Evaluation Criteria for Applications and Formal Papers Levels of Achievement Criteria Outstanding Performance Excellent Performance Competent Performance Proficient Performance Room for Improvement QUALITY OF WORK SUBMITTED -  1. The extent to which work meets the assigned criteria and work reflects graduate level critical and analytic thinking (0-30 Points) 30 to 30 points Assignment exceeds expectations. All topics are addressed with a minimum of 75% containing exceptional breadth and depth about each of the assignment topics 25 to 29 points Assignment exceeds expectations. All topics are addressed with a minimum of 75% containing exceptional breadth and depth about each of the assignment topics 20 to 24 points Assignment meets expectations. All topics are addressed with a minimum of 50% containing good breadth and depth about each of the assignment topics. 16 to 19 points Assignment meets most of the expectations. One required topic is either not addressed or inadequately addressed. 0 to 15 points Assignment superficially meets some of the expectations. Two or more required topics are either not addressed or inadequately addressed. QUALITY OF WORK SUBMITTED: Purpose of the paper is clear (0-5 Points) 5 to 5 points A clear and comprehensive purpose statement is provided which delineates all required criteria. 5 to 5 points A clear and comprehensive purpose statement is provided which delineates all required criteria. 4 to 4 points Purpose of the assignment is stated, yet is brief and not descriptive. 1 to 3 points Purpose of the assignment is vague. 0 to 0 points No purpose statement was provided. ASSIMILATION AND SYNTHESIS OF IDEAS  The extent to which the work reflects the student’s ability to-  1. Understand and interpret the assignment’s key concepts (0-10 Points) 10 to 10 points Demonstrates the ability to critically appraise and intellectually explore key concepts. 9 to 9 points Demonstrates the ability to critically appraise and intellectually explore key concepts. 8 to 8 points Demonstrates a clear understanding of key concepts. 5 to 7 points Shows some degree of understanding of key concepts. 0 to 4 points Shows a lack of understanding of key concepts, deviates from topics. ASSIMILATION AND SYNTHESIS OF IDEAS 2. Apply and integrate material in course resources (i.e. video, required readings, and textbook) and credible outside resources (0-20 Points) 20 to 20 points Demonstrates and applies exceptional support of major points and integrates 2 or more credible outside sources, in addition to 3-4 course resources to support point of view. 15 to 19 points Demonstrates and applies exceptional support of major points and integrates 2 or more credible outside sources, in addition to 3-4 course resources to support point of view. 10 to 14 points Integrates specific information from 1 credible outside resource and 3 to 4 course resources to support major points and point of view. 3 to 9 points Minimally includes and integrates specific ...

1. Evaluation Criteria for Applications and Formal Papers
Levels of Achievement
Criteria
Outstanding Performance
Excellent Performance
Competent Performance
Proficient Performance
Room for Improvement
QUALITY OF WORK SUBMITTED -
1. The extent to which work meets the assigned criteria and
work reflects graduate level critical and analytic thinking (0-30
Points)
30 to 30 points
Assignment exceeds expectations. All topics are addressed with
a minimum of 75% containing exceptional breadth and depth
about each of the assignment topics
25 to 29 points
Assignment exceeds expectations. All topics are addressed with
a minimum of 75% containing exceptional breadth and depth
about each of the assignment topics
20 to 24 points
Assignment meets expectations. All topics are addressed with a
minimum of 50% containing good breadth and depth about each
of the assignment topics.
16 to 19 points
Assignment meets most of the expectations. One required topic
is either not addressed or inadequately addressed.
0 to 15 points
Assignment superficially meets some of the expectations. Two
or more required topics are either not addressed or inadequately
addressed.
QUALITY OF WORK SUBMITTED: Purpose of the paper is

