5 points

4 points

3 points

2 points

1 point

Introduction &

Conclusion

(5 points)

· Introduction concisely describes the purpose and direction of the project. 

· Clearly describes the nature of the problem and identifies the interventions being examined.

· Provides some relevant statistics or facts to emphasize the importance of issues and engage reader interest.

· The topic is clearly nursing intervention.

· Concludes with a well-constructed summary of what was addressed in the project.

· Introduction generally describes the purpose and direction of the project. 

· Identifies the interventions being examined but does not introduce the problem.

· Does not provide relevant statistics or facts to emphasize the importance of the issue to engage the reader.

· The topic is related to nursing intervention or practice.

· Concludes with a brief summary of what was addressed in project.

· Introduction generally describes the purpose and direction of the project. 

· Identifies the interventions being examined but does not introduce the problem.

· Does not provide relevant statistics or facts to emphasize the importance of the issue to engage the reader.

· Topic is related to nursing intervention or practice.

· Concludes with a summary of what was found in literature in relation to practice examined.

· Introduction is excessively long, bringing in data better presented elsewhere in the project.  OR

· Introduction does not state purpose or direction for project 

· Topic is unrelated to nursing intervention or practice.

· Conclusion provides incomplete summarization of the current practice and/or the rival practice but does not summarize other required elements of the project.

· No introduction provided, instead begins with discussion of problem.

· Introduction is nearly entirely opinion and fails to identify purpose or direction of project.

· Topic is unrelated to nursing intervention or practice.

· Conclusion is opinion on what intervention to adopt without substantiating evidence.

History of Nursing Practice

(5 points)

· Clearly identifies the problem the interventions address.

· Identifies a nursing intervention or practice as well as a new, emerging intervention/practice. 

· Clearly summarizes the history of and/or previous research on the practice/ intervention.

· Briefly mentions the problem the interventions address.

· Identifies multiple nursing practice interventions, making it unclear which is the current and which is the emerging practice. OR

· Identifies only the current practice without introducing an emerging practice

· Discusses some of the history and/or previous research surrounding the practice/ intervention.

· Does not identify the problem the interventions address.

· Generally, discusses interventions used to address the problem but does not clearly identify a current and emerging practice.

· Minimal history or previous research of the practice/ intervention is presented.

· Omission or inaccurate identification of the problem addressed by interventions.

· Fails to identify both a current and emerging practice.

· Identifies a medical practice issue instead of a nursing intervention.

· Unable to provide a history of interventions used to address problem.

· Omits this section or addresses it only as 2-3 sentences within the context of the analysis section

10-9 points

8-7 points

6-5 points

4-3 points

2-1 points

Review of Literature Examining the Intervention

(10 points)

· Accurately summarizes significant findings found from review of literature regarding the current and rival practice.

· Clearly presents advantages & disadvantages for both the current and rival practice.

· Analysis leads to a definitive stance on recommendations for best practice.

· Analysis is well-supported by references from literature.

· Provides statistical information to support conclusions. 

· Summarizes most significant findings found from review of literature regarding the current and rival practice.

· Presents some advantages or disadvantages for both the current and rival practice.

· Analysis alludes to recommendations for best practice but is not definitive.

· Most statements are supported by references from literature.

· Provides statistical information to support some but not all conclusions. 

· Summarizes findings found from review of literature regarding interventions to address issue.

· Presents advantages or disadvantages for various interventions.

· Makes general recommendations for best practice but is based on opinion.

· Some statements are supported by references from literature.

· Provides occasional statistical information to support conclusion. 

· Research selected is not relevant to the argument or is vague and incomplete.

· Research is only relevant for some aspects of analysis OR

· Findings are not clearly articulated.

· The relationship between research & practice is unclear or inaccurate, major errors in logic are present.

· Position is vague.

· Advantages & disadvantages are not clearly defined.

· Little or no supporting evidence provided to support conclusions.

