In this assignment, you practice synthesizing information from the eight published works that you have critically appraised in your EET (your database). This assignment consists of two parts: a written paper (Word document) to synthesize the databases you reviewed, and an Evidence Table (Excel spreadsheet) to organize your critical appraisal of the evidence you found related to your clinical foreground question
In this assignment, you practice synthesizing information from the eight published works that you have critically appraised in your EET (your database). This assignment consists of two parts: a written paper (Word document) to synthesize the databases you reviewed, and an Evidence Table (Excel spreadsheet) to organize your critical appraisal of the evidence you found related to your clinical foreground question
Value: 50 points
Assignment Guidelines
Professor’s Tips
[elementor-template id="165244"]Expect the paper to be seven to eight pages (excluding title and reference pages).
Each of the works from your EET should be represented in the synthesis.
See the Canvas Files for an example paper.
In this assignment, you practice synthesizing information from the eight published works that you have critically appraised in your EET (your database). This assignment consists of two parts: a written paper (Word document) to synthesize the databases you reviewed, and an Evidence Table (Excel spreadsheet) to organize your critical appraisal of the evidence you found related to your clinical foreground question.
ORDER A CUSTOMIZED, PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE
Good News For Our New customers . We can write this assignment for you and pay after Delivery. Our Top -rated medical writers will comprehensively review instructions , synthesis external evidence sources(Scholarly) and customize a quality assignment for you. We will also attach a copy of plagiarism report alongside and AI report. Feel free to chat Us
Remember: The goal of this synthesis section is to persuade the reader that first there is a significant problem as supported in the literature, and most importantly that your proposed intervention is supported in the literature.
Assignment Format
Assignment 9.1 FormatLinks to an external site.
Evidence Evaluation Table (EET)
The purpose of completing this table is to organize and critique the evidence you find related to your clinical foreground question. This week you are to edit this table based on your learning and instructor feedback. Add at least four (4) more articles to your EET. This should bring your total to at least eight (8) quality articles in your EET. Remember the articles in the EET are to support your chosen interventions(s).
Professor’s Tips
Remember: Group in themes, synthesize, and cite multiple authors for each theme. Each theme can be an intervention. You are expected to synthesize the research you analyzed in the EET. This synthesis includes evaluation; note that the word evaluation has the word value in it. It is helpful to remember to present to the reader the value the data held for you.
You will continue to gather at least 16 quality published works for your final synthesis paper in Week 13. Ideally, at least one of the references is a CPG, and one a PhD Dissertation or a DNP project. The completed Evidence Table will be submitted along with the final synthesis paper in Week 13.
Smarthinking
Consider submitting your revised draft to Smarthinking for writing assistance. In Canvas, select Smarthinking Online Tutoring from the Course Navigation.
- Select Submit My Writing or Career Documents
- Select Essay Center
You should receive feedback regarding the suggested revisions within 24 hours.
Turnitin
You will submit the assignment via Turnitin.
Note: The turnaround time for a larger paper like this is longer. It may take up to 7 to 10 days for your grade to be posted.
Submit your Excel file and Word document to the assignment link provided.
Submission
Submit your assignment and review full grading criteria on the Assignment 9.1: Training to Synthesize Evidence page.