2. clear (0-5 Points)
5 to 5 points
A clear and comprehensive purpose statement is provided which
delineates all required criteria.
5 to 5 points
A clear and comprehensive purpose statement is provided which
delineates all required criteria.
4 to 4 points
Purpose of the assignment is stated, yet is brief and not
descriptive.
1 to 3 points
Purpose of the assignment is vague.
0 to 0 points
No purpose statement was provided.
ASSIMILATION AND SYNTHESIS OF IDEAS
The extent to which the work reflects the student’s ability to-
1. Understand and interpret the assignment’s key concepts (0-10
Points)
10 to 10 points
Demonstrates the ability to critically appraise and intellectually
explore key concepts.
9 to 9 points
Demonstrates the ability to critically appraise and intellectually
explore key concepts.
8 to 8 points
Demonstrates a clear understanding of key concepts.
5 to 7 points
Shows some degree of understanding of key concepts.
0 to 4 points
Shows a lack of understanding of key concepts, deviates from
topics.
ASSIMILATION AND SYNTHESIS OF IDEAS 2. Apply and
integrate material in course resources (i.e. video, required
readings, and textbook) and credible outside resources (0-20
Points)

3. 20 to 20 points
Demonstrates and applies exceptional support of major points
and integrates 2 or more credible outside sources, in addition to
3-4 course resources to support point of view.
15 to 19 points
Demonstrates and applies exceptional support of major points
and integrates 2 or more credible outside sources, in addition to
3-4 course resources to support point of view.
10 to 14 points
Integrates specific information from 1 credible outside resource
and 3 to 4 course resources to support major points and point of
view.
3 to 9 points
Minimally includes and integrates specific information from 2-3
resources to support major points and point of view.
0 to 2 points
Includes and integrates specific information from 0 to 1
resource to support major points and point of view.
ASSIMILATION AND SYNTHESIS OF IDEAS 3. Synthesize
(combines various components or different ideas into a new
whole) material in course resources (i.e. video, required
readings, and textbook) by comparing different points of view
and highlighting similarities, differences, and connections. (0-
20 Points)
20 to 20 points
Synthesizes and justifies (defends, explains, validates,
confirms) information gleaned from sources to support major
points presented. Applies meaning to the field of advanced
nursing practice.
18 to 19 points
Synthesizes and justifies (defends, explains, validates,
confirms) information gleaned from sources to support major
points presented. Applies meaning to the field of advanced
nursing practice.
16 to 17 points
Summarizes information gleaned from sources to support major

4. points, but does not synthesize.
14 to 15 points
Identifies but does not interpret or apply concepts, and/or
strategies correctly; ideas unclear and/or underdeveloped.
0 to 13 points
Rarely or does not interpret, apply, and synthesize concepts,
and/or strategies.
WRITTEN EXPRESSION AND FORMATTING 1. Paragraph
and Sentence Structure: Paragraphs make clear points that
support well developed ideas, flow logically, and demonstrate
continuity of ideas. Sentences are clearly structured and
carefully focused--neither long and rambling nor short and
lacking substance. (0-5 Points)
5 to 5 points
Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards.
5 to 5 points
Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards.
4 to 4 points
Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards 80% of the
time.
3 to 3 points
Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards 70% of the
time.
0 to 2 points
Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards < 70% of the
time.
WRITTEN EXPRESSION AND FORMATTING 2. English
writing standards: Correct grammar, mechanics, and proper
punctuation (0-5 Points)
5 to 5 points
Uses correct grammar, spelling, and punctuation with no errors.
5 to 5 points
Uses correct grammar, spelling, and punctuation with no errors.
4 to 4 points
Contains a few (1-2) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors.

5. 3 to 3 points
Contains several (3-4) grammar, spelling, and punctuation
errors. 3
0 to 2 points
Contains many (≥ 5) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors
that interfere with the reader’s understanding.
WRITTEN EXPRESSION AND FORMATTING 3. 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 (0-5 Points)
5 to 5 points
Uses correct APA format with no errors.
5 to 5 points
Uses correct APA format with no errors.
4 to 4 points
Contains a few (1-2) APA format errors.
3 to 3 points
Contains several (3-4) APA format errors.
0 to 2 points
Contains many (≥ 5) APA format errors.
Critique Template for a Quantitative Study
NURS 5052/NURS 6052
Week 6 Assignment: Application: Critiquing Quantitative,
Qualitative, or Mixed Methods Studies (due by Day 7 of Week
7)
Date:
FORMTEXT
Your name:
FORMTEXT