· Provides minimal valid research. OR

· Summarizes results of research without placing in context of intervention analysis

· No clear analysis of advantages & disadvantages

· Unable to articulate an evidence-based position

· Majority of content is unsubstantiated opinion.

5 points

4 points

3 points

2 points

1 point

Take a Stand &

Barriers and Recommendations

(5 points)

· Clearly states if nursing intervention should continue or discontinue and is supported by research; must be cited.

· Is able to make independent valid inferences based on research to identify several potential barriers.

· Provides thorough analysis of barriers that prevent the recommended evidence based best- practice nursing intervention from being implemented. 

· Provides at least 2 recommendations for overcoming the identified barriers. 

· Briefly or unclearly states if nursing intervention should continue or discontinue is supported by research; must be cited.

· Makes at least 2 conceivable  inferences , but not consistently supported by research information.

· Briefly analyzes barriers that prevent the recommended evidence based best- practice nursing intervention from being implemented. 

· Provides at least 2 recommendations for overcoming the identified barriers. 

· The stance on whether nursing intervention should continue or not is unclear; may or may not include supported research or citation.

· Only able to identify barriers presented by author of articles. OR

· Only identifies two barriers that are weakly supported.

· Paraphrases analysis of barriers found in research that prevent the recommended evidence based best- practice nursing intervention from being implemented.

· Provides at least 1 recommendation for overcoming the identified barriers. 

· Slide included but no clear stance, research, or citation included.

· Shallow or incomplete analysis of barriers identified in research that prevent or hinder the implementation of the evidence based best practice nursing intervention.

· Provides only one weakly supported strategy for overcoming potential or existing barriers.

· No slide included for stance on intervention.

· No analysis of barriers is presented

· Presents a list of potential barriers completely devoid of support in the literature.

· No OR unrealistic strategy provided for overcoming potential barriers. 

Professional Style

(5 points)

· Is coherently & logically organized, and easy to follow.

· Consistently uses headings correctly

· Minimal spelling or grammatical errors.

· Terminology is clearly defined, avoiding jargon or personal opinion.

· Is written at a professional level with regard to target audience (nursing).

· Is clear, concise, and persuasive.

· Correctly uses APA format & style throughout.

· Meets requirements of at least 5 scholarly references (4 citations within the last 5 years).

·  Includes Title and Reference slide in correct APA format.

· Is generally well-organized and easy to follow.

· Uses headings

· Occasional spelling & grammatical errors.

· Terminology is usually defined, with occasional inclusion of personal opinion.

· Is written at a professional level with regard to target audience (nursing).

· Is usually clear & persuasive but could be more concise.

· Uses APA format & style throughout with occasional errors present.

· Meets requirements of 4 pages of at least 5 scholarly references (3 citations within the last 5 years).

· Includes Title and Reference slide with some errors in APA format.

· Is somewhat organized but often challenging to follow.

· Does not use headings to direct reader.

· Frequent spelling, grammatical, or mechanical errors.

· Terminology is occasionally defined, with frequent inclusion of personal opinion.

· Writing needs to be more concise, containing excess verbiage.

· Frequent errors in APA format & style throughout.

· Meets requirements of at least 4 scholarly reference  (3 citations within the last 5 years).

· Includes Title and Reference slide with many errors in APA format.

· Is poorly organized, difficult to read – does not flow logically from one part to another.

· Does not use headings

· Frequent spelling & grammatical errors.

· Frequent mechanical errors such as inconsistencies in language or verb tense and poor structure which distracts the learner.

· Writing is unclear with excess verbiage.

· At times includes large passages at a medical level.

· Does not follow APA style or cite sources using APA format.

· Title or Reference slide absent or does not follow APA format.

· Fewer than 4 scholarly journals cited or most journals older than 5 years.

· Is very poorly organized and extremely difficult to follow – intent usually unclear.

· No use of headings and unclear what section is being addressed.

· Frequent spelling, grammatical, and mechanical errors.

