Content-Main PostingCitationType of StudyDesign Type.docx

Content-Main Posting
Citation
Type of Study
Design Type
Framework/Theory
Setting
Key Concepts/Variables
Findings
Hierarchy
of Evidence Level
Type of Study:
Design Type:
Framework/Theory:
Concepts:
Independent Variable:
Dependent Variable:

Controlled Variable:
Type of Study:
Design Type:
Framework/Theory:
Concepts:
Dependent Variable:
Citation
Study
Design Type
Framework/Theory
Setting
Findings

Hierarchy
of Evidence Level
Type of Study:
Design Type:
Framework/Theory:
Concepts:
Dependent Variable:
Type of Study:
Design Type:
Framework/Theory:
Concepts:

Dependent Variable:
Type of Study:
Design Type:
Framework/Theory:
Concepts:
Independent
Citation
Type of Study
Design Type
Framework/Theory
Setting
Findings
Hierarchy
of Evidence Level

Type of Study:
Design Type:
Framework/Theory:
Concepts:
Dependent Variable:
Type of Study:
Design Type:
Framework/Theory:
Concepts:

Dependent Variable:
Citation
Study
Design Type
Framework/Theory
Setting
Findings
Hierarchy
of Evidence Level
Type of Study:
Design Type:
Framework/Theory:
Concepts:

Dependent Variable:
Type of Study:
Design Type:
Framework/Theory:
Concepts:
Dependent Variable:
Type of Study:
Design Type:

Framework/Theory:
Concepts:
Dependent Variable:
Va
riable:
Dependent Variable:
30
(30%)

- 30
(30%)
-Main posting addresses all criteria with 75% of post
exceptional depth and breadth supported by credible references
27
(27%)
- 29
(29%)
-Main posting addresses all criteria with 75% of post
exceptional depth and breadth supported by credible references
24
(24%)
- 26
(26%)
Main posting meets expectations. All criteria are addressed with
50% containing good breadth and depth.
21
(21%)
- 23
(23%)
Main posting addresses most of the criteria. One to two
criterion are not addressed or superficially addressed.

0
(0%)
- 20
(20%)
Main posting does not address all of criteria, superficially
addresses criteria. Two or more criteria are not addressed.
Course Requirements and Attendance
20
(20%)
- 20
(20%)
-Responds to two colleagues’ with posts that are reflective, are
justified with credible sources, and ask questions that extend
the discussion.
18
(18%)
- 19
(19%)
-Responds to two colleagues’ with posts that are reflective, are
justified with credible sources, and ask questions that extend
the discussion.
16

(16%)
- 17
(17%)
Responds to a minimum of two colleagues’ posts, are reflective,
and ask questions that extend the discussion. One post is
justified by a credible source.
14
(14%)
- 15
(15%)
Responds to less than two colleagues’ posts. Posts are on topic,
may have some depth, or questions. May extend the discussion.
No credible sources are cited
0
(0%)
- 13
(13%)
Responds to less than two colleagues’ posts. Posts may not be
on topic, lack depth, do not pose questions that extend the
discussion
Scholarly Writing Quality
30
(30%)

- 30
(30%)
-The main posting clearly addresses the discussion criteria and
is written concisely. The main posting is cited with more than
two credible references that adhere to the correct format per the
APA Manual 6th Edition. No spelling or grammatical errors.
***The use of scholarly sources or real life experiences needs
to be included to deepen the discussion and earn points in reply
to fellow students.
27
(27%)
- 29
(29%)
is written concisely. The main posting is cited with more than
two credible references that adhere to the correct format per the
APA Manual 6th Edition. No spelling or grammatical errors.
24
(24%)
- 26
(26%)
is written concisely. The main posting is cited with a minimum
of two current credible references that adhere to the correct
format per the APA Manual 6th Edition. Contains one to two
spelling or grammatical errors.

21
(21%)
- 23
(23%)
-The main posting is not clearly addressing the discussion
criteria and is not written concisely. The main posting is cited
with less than two credible references that may lack credibility
and/or do not adhere to the correct format per the APA Manual
6th Edition. Contains more than two spelling or grammatical
errors.
0
(0%)
- 20
(20%)
-The main posting is disorganized and has one reference that
may lack credibility and does not adhere to the correct format
per the APA Manual 6th Edition or has zero credible references.
Contains more than two spelling or grammatical errors.
Professional
Communication
Effectiveness
20
(20%)
- 20

(20%)
-Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues
and response to faculty questions are answered if posed.
Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas effectively written in
Standard Edited English -Responses posted in the discussion
demonstrate effective professional communication through deep
reflective discussion which leads to an exchange of ideas and
focus on the weekly discussion topic.
18
(18%)
- 19
(19%)
-Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues. -
Standard Edited English -Responses posted in the discussion
focus on the weekly discussion topic . -Responses are cited with
at least one credible reference per post and a probing question
that extends the discussion. Adheres to the correct format per
the APA Manual 6th Edition. No spelling or grammatical errors.
16
(16%)
- 17
(17%)
-Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.
Standard Edited English. -Responses posted in the discussion

focus on the weekly discussion topic. -Responses are cited with
at least one credible and/or contain probing questions that
extends the discussion. Adheres to the correct format per the
APA Manual 6th Edition. May have one to two spelling or
grammatical errors.
14
(14%)
- 15
(15%)
-Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.
Provides opinions that may not be concise or ideas not
effectively written in Standard Edited English. -Responses
posted in the discussion may lack effective professional
communication that does not extend the discussion, leads to an
exchange of ideas and/or not focused on the weekly discussion
topic. -Responses are not cited and/or do not contain a probing
question. May not adhere to the correct format per the APA
Manual 6th Edition. May have more than two spelling or
grammatical errors.
0
(0%)
- 13
(13%)
-Communication may lack professional tone or be disrespectful
to colleagues. Provides opinions that may not be concise or
ideas not effectively written in Standard Edited English -

