Solved: NURS 3044 Research Methodology
Written Assignment 1 (2000 words) 2021 Assessment Feedback
Weighting: 45% of final grade
Course objectives assessed: CO1, CO2, CO4, CO6
CO1. Explain the relationship between knowledge, research and practice.
CO2. Describe the different approaches to research methodologies
CO4. Using a research question, access academic databases to source contemporary research literature
CO6: analyse research findings relevant to a research question
| Sections | High Distinction 85% + | Distinction 75-84% | Credit 65-74% | P1 55-64% | P2 50-54% | F1 40-49% | F2 0-39% |
| Q1-4 500-word equivalent Wt: 25% overall Q1a & Q1b (5%) | Sound understanding/skills in developing a research question The question was relevant to immunisation. The question was researchable without editing and conveyed an identifiable PICO/PICo structure. AND Extracted PICO/PICo components were accurate to the research question in Q1a and presented succinctly | Basic understanding/skills in developing a research question The question was relevant to immunisation. The question was researchable (Q1a) and conveyed an identifiable PICO/PICo structure on its own. Expression of the question required further work. Extracted PICO/PICo components (Q1b) mostly matched the research question in Q1a. Some PICO/PICo components can be made more concise or accurate. | Marginal understanding /skills in developing a research question The question was relevant to immunisation. What’s to be researched could only be understood by assessing the research question (Q1a) and extracted PICO/PICo components (Q1b) simultaneously. | Poor understanding/skills in developing a research question The question was not relevant to immunisation. OR Major revision was required for Q1a and Q1b in order to construct a researchable question. e.g. frequent mistakes in interpreting PICO/PICo components, OR the research question conveyed few PICO/PICo components | Very poor to no understanding/skills in developing a research question The question was not relevant to immunisation. OR The research question needed to be rewritten,. too broad/lack of focus. e.g. What is known about immunisation safety OR No response was recorded for Q1a and/or Q1b | ||
| Q2a & 2b (5%) | Excellent understanding of different approaches to research methodologies The chosen research methodology was suitable for the research question AND As for D, plus Sophisticated and in depth justification. The complexity of choosing | Advanced understanding of different approaches to research methodologies The chosen research methodology was suitable for the research question AND As for C, plus, Demonstrated some in depth thinking, i.e. recognising that some research questions might | Good understanding of different approaches to research methodologies The chosen research methodology was suitable for the research question AND As for P1, plus, the analysis of the research question, OR the research methodologies was more detailed, e.g. pointing out | Basic understanding of different approaches to research methodologies The chosen research methodology was suitable for the research question AND Justification joined some analysis of the research question (e.g.it is a question on individuals experiences), and explanation of the | Marginal understanding of different approaches to research methodologies The chosen research methodology was suitable for the research question AND Analysis of research question and research methodology both attempted but needs to read into. | Poor understanding of different approaches to research methodologies The chosen methodology was unlikely to suit the research question AND Justification showed major flaws in the understanding of research methodology, e.g. quantitative research inherently bias-free or | Very poor to no understanding of different approaches to research methodologies The chosen methodology was not suitable for the research question AND The analysis of the research question and/or the research methodology was incorrect in many places |
Research Methodology NURS 3044 Written Assignment 1 (2000 words) 2021 Assessment Feedback
| research methodology was recognised and clearly articulated | be addressed using either or both research methodology, but not articulated strongly | that individual experiences were complex. | chosen methodology. The responses might be brief but were consistent with the broad convention on the application of research methodologies. | OR The justification involves the analysis of research question, or the research methodology only | superior than qualitative research | OR The response did not discuss the selection of research methodology. OR No response recorded for Q2a and/or Q2b | |