6. Article reference (in APA style):
FORMTEXT
URL:
FORMTEXT
What is a critique? Simply stated, a critique is a critical
analysis undertaken for some purpose. Nurses critique research
for three main reasons: to improve their practice, to broaden
their understanding, and to provide a base for the conduct of a
study.
When the purpose is to improve practice, nurses must give
special consideration to questions such as these:
· Are the research findings appropriate to my practice setting
and situation?
· What further research or pilot studies need to be done, if any,
before incorporating findings into practice to assure both safety
and effectiveness?
· How might a proposed change in practice trigger changes in
other aspects of practice?
To help you synthesize your learning throughout this course and
prepare you to utilize research in your practice, you will be
critiquing a qualitative, quantitative, or mixed methods research
study of your choice.
If the article is unavailable in a full-text version through the
Walden University Library, you must e-mail the article as a
PDF or Word attachment to your Instructor.QUANTITATIVE
RESEARCH CRITIQUE

7. 1. Research Problem and Purpose
What are the problem and purpose of the referenced study?
(Sometimes ONLY the purpose is stated clearly and the problem
must be inferred from the introductory discussion of the
purpose.)
2. Hypotheses and Research Questions
What are the hypotheses (or research questions/objectives) of
the study? (Sometimes the hypotheses or study questions are
listed in the Results section, rather than preceding the report of
the methodology used. Occasionally, there will be no mention
of hypotheses, but anytime there are inferential statistics used,
the reader can recognize what the hypotheses are from looking
at the results of statistical analysis.)
3. Literature Review
What is the quality of the literature review? Is the literature
review current? Relevant? Is there evidence that the author
critiqued the literature or merely reported it without critique? Is
there an integrated summary of the current knowledge base
regarding the research problem, or does the literature review
contain opinion or anecdotal articles without any synthesis or
summary of the whole? (Sometimes the literature review is
incorporated into the introductory section without being
explicitly identified.)
4. Theoretical or Conceptual Framework
Is a theoretical or conceptual framework identified? If so, what
is it? Is it a nursing framework or one drawn from another
discipline? (Sometimes there is no explicitly identified

8. theoretical or conceptual framework; in addition, many
“nursing” research studies draw on a “borrowed” framework,
e.g., stress, medical pathology, etc.)
5. Population
What population was sampled? How was the population
sampled? Describe the method and criteria. How many subjects
were in the sample?
6. Protection of Human Research Participants
What steps were taken to protect human research subjects?
7. Research Design
What was the design of the study? If the design was modeled
from previous research or pilot studies, please describe.
8. Instruments and Strategies for Measurement
What instruments and/or other measurement strategies were
used in data collection? Was information provided regarding the
reliability and validity of the measurement instruments? If so,
describe it.
9. Data Collection
What procedures were used for data collection?

9. 10. Data Analysis
What methods of data analysis were used? Were they
appropriate to the design and hypotheses?
11. Interpretation of Results
What results were obtained from data analysis? Is sufficient
information given to interpret the results of data analysis?
12. Discussion of Findings
Was the discussion of findings related to the framework? Were
those the expected findings? Were they consistent with
previous studies? Were serendipitous (i.e., accidental) findings
described?
13. Limitations
Did the researcher report limitations of the study? (Limitations
are acknowledgments of internal characteristics of the study
that may help explain insignificant and other unexpected
findings, and more importantly, indicate those groups to whom
the findings CANNOT be generalized or applied. It is a fact that
all studies must be limited in some way; not all of the issues
involved in a problem situation can be studied all at once.)
14. Implications
Are the conclusions and implications drawn by the author
warranted by the study findings? (Sometimes researchers will
seem to ignore findings that don’t confirm their hypotheses as

10. they interpret the meaning of their study findings.)
15. Recommendations
Does the author offer legitimate recommendations for further
research? Is the description of the study sufficiently clear and
complete to allow replication of the study? (Sometimes
researchers’ recommendations seem to come from “left field”
rather than following obviously from the discussion of findings.
If a research problem is truly significant, the results need to be
confirmed with additional research; in addition, if a reader
wishes to design a study using a different sample or correcting
flaws in the original study, a complete description is necessary.)
16. Research Utilization in Your Practice
How might this research inform your practice? Are the research
findings appropriate to your practice setting and situation?
What further research or pilot studies need to be done, if any,
before incorporating findings into practice to assure both safety
and effectiveness? How might the utilization of this research
trigger changes in other aspects of practice?
© 2012 Laureate Education Inc.