| Assignment 9.1: Training to Synthesize Evidence Rubric | ||
| Criteria | Ratings | Pts |
| Introduction:
view longer description |
5 to >4 pts
Meets Expectations Gives a clear and concise introduction to the paper. Introduces the situation to the reader. 4 to >3 pts Nearly Meets Expectations Introduction is brief, unfocused. 3 to >2 pts Barely Meets Expectations Introduction is vague or disorganized. 2 to >0 pts Does Not Meet Expectations Introduction confusing, lacks flow, misleads reader. |
/ 5 pts |
| Background:
view longer description |
5 to >4 pts
Meets Expectations Gives a clear and concise explanation of the clinical issue/problem; background described fully and succinctly. Strong support given for significance of problem. 4 to >3 pts Nearly Meets Expectations Background described fully but not succinctly. Support given for significance of problem. 3 to >2 pts Barely Meets Expectations Background described fully but not succinctly. Weak support given for significance of problem. 2 to >0 pts Does Not Meet Expectations Background not clearly described, or support lacking for significance of problem. |
/ 5 pts |
| Foreground Question:
view longer description |
5 to >4 pts
Meets Expectations Question written succinctly in PICO(T) format; variables identified correctly. 4 to >3 pts Nearly Meets Expectations Question written in PICO(T) but dependent or independent variable not identified correctly 3 to >2 pts Barely Meets Expectations Question identified but not in PICO(T) format or both variables not identified correctly. 2 to >0 pts Does Not Meet Expectations Question not clearly identified or, IV or DV not identified. |
/ 5 pts |
| Evidence:
view longer description |
10 to >9 pts
Meets Expectations Search strategy thoroughly described; search results thoroughly explained; at least eight research studies and/or practice guidelines included. Presents types and levels of published works 9 to >8 pts Nearly Meets Expectations At least eight research studies and/or practice guidelines included and search strategy adequately described but incomplete description of search results. Presents types and levels of published works. 8 to >7 pts Barely Meets Expectations At least eight publications included but search strategy incompletely described, with omission of one of the items and incomplete description of search results. General statement(s) about types and levels of published works. 7 to >0 pts Does Not Meet Expectations Summary of levels of published works only, or some levels incorrect Fewer than eight publications included. |
/ 10 pts |
| Synthesis of Evidence:
view longer description |
15 to >14 pts
Meets Expectations Gives a thorough and conclusive synthesis of the evidence by presenting themes. 14 to >12 pts Nearly Meets Expectations Gives a brief synthesis of the evidence but does not clearly present themes. 12 to >10 pts Barely Meets Expectations Gives a non-cohesive narrative summary of the evidence; does not present themes. 10 to >0 pts Does Not Meet Expectations Describes each publication individually. not synthesize. Fewer than eight publications included. |
/ 15 pts |
| Strengths and Weakness:
view longer description |
5 to >4 pts
Meets Expectations Clearly and concisely identifies strengths and limitations. 4 to >3 pts Nearly Meets Expectations Presents only limitations copied from each publication. 3 to >2 pts Barely Meets Expectations Strengths or limitations unclear. 2 to >0 pts Does Not Meet Expectations Incomplete. |
/ 5 pts |
| Conclusion:
view longer description |
5 to >4 pts
Meets Expectations Answers the foreground question; gives a clear and complete description of impact on practice which flows logically from the summary of evidence presented. 4 to >3 pts Nearly Meets Expectations Discusses all content areas but not all are clear, concise, and thorough. 3 to >2 pts Barely Meets Expectations Discusses only a part of the content areas, or the proposed change does not flow from the evidence presented. 2 to >0 pts Does Not Meet Expectations Incomplete, illogical conclusion. |
/ 5 pts |
| Mechanics
view longer description |
0 pts
1) No deduction 1) Up to two errors in grammar, spelling, punctuation, or APA format. 0 pts 2) 2 – 5% Deduction 2) Few errors in grammar, spelling, punctuation and/or APA format. 0 pts 3) 6 – 8% Deduction 3) Several errors in grammar, spelling, punctuation and/or APA format. 0 pts 4) 10% Deduction 4) Numerous and distracting errors in grammar, spelling, punctuation and/or APA format. |
/ 0 pts |
| Evidence Evaluation Table (EET)
view longer description |
0 pts
1) No deduction 1) Includes eight research studies & or practice guidelines; thoroughly evaluated and summarized; complete and accurate 0 pts 2) 2 – 5% Deduction 2) Includes eight publications, but briefly evaluated and summarized; complete but some inaccurate information provided. 0 pts 3) 8 – 10% Deduction 3) Includes eight publications; briefly evaluated and summarized; incomplete or inaccurate information provided. 0 pts 4) 15% Deduction 4) Includes fewer than eight references or; incorrectly evaluated and summarized; or incomplete information provided. |
/ 0 pts |
| Total Points: 0 | ||
Choose a submission type
[elementor-template id="165244"]