| Q3 (5%) | Excellent skills in sourcing contemporary literature from an academic health database One relevant health database reported The search plan was sophisticated and systematically presented. | Advanced skills in sourcing contemporary literature from an academic health database One relevant health database reported As for Credit, plus Frequent and appropriate use of fine-tuning strategies customised to the formulated research question and the chosen database | Good skills in sourcing contemporary literature from an academic health database One relevant health database reported As for P1, plus e.g. the search plan used some fine-tuning strategies like truncation, or wild cards so the search plan was more inclusive and/or more specific | Basic skills in sourcing contemporary literature from an academic health database One relevant health database reported Search plan likely to retrieve relevant information. There was room to fine tune the search plan to make it more specific (e.g.by limiting to a certain study population), or more inclusive The search plan used basic keywords, and suitable Boolean Operators, and was communicated clearly. | Limited skills in sourcing contemporary literature from an academic health database Health database not identified – other source of information reported OR Search plan contained relevant key words, and Boolean Operators, but vague to some degree | Poor skills in sourcing contemporary literature from an academic health database The search plan unlikely to yield relevant information without major revision: multiple errors in using the Boolean operators OR irrelevant keywords (e.g. keywords not reflecting the PICO/PICo components) . | Very poor to no understanding of search skills Search plan incomprehensible: e.g. incorrect understanding of Boolean Operators/no use of Boolean Operators. Few relevant keywords for the research question provided. The database provided was not relevant to the search OR No response recorded for Q3 OR The response did not discuss sourcing literature |
| Q4a & Q4b (10%) | Excellent understanding/skills in assessing the relevance of a study to a formulated question, and its LoE As for D, plus Evidence on critical thinking around 1) relevance assessment; | Advanced understanding/skills in assessing the relevance of a study to a formulated question, and its LoE As for C regarding relevance assessment, As for C regarding LoE ranking, plus, | Good understanding/skills in assessing the relevance of a study to a formulated question, and its LoE The study in Q4a is relevant to the question in Q1a Succinct justification for the relevance: analysis and | Basic understanding/skills in assessing the relevance of a study to a formulated question, and its LoE The study in Q4a is relevant to the question in Q1a Justification for the relevance involved analyses | Marginal understanding/skills in assessing the relevance of a study to a formulated question, and its LoE The study in Q4a is relevant to the question in Q1a Justification was one | Poor understanding/skills in assessing the relevance of a study to a formulated question, and its LoE The study identified was not relevant to the research question, e.g. investigating a different intervention, or different outcome | Very poor to no understanding/skills in assessing the relevance of a study to a formulated question, and its LoE The study identified contained neither primary nor secondary data (e.g. editorial) |
Research Methodology NURS 3044 Written Assignment 1 (2000 words) 2021 Assessment Feedback
| 2) LoE system in relation to study validity | The LoE ranking of the study in Q4a showed some insights into the rationale behind the design of the LoE system. | comparison of the PICO/PICo components of the study in Q4a and the question in Q1a is accurate and concise. The chosen LoE system was appropriate for the study in Q4a. A detailed ranking was provided, e.g. Level II | and comparison of the PICO/PICo components of the study in Q4a and the question in Q1a. Minor errors present. Expression might be clunky The chosen LoE system was appropriate for the study in Q4a. A crude ranking was provided, e.g.high level of evidence. | sided: only analysing the study in Q4a, without explicitly comparing it to the question in Q1a. OR justification involved comparison, but needed to be read into The chosen LoE system was appropriate for type of study in Q4a, e.g.a quantitative LoE system chosen for a quantitative study, but not useful in ranking the study in Q4a. | Justification for the relevance involved many incorrect analyses of the PICO/PICo components of the study in Q4a and the question in Q1a. The chosen LoE system was not appropriate for the study in Q4a, e.g. using quantitative LoE to rank qualitative studies, or vice versa | OR The study was irrelevant to the research question No/irrelevant justification was given for choice of the study. Incorrect rating or no rating of LoE was provided for the study. | |