11. 1
Critique Template for a Qualitative Study
NURS 5052/NURS 6052
Week 6 Assignment: Application: Critiquing Quantitative,
Qualitative, or Mixed Methods Studies (due by Day 7 of Week
7)
Date:
FORMTEXT
Your name:
FORMTEXT
Article reference (in APA style):
FORMTEXT
URL:
FORMTEXT
What is a critique? Simply stated, a critique is a critical
analysis undertaken for some purpose. Nurses critique research
for three main reasons: to improve their practice, to broaden
their understanding, and to provide a base for the conduct of a
study.
When the purpose is to improve practice, nurses must give
special consideration to questions such as these:
· Are the research findings appropriate to my practice setting
and situation?
· What further research or pilot studies need to be done, if any,

12. before incorporating findings into practice to assure both safety
and effectiveness?
· How might a proposed change in practice trigger changes in
other aspects of practice?
To help you synthesize your learning throughout this course and
prepare you to utilize research in your practice, you will be
critiquing a qualitative, quantitative, or mixed-methods research
study of your choice.
If the article is unavailable in a full-text version through the
Walden University Library, you must e-mail the article as a
PDF or Word attachment to your Instructor.
QUALITATIVE RESEARCH CRITIQUE
1. Research Issue and Purpose
What is the research question or issue of the referenced study?
What is its purpose? (Sometimes ONLY the purpose is stated
clearly and the question must be inferred from the introductory
discussion of the purpose.)
2. Researcher Pre-understandings
Does the article include a discussion of the researcher’s pre-
understandings? What does the article disclose about the
researcher’s professional and personal perspectives on the
research problem?
3. Literature Review
What is the quality of the literature review? Is the literature
review current, relevant? Is there evidence that the author

13. critiqued the literature or merely reported it without critique? Is
there an integrated summary of the current knowledge base
regarding the research problem, or does the literature review
contain opinion or anecdotal articles without any synthesis or
summary of the whole? (Sometimes the literature review is
incorporated into the introductory section without being
explicitly identified.)
4. Theoretical or Conceptual Framework
Is a theoretical or conceptual framework identified? If so, what
is it? Is it a nursing framework or one drawn from another
discipline? (Sometimes there is no explicitly identified
theoretical or conceptual framework; in addition, many
“nursing” research studies draw on a “borrowed” framework,
e.g., stress, medical pathology, etc.)
5. Participants
Who were the participants? Is the setting or study group
adequately described? Is the setting appropriate for the research
question? What type of sampling strategy was used? Was it
appropriate? Was the sample size adequate? Did the researcher
stipulate that information redundancy was achieved?
6. Protection of Human Research Participants
What steps were taken to protect human research subjects?
7. Research Design
What was the design of the study? If the design was modeled

14. from previous research or pilot studies, please describe.
8. Data Collection/Generation Methods
What methods were used for data collection/generation?Was
triangulation used?
9. Credibility
Were the generated data credible? Explain your reasons.
10. Data Analysis
What methods were used for data analysis? What evidence was
provided that the researcher’s analysis was accurate and
replicable?
11. Findings
What were the findings?
12. Discussion of Findings
Was the discussion of findings related to the framework? Were
those the expected findings? Were they consistent with
previous studies? Were serendipitous (i.e., accidental) findings
described?
13. Limitations
Did the researcher report limitations of the study? (Limitations
are acknowledgments of internal characteristics of the study
that may help explain insignificant and other unexpected

15. findings, and more importantly, indicate those groups to whom
the findings CANNOT be generalized or applied. It is a fact that
all studies must be limited in some way; not all of the issues
involved in a problem situation can be studied all at once.)
14. Implications
Are the conclusions and implications drawn by the author
warranted by the study findings? (Sometimes researchers will
seem to ignore findings that don’t confirm their expectations as
they interpret the meaning of their study findings.)
15. Recommendations
Does the author offer legitimate recommendations for further
research? Is the description of the study sufficiently clear and
complete to allow replication of the study? (Sometimes
researchers’ recommendations seem to come from “left field”
rather than following obviously from the discussion of findings.
If a research problem is truly significant, the results need to be
confirmed with additional research; in addition, if a reader
wishes to design a study using a different sample or correcting
flaws in the original study, a complete description is necessary.)
16. Research Utilization in Your Practice
How might this research inform your practice? Are the research
findings appropriate to your practice setting and situation?
What further research or pilot studies need to be done, if any,
before incorporating findings into practice to assure both safety
and effectiveness? How might the utilization of this research
trigger changes in other aspects of practice?

