weakly support the significance of the topic. • Key points and findings of the article are stated in a manner that is confusing or difficult to understand. • Briefly discusses how information from the article could be used in your practice by giving examples that are not specific, yet are relevant. 22.0to <0pts Unsatisfactory • Statistics presented do not support the significance of the topic OR no statistics are presented. • Key points and findings of the article are incorrectly presented OR missing. • Briefly discusses how information from the article could be used in your practice by giving examples that are neither specific, nor relevant OR implications to practice not discussed. 30.0pts This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeArticle critique 30.0to <27.0pts Outstanding • The strengths and weaknesses are well‐defined and clearly stated. • Provides a thorough review of whether or not they recommend the article. 27.0to <25.0pts Very Good • The strengths and weaknesses are adequate and clearly stated. • Provides a general review of whether or not they would recommend the article. 25.0to <22.0pts Competent • The strengths and weaknesses are brief and clearly stated. • Provides a brief review of whether or not they would recommend the article. 22.0to <0pts Unsatisfactory • The strengths and weaknesses are unclear or not stated. • Provides an unclear or no insight as to whether or not they would recommend the article. 30.0pts This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeConclusion 15.0to <14.0pts Outstanding • The conclusion statement is well‐defined and clearly stated. • Conclusion demonstrates comprehensive analysis or synthesis of information from the article. • The conclusion is strongly supported by ideas presented throughout the body of the paper. 14.0to <12.0pts Very Good • The conclusion statement is general and clearly stated. • Conclusion demonstrates comprehensive analysis or synthesis of information from the article. • The conclusion is strongly supported by ideas presented throughout the body of the paper. 12.0to <11.0pts Competent • The conclusion statement is general and clearly stated. • Conclusion demonstrates adequate analysis or synthesis of information from the article. • The conclusion is adequately supported by ideas presented throughout the body of the paper. 11.0to <0pts Unsatisfactory • The strengths and weaknesses are unclear or not stated. • Provides an unclear or no insight as to whether or not they would recommend the article. 15.0pts This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeArticle Selection & Approval • Article is relevant to mental health nursing practice and is current (within 5 years of publication). • No duplicate articles within the clinical group. • Article submitted and approved as scholarly by instructor. 5.0to <4.0pts ALL Items MET 4.0to <3.0pts ONE item NOT MET 3.0to <0pts 2 or more items NOT MET 5.0pts This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeGrammar/Spelling/ Mechanics/APA Format 10.0to <9.0pts Outstanding • References are submitted with assignment. • Used appropriate APA format and are free of errors. • Includes title and reference pages. • Grammar and mechanics are free of errors. 9.0to <8.0pts Very Good • References are submitted with assignment. • Used appropriate APA format and has one type of error. • Includes title and reference pages. • Grammar and mechanics have one type of error. 8.0to <7.0pts Competent • References are submitted with assignment. • Used appropriate APA format and has two types of errors. • Includes title and reference pages. • Grammar and mechanics have two types of errors. 7.0to <0pts Unsatisfactory • No references submitted with assignment. • Attempts to use appropriate APA format and has three or more types of errors. • Includes title and reference pages. • Grammar and mechanics have three or more types of errors. 10.0pts Total Points:100.0 Scholarly Article Review (NR320/326)PreviousNext