Research Article Appraisal 2: Effect of a Scheduled Nurse Intervention on Thirst and Dry Mouth in Intensiv

attached in the article that needs the “appraisal” and i will attach the book with the given chapter for further assistance

READ AND APPRAISE THE NUSING QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH ARTICLE

REQUIRES A MIN OF 6 PAGES OF FULL TEXT NO MORE THAN 10.
Chapters 7, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20 & 21

Research Article Appraisal, Part Two Assignment

This week, you will continue to appraise the instructor assigned article that you began reading in Module 1 (See Module 2 Research Article Appraisal, Part One for review of the assignment.)

Instructions:

A major skill that is learned in this course is how to critically read and appraise nursing research articles according to the guideline found in your textbook. The purpose of appraising an article is to critically evaluate the research process followed by the author(s) of the assigned article. This is an information-intensive, time-intensive process that is not learned overnight. To demonstrate your skill at appraising an article, you will complete this open-book assignment.

Here’s how you should approach completing this week’s assignment to begin critiquing an article:

1. First, review your assigned readings in Gray, Grove, & Sutherland (2017) in each module. This will introduce you to the critique skills you will need for this week.

2. Skim the entire instructor assigned a research article that has been posted on CANVAS in Module 1 for you so that you will have an idea of what it is about. Then, for this week, re-read carefully the sample / data collection / data analysis / results / discussion sections of the article again.

3. Print the Research Article Appraisal, Part Two Assignment and find the best answer to each question based on your Gray, Grove, & Sutherland (2017) assigned reading for the week and on what you have read in the instructor assigned research article.

4. Some of the questions in the appraisal assignment below will seem unfamiliar to you. Look up key terms from the question in your textbook. Some examples of these terms might be sample size, power analysis, or t-test. You can also look in Chapter 18 for an example of a critical appraisal of a quantitative research article.

5. You will write a formal paper for this assignment using the paper guideline found below, including APA, citations, and reference page. Do not leave the questions in the paper, do not use a template for this paper. Once completed, upload your assignment to the assignment submission link by the time and date listed on the Course Schedule.

6. Feedback will be provided after all assignments for this week have been entered for credit.

If you have questions about this assignment, you can post them to the Q & A board for help. Please do not post the exact question from the assignment below and ask the group for the answer as this would constitute academic dishonesty.

Your assigned article for an appraisal is:

VonStein, M., Buchlo, B., Millen, C., Lampo, D., Bell, T., & Woods, A. (2019). Effects of a scheduled nurse intervention on thirst and dry mouth in intensive care patients.

American Journal of Critical Care, 28(1), 41-46. doi:http://doi.org/10.4037/ajcc2019400

Your questions for this weeks appraisal are here:

Research Article Appraisal, Part Two

Actions

Rubric
Research Appraisal, Part Two
Research Appraisal, Part Two
Criteria Ratings Pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome
Sample

10.0 to >8.0 pts
Accomplished
• Identify the specific sampling method used for the study. 2 points • Discuss the adequacy of the sampling method for producing a sample representative of the population. Discuss potential biases with the sampling method used. 1 pt. • Identify the inclusion and exclusion criteria used in the study. 2 pts • Discuss the appropriateness of the sampling criteria for the study? 1 pt • Discuss how the planned sample size was determined (including power analysis & consideration of potential attrition if included). 2 pts • Discuss actual sample size attained for the study including acceptance rate, refusal rate (including rationale for refusal to participate if presented), and attrition rate. 2 pt • Describe study setting and its appropriateness for the study. 1 pt

8.0 to >3.0 pts
Competent
Only partial discussion of sampling method, sample size, power analysis, bias, inclusion/exclusion criteria, refusal rate, attrition rate, representativeness

3.0 to >0 pts
Needs Improvement
No discussion of sampling method, sample size, power analysis, bias, inclusion/exclusion criteria, refusal rate, attrition rate, representativeness. Any item not discussed will receive 0 points

10.0 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome
Measurement Methods

15.0 to >13.0 pts
Accomplished
• Identify and describe the instrument(s) (dependent variable) used to measure the major study variables (research or dependent variable[s]). 5 pts • Identify the level of measurement (LOM) achieved by each instrument. 5 pts • Discuss the psychometric properties (reliability & validity of questionnaires/scales or precision & accuracy of physiologic measures) of instrument(s) used in this study (authors’ description of instruments’ past reliability/validity & reliability/validity from current research). 5 pts

13.0 to >6.0 pts
Competent
Only partial discussion of measurement tools, administration of measurement tools, completion of measurement tools, scoring of measurement tools, reliability and validity, physiological measures, and instrument development.