16. © 2012 Laureate Education Inc.
1
Critique Template for a Mixed-Methods Study
NURS 5052/NURS 6052
Week 6 Assignment: Application: Critiquing Quantitative,
Qualitative, or Mixed Methods Studies (due by Day 7 of Week
7)
Date:
FORMTEXT
Your name:
FORMTEXT
Article reference (in APA style):
FORMTEXT
URL:
FORMTEXT
What is a critique? Simply stated, a critique is a critical
analysis undertaken for some purpose. Nurses critique research

17. for three main reasons: to improve their practice, to broaden
their understanding, and to provide a base for the conduct of a
study.
When the purpose is to improve practice, nurses must give
special consideration to questions such as these:
· Are the research findings appropriate to my practice setting
and situation?
· What further research or pilot studies need to be done, if any,
before incorporating findings into practice to assure both safety
and effectiveness?
· How might a proposed change in practice trigger changes in
other aspects of practice?
To help you synthesize your learning throughout this course and
prepare you to utilize research in your practice, you will be
critiquing a qualitative, quantitative, or mixed-methods research
study of your choice.
If the article is unavailable in a full-text version through the
Walden University Library, you must e-mail the article as a
PDF or Word attachment to your Instructor.
MIXED-METHODS RESEARCH CRITIQUE
1. Research Issue and Purpose
What is the research question or issue of the referenced study?
What is its purpose? (Sometimes ONLY the purpose is stated
clearly and the question must be inferred from the introductory
discussion of the purpose.)
1. Researcher Pre-understandings and / or Hypotheses and

18. Research Questions
Does the article include a discussion of the researcher’s pre-
understandings? What does the article disclose about the
researcher’s professional and personal perspectives on the
research problem? What are the hypotheses (or research
questions/objectives) of the study? (Sometimes the hypotheses
or study questions are listed in the Results section, rather than
preceding the report of the methodology used. Occasionally,
there will be no mention of hypotheses, but anytime there are
inferential statistics used, the reader can recognize what the
hypotheses are from looking at the results of statistical
analysis.)
2. Literature Review
What is the quality of the literature review? Is the literature
review current, relevant? Is there evidence that the author
critiqued the literature or merely reported it without critique? Is
there an integrated summary of the current knowledge base
regarding the research problem, or does the literature review
contain opinion or anecdotal articles without any synthesis or
summary of the whole? (Sometimes the literature review is
incorporated into the introductory section without being
explicitly identified.)
3. Theoretical or Conceptual Framework
Is a theoretical or conceptual framework identified? If so, what
is it? Is it a nursing framework or one drawn from another
discipline? (Sometimes there is no explicitly identified
theoretical or conceptual framework; in addition, many
“nursing” research studies draw on a “borrowed” framework,
e.g., stress, medical pathology, etc.)

19. 4. Participants
Who were the participants? Is the setting or study group
adequately described? Is the setting appropriate for the research
question? What type of sampling strategy was used? Was it
appropriate? Was the sample size adequate? Did the researcher
stipulate that information redundancy was achieved?
5. Protection of Human Research Participants
What steps were taken to protect human research subjects?
6. Research Design
What was the design of the study? If the design was modeled
from previous research or pilot studies, please describe.
7. Instruments, Data Collection, Data Generation Methods
What methods were used for data collection/generation?What
instruments and/or other measurement strategies were used in
data collection? Was information provided regarding the
reliability and validity of the measurement instruments? If so,
describe it.Was triangulation used?
8. Credibility
Were the generated data credible? Explain your reasons.
9. Data Analysis
What methods were used for data analysis? What evidence was
provided that the researcher’s analysis was accurate and