Responses posted in the discussion lack effective professional
communication through discussion that does not extend the
discussion, do not lead to an exchange of ideas and/or not
focused on the weekly discussion topic. -Responses are not
cited and do not contain a probing question. May not adhere to
the correct format per the APA Manual 6th Edition. May have
multiple spelling or grammatical errors.
Timely Submission
0
(0%)
- 0
(0%)
All criteria met: Initial post submitted on time. Response to two
peer initial posts. Response on 3 separate days.
-5
(-5%)
- 0
(0%)
5 points deducted for responding to less than two peers or 5
points deducted for responding less than three days
-10
(-10%)
- -5
(-5%)

5 points deducted for responding to less than two peers and 5
points deducted for responding less than three days
-10
(-10%)
- -10
(-10%)
10 points deducted for Initial post submitted late
-20
(-20%)
- -15
(-15%)
Initial post submitted late and 5 points deducted for responding
to less than two peers and/ or 5 points deducted for responding
less than three days
Total Points: 100
Name:
NURS_5052_Weeks_1-11_Discussion_Rubric
Description:
NURS 6052 Discussion Weeks 1-11 Rubric I included the rubic
for this discussion as the instructor keeps saying to follow it.
The discussion is to be in APA format 3 pages long 5
freferences at least 2 from Walden Library please Thank You
This graft has to be used for the project throughout the cours.
Citation
Type of Study
Design Type

Framework/Theory
Setting
Findings
Hierarchy
of Evidence Level
Type of Study:
Design Type:
Framework/Theory:
Concepts:
Dependent Variable:
Type of Study:
Design Type:

Framework/Theory:
Concepts:
Dependent Variable:
Citation
Study
Design Type
Framework/Theory
Setting
Findings
Hierarchy
of Evidence Level
Type of Study:
Design Type:

Framework/Theory:
Concepts:
Dependent Variable:
Type of Study:
Design Type:
Framework/Theory:
Concepts:
Dependent Variable:

Type of Study:
Design Type:
Framework/Theory:
Concepts:
Dependent Variable:
Discussion: Ethical Dimensions of Research Studies
In the best-selling book,
The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks
(Skloot, 2010), the author highlights the true story of an
African-American woman who died in 1951 from cervical
cancer. What makes her story unique is that prior to her death,
cells from her tumor were removed and successfully grown in a
petri dish. This was the first time scientists were able to

successfully replicate cells outside the body, and it is estimated
that billions of Lacks’ cells have been used in medical research.
However, Henrietta Lacks was never asked for permission to
take a sample and her family was never made aware of the
widespread use of her cells. Although the culturing of her cells
has been pivotal for advancing research, strong ethical concerns
later arose about using these cells without patient or family
approval.
This week’s readings describe historical examples of unethical
research, such as a study of syphilis among African-American
men in which treatment was withheld and a study in which live
cancer cells were injected into elderly patients. Today, stricter
controls that seek to protect study participants are placed on
researchers, but breaches still occur. Careful attention must be
given toward preventing unethical behavior. In this Discussion,
you explore ethical considerations and issues in research.
To prepare:
Select a current health-related case involving research ethics.
(If none come to mind, browse the Internet to familiarize
yourself with recent cases.)
As you review the case that you have selected, reflect on the
ethical principles discussed in “What Are the Major Ethical
Issues in Conducting Research?” article found in this week’s
Learning Resources. Which principles were breached in the case
you have identified?
By Day 3
Post
a description of the case that you selected and the ethical issues
involved. Analyze the ethical principles that were breached by
the researchers or organizations in your selected case as well as
the possible cause of the breach(es). Suggest how the research
might have been conducted differently to avoid or minimize the
ethical problems. Discuss how research can be done on sensitive
issues while still protecting the rights of the research subjects.
Read

a selection of your colleagues’ responses.
By Day 6
Respond
on or before Day 6 to at least two of your colleagues on two
different days using one or more of the following approaches:
Ask a probing question, substantiated with additional
background information, and evidence.
Offer and support an alternative perspective using readings
from the classroom or from your own review of the literature in
the Walden Library.
Make a suggestion based on additional evidence drawn from
readings or after synthesizing multiple postings.

Content-Main PostingCitationType of StudyDesign Type.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Content-Main PostingCitationType of StudyDesign Type.docx

Similar to Content-Main PostingCitationType of StudyDesign Type.docx (14)

More from mercylittle80626

More from mercylittle80626 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Content-Main PostingCitationType of StudyDesign Type.docx