6.0 to >0 pts
Needs Improvement
No discussion of measurement tools, administration of measurement tools, completion of measurement tools, scoring of measurement tools, reliability and validity, physiological measures, and instrument development. Any item not discussed will receive 0 points

15.0 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome
Collecting and Managing Data

10.0 to >8.0 pts
Accomplished
• Describe data collection procedures used in the study. 5pts • Discuss clarity of description of data collection process. 1 pt • If more than one data collector was used for the study, describe the training of the data collectors and how/whether interrater reliability was adequately assessed/ensured. 4 pts

8.0 to >3.0 pts
Competent
Only partial discussion of data collection, data collectors, and training (IRR)

3.0 to >0 pts
Needs Improvement
No discussion of data collection, data collectors, and training (IRR). Any item not discussed will receive 0 points

10.0 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome
Data Analysis

20.0 to >16.0 pts
Accomplished
• List the statistical procedures performed to describe the sample. 5 pts • List the statistical procedures performed to answer the research question(s). 5 pts • Discuss appropriateness of statistical procedures for the LOMs of data collected. 1 pt • Discuss appropriateness of statistical procedures used to address the study purpose/question/hypotheses. 1 pt • Discuss clarity of description of data analysis procedures. 1 pt • Did the researcher(s) address the management of problems with missing data? 1 pt • What level of significance (alpha) was set for this study? 1 pt • Discuss the clarity of presentation of study results (if tables or figures were used, briefly describe them & discuss if/how they made the presentation more understandable). 5 pt

16.0 to >6.0 pts
Competent
Only partial discussion of descriptive and inferential statistics, statistics used, level of significance, and tables/figures, missing data management.

6.0 to >0 pts
Needs Improvement
No discussion of descriptive statistics, statistics used, level of significance, and tables/figures. Any item not discussed will receive 0 points

20.0 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome
Researchers Interpretation of the Findings

15.0 to >13.0 pts
Accomplished
• Describe the key findings of the study in relation to purpose/question/hypothesis. 1 pt • Discuss the clarity of the authors’ explanation of key findings, including statistically significant & non-significant findings. 3 pts • Discuss whether the key findings were clinically significant/clinically important. 1 pt • Describe which findings were consistent with those expected. 1 pt • Describe which findings were unexpected. 1 pt • Were findings linked to the study framework? 1 pt • Describe the study’s limitations identified by the authors. 2 pt • Did the study have limitations not identified by the authors? (YOUR OPINION) 1 pt • Did the authors identify potential threats to design validity? 1pt • Did the authors generalize the findings to other populations? If so, to what populations were generalizations made? Discuss appropriateness of any generalizations. 2 pts • What implications for practice were identified by the authors? 1 pt • What suggestions for future studies were identified by the authors? 1 pt

13.0 to >6.0 pts
Proficient
Partial discussion of key study findings, significance, author’s expectations, clinical significance, limitations, generalizability, implication, and future research

6.0 to >0 pts
Needs Improvement
No discussion of key study findings, significance, author’s expectations, clinical significance, limitations, generalizability, implication, and future research Any item not discussed will receive 0 points

15.0 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome
Legal & Ethical Issues

10.0 to >8.0 pts
Accomplished
• Briefly discuss institutional review board approval for the study. 4 pts • Explain how ethical principles of research (beneficence, justice, & respect for human dignity) were followed to protect subjects’ rights (freedom from harm, privacy, autonomy, & disclosure). 3 pts • If the study included subjects from a vulnerable population, were additional safeguards used to protect them? 3 pts

8.0 to >3.0 pts
Competent
Only partial discussion of IRB, principles of research, and effect on vulnerable populations.

3.0 to >0 pts
Needs Improvement
No discussion of IRB, ethical principles of research, or vulnerable population needs. Any item not discussed will receive 0 points

10.0 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome
Evaluation

10.0 to >8.0 pts
Accomplished
• Discuss whether/how the study built upon previous research (problems, purposes, designs, samples, &/or measurement), providing examples for support. 1 pt • Discuss at least one strength of the study. 2 pts • Discuss at least one weakness of the study and whether/how that weakness could have been corrected. 2 pts • Discuss credibility of study findings and how much confidence can be placed in them. 1 pt • Based on the previous research presented in the ROL and the findings of the study presented in this article, discuss whether the findings are ready for use in practice. 2 pts • Were relevant studies suggested for future research? 2 pts

8.0 to >3.0 pts
Competent
Partial discussion of the overall evaluation of the study. Only one strength or weakness discussed.

3.0 to >0 pts
Needs Improvement
Significant lack of discussion of the overall evaluation of the study. No strengths or weaknesses, no suggestions identified for future study. Any item not discussed will receive 0 points.

10.0 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome
APA Writing Style and Format

10.0 to >8.0 pts
Accomplished
Pages in excess of 10 will not be graded. Double spaced, excluding title page and reference list. Uses professional and orderly presentation of ideas (full sentences, precision, clarity, format, grammar, spelling, & punctuation) with appropriate citation of sources. Use the APA guidelines throughout this paper. Up to 0.5 points will be deducted for each grammar, spelling, punctuation, or format error.

8.0 to >3.0 pts
Competent
Missing elements of APA. Paper too long.

3.0 to >0 pts
Needs Improvement
Any APA item not specifically mentioned will have points deducted. Use your resources!

10.0 pts

Total Points: 100.0