20. replicable?
10. Findings
What were the findings?
11. Discussion of Findings
Was the discussion of findings related to the framework? Were
those the expected findings? Were they consistent with
previous studies? Were serendipitous (i.e., accidental) findings
described?
12. Limitations
Did the researcher report limitations of the study? (Limitations
are acknowledgments of internal characteristics of the study
that may help explain insignificant and other unexpected
findings, and more importantly, indicate those groups to whom
the findings CANNOT be generalized or applied. It is a fact that
all studies must be limited in some way; not all of the issues
involved in a problem situation can be studied all at once.)
13. Implications
Are the conclusions and implications drawn by the author
warranted by the study findings? (Sometimes researchers will
seem to ignore findings that don’t confirm their expectations as
they interpret the meaning of their study findings.)
14. Recommendations

21. Does the author offer legitimate recommendations for further
research? Is the description of the study sufficiently clear and
complete to allow replication of the study? (Sometimes
researchers’ recommendations seem to come from “left field”
rather than following obviously from the discussion of findings.
If a research problem is truly significant, the results need to be
confirmed with additional research; in addition, if a reader
wishes to design a study using a different sample or correcting
flaws in the original study, a complete description is necessary.)
15. Research Utilization in Your Practice
How might this research inform your practice? Are the research
findings appropriate to your practice setting and situation?
What further research or pilot studies need to be done, if any,
before incorporating findings into practice to assure both safety
and effectiveness? How might the utilization of this research
trigger changes in other aspects of practice?
© 2016 Laureate Education Inc.
1
Assignment: Critiquing Quantitative, Qualitative, or Mixed
Methods Studies

22. Critiquing the validity and robustness of research featured in
journal articles provides a critical foundation for engaging in
evidence-based practice. In Weeks 5 and 6, you explored
quantitative research designs. In Week 7, you will examine
qualitative and mixed methods research designs. For this
Assignment, which is due by Day 7 of Week 7, you critique a
quantitative and either a qualitative or a mixed methods
research study and compare the types of information obtained in
each.
To prepare:
•Select a health topic of interest to you that is relevant to your
current area of practice. The topic may be your Course Portfolio
Project or a different topic of your choice.
•Using the Walden Library, locate two articles in scholarly
journals that deal with your portfolio topic: 1) Select one article
that utilizes a quantitative research design and 2) select a
second article that utilizes either a qualitative OR a mixed
methods design. These need to be single studies not systematic
or integrative reviews (including meta-analysis and
metasynthesis). You may use research articles from your
reference list. If you cannot find these two types of research on
your portfolio topic, you may choose another topic.
•Locate the following documents in this week’s Learning
Resources to access the appropriate templates, which will guide
your critique of each article:
•Critique Template for a Qualitative Study
•Critique Template for a Quantitative Study
•Critique Template for a Mixed-Methods Study
•Consider the fields in the templates as you review the
information in each article. Begin to draft a paper in which you
analyze the two research approaches as indicated below. Reflect
on the overall value of both quantitative and qualitative
research. If someone were to say to you, “Qualitative research
is not real science,” how would you respond?

23. To complete this Assignment:
•Complete the two critiques using the appropriate templates.
•Write a 2- to 3-page paper that addresses the following:
•Contrast the types of information that you gained from
examining the two different research approaches in the articles
that you selected.
•Describe the general advantages and disadvantages of the two
research approaches featured in the articles. Use examples from
the articles for support.
•Formulate a response to the claim that qualitative research is
not real science. Highlight the general insights that both
quantitative and qualitative studies can provide to researchers.
Support your response with references to the Learning
Resources and other credible sources.
•As you complete this Assignment, remember to:
•Submit your paper to Grammarly and SafeAssign through the
Walden Writing Center. Based on the Grammarly and
SafeAssign reports, revise your paper as necessary.
•Reminder: The School of Nursing requires that all papers
submitted include a title page, introduction, summary, and
references. The School of Nursing Sample Paper provided at the
Walden Writing Center provides an example of those required
elements (available from the Walden University website found
in this week’s Learning Resources). All papers submitted must
use this formatting.
•Combine all three parts of this assignment into one Word
document including both critique templates and the narrative
with your references. Submit this combined document