| Q5 500-word equivalent / Wt: 25% | Exceptional understanding/skills in extracting required study components As for D, plus Extracted study components were correct and comprehensive throughout. Responses were of an exceptional standard and demonstrated excellent attention to detail | Advanced understanding/skills in extracting required study components As Credit, plus, Extracted study components were detailed, and correct in most places | Good understanding/skills in extracting required study components Study components were always correctly extracted. Attention to the detail of some study components at times (e.g. time points of outcome assessment) | Basic understanding/skills in extracting required study components Extracted study components were correctly identified in most places (e.g.data collection reported in the correct section of the template). Attention to the detail of study components was lacking. | Marginal understanding/skills in extracting required study components Extracted study components often misplaced. Extracted components understandable but required reading into | Poor understanding/skills in extracting required study components Many misplaced OR incorrectly extracted study components | Very poor to no understanding/skills in extracting required study components Responses were vague, incomprehensible, OR incorrect almost all the time. OR No responses were recorded for the question |
| Q6 1000 words /Wt: 45% | Excellent skills/understanding in applying research to practice As for Distinction, plus exceptional discussion of the value of the two studies in terms of study methods. The discussion of the value of the two studies was situated amongst | Advanced skills/understanding in applying research to practice As for Credit, plus In-depth discussion of the study findings and methods, showing solid grasp of research concepts. Appropriate use of 3 high | Good skills/understanding in applying research to practice As for P1, plus Identified how most study findings might be used to inform a discussion with women/parents OR A more holistic assessment | Basic skills/understanding in applying research to practice e.g. able to distinguish the values of qualitative and quantitative studies in informing clinical practice generally Identified: How some of the study findings can be used to inform the discussion with | Limited skills/understanding in applying research to practice An attempt to distinguish the values of qualitative and quantitative studies was made but needed to be read into. Discussion provided not always on topic OR | Poor skills/understanding in applying research to practice Judgement on the value of different types of research for the discussion with parent or woman could not be identified. OR Justification that supports | Very poor skills/understanding in applying research to practice No responses recorded for Q6, OR Confused qualitative with quantitative research in their characteristics and relevance to clinical |
Research Methodology NURS 3044 Written Assignment 1 (2000 words) 2021 Assessment Feedback
| other contextual factors, e.g.. parents/women’s existing beliefs. Appropriate use of >3 high quality research method references | quality research method references. | of detailed analysis of research findings, and argument as to how each could be used to support practice was provided Appropriate use of 2 high quality research method references | women/parents How some of the study methods might influence the usefulness of the studies. The information from the two studies was mostly referred to correctly. Appropriate use of 1 high quality research method reference | mispresented parts of the two studies at times. | the value of different types of research either was not relevant or frequently incorrect. | practice OR Discussion provided failed to address Q6, e.g.discussing the importance of the question in Q1a OR the two studies in Q5 were not referred to | |
| Writing & referencing Wt: 5% | As for P1 | As for P1 | As for P1 | Written with clarity. Correct sentence and paragraph structure, grammar, vocabulary, spelling, punctuation, use of 3rd person and use of inclusive language. Adhered to word limit (within ±10% of the stated word count) where actual word limit is stated. Correct use of UniSA Harvard reference system. No evidence of plagiarism. | Minor problems with clarity and/or sentence and paragraph structure, grammar, vocabulary, spelling, punctuation, use of 3rd person, inclusive language. Adhered to word limit (within ±10% of the stated word count) where actual word limit is stated. Mostly correct use of UniSA Harvard reference system. No evidence of plagiarism. | Clarity was lacking and/or there are problems with sentence and paragraph structure, grammar, vocabulary, spelling, punctuation, use of 3rd person, inclusive language. >10% variation to word limit (where actual word limit is stated). Poor adherence to UniSA Harvard reference system. No evidence of plagiarism. | Poorly written responses and major problems with sentence and paragraph structure, grammar, vocabulary, spelling, punctuation, use of 3rd person, inclusive language. >20% variation to word limit (where actual word limit is stated). UniSA Harvard reference system not used/no referencing. Evidence of plagiarism – will be referred to Academic Integrity |
| Overall comment: Marked by: Date: |