NR 624 PAPER ASSIGNMENT

NR 624 PAPER ASSIGNMENT

Title Page (5% and APA style)

Introduction (10%)

Include the reason why you chose this problem to research. This serves as an introduction. Explain the problem. Cite statistics to support (ideally primary statistics). Why should stakeholders care?

Statement of Purpose (5%)

The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate how I researched the literature to…. Answer one of your research questions?

Literature Search (5%)

I searched …

Up until this point – look at the past exercises done and they should be used with rewording/citing as needed.

Findings (25%)

This is where you will report your analysis and synthesis the three annotated articles. Do not report each study. Do not use the title of the article/journal. Compare and contrast your articles. Were there similar findings? Contradicting findings? Reference Appendix A.

End this section with what you discovered about your research skills.

Implications (10%)

From your work this semester – what has real word applicability/clinical significance? Do your findings support practice/teaching changes or the need for a quality improvement project or for more research? MOST likely you should be realizing the need to do a more comprehensive search of the literature.

References (5%)

Abstract (write it last but put it on second page) (10%)

Keywords

Appendix A. Evidence Summary Table (25%)

Box 5.1 in Text is helpful

*according to Hopkins

Peer Review

INCLUDE with Paper or lose 5 points

The objective of this peer review is for you to give and receive feedback on your paper, making sure that the message is clear to the reader and follows the rubric.

Author’s Name: ___________________Reviewer’s Name:  _____________________________

As you read this research proposal, I (Author) want you to specifically pay attention to: ______________________________________________________________________________

Briefly describe your understanding of the problem chosen by the author. Does the paper clearly describe the problem? Are you grabbed in?

How can the author more clearly convey their meaning and interest to the audience?

How well does the author synthesize the evidence from the articles critiqued? Do you feel lost in their analysis or do you feel that they offered a solid critique of what they found – highlighting similarities and differences? Mark any areas that could benefit from more examples or evidence.

What burning question are you left with?

Which section is their strongest?

Any other comments/questions?