· No attempt made to use APA style.

· No citations in text

· Reference slide absent or does not follow APA format and only lists public websites.

· Title slide absent or makes no attempt to follow APA format.

10-9 points

8-7 points

6-5 points

4-3 points

2-1 points

Presentation

(10 points)

· Distributes evaluation forms to those in attendance. 

· Chooses an effective, engaging method of presenting findings and conclusions.

· States how topic area was chosen and its relevance to nursing practice.

· Present a clear, concise summary of all required elements of the paper:  history, analysis of practice supported by research, discussion of barriers, and potential solutions for overcoming barriers.

· Provides comprehensive, concise summary to conclude the presentation.

· Makes a clear, logical practice recommendation to change or continue current nursing practice as a result of the research process.

· Presents substantiating evidence throughout presentation.

· Presentation meets 15–20-minute time standard.

· Conducts presentation in a professional, poised manner.

· Distributes evaluation forms to those in attendance. 

· Chooses a logical method of presenting findings & conclusions.

· States why topic area was chosen without clearly stating its relevance to nursing practice.

· Summarizes most of the required elements of the paper:  history, analysis of practice supported by research, discussion of barriers, and potential solutions for overcoming barriers.

· Provides a brief summary to conclude the presentation.

· Makes a vague recommendation to change or continue current nursing practice as a result of the research process.

· Often presents substantiating evidence.

· Presentation is 13-14 minutes or goes over 20 minutes.

· Conducts presentation in a relatively poised manner, with some anxiety present.

• Needs reminder to distribute evaluation forms.

• Chooses less than optimal method of presenting findings & conclusions.

· Vaguely states why topic area was chosen without stating its relevance to nursing practice.

• Summarizes some of the required elements of the paper:  history, analysis of practice supported by research, discussion of barriers, and potential solutions for overcoming barriers.

• Conclusion did not include a summary of presentation.

• No clear recommendation to change or continue current nursing

 practice as a result of the research process.

• Occasionally presents substantiating evidence.

· Presentation is 11-13 minutes.

· Anxiety at times detracts from presentation.

· Needs reminder to distribute evaluation forms.

· Minimal evidence of preparation for presentation.

· Fails to state why topic area is important to nursing.

· The presentation is not logically organized and addresses only one of the required elements.

·  Minimal conclusion

· Recommendation for practice is contrary to the information presented.

· Minimal evidence provided for conclusions or information shared.

· Presentation is 9-11 minutes.

· Anxiety at times detracts from presentation.

· No evaluation forms distributed.

· No preparation for presentation evident.

· Fails to state why topic area was chosen.

· Begins with a disorganized discussion of interventions explored.

· Provides no substantiating evidence for conclusions.

· Makes no recommendations for practice.

· No substantive conclusion present, “That’s all I have” or “I’m done.”

· Presentation is less than 9 minutes.

· Extreme anxiety prevents logical presentation of data.

10-9 points

8-7 points

6-5 points

4-3 points

2-1 points

Evaluation

(10 points)

· Identifies at least two things to change if given the opportunity to present information again.

· Provides a thorough discussion of strengths, weaknesses and areas for improvement of the presentation based on audience evaluation forms

· Provides an accurate self-evaluation based on personal insight and audience feedback with close correlation to faculty evaluation.

· Identifies at least one thing to change if given the opportunity to present information again.

· Provides a discussion of some strengths, weaknesses and areas for improvement of the presentation based on audience evaluation forms.

· Provides a self-evaluation based on audience feedback with some correlation to faculty evaluation.

· Vaguely states one thing that could be changed if presented again.

· A somewhat accurate summary of a few strengths, weaknesses or areas for improvement. 

· Self-evaluation does not include accurate summary of audience feedback from evaluation forms with significant divergence from faculty evaluation.

· Self-evaluation consistently over- or under-estimates performance.

· Provides incomplete evaluation- failing to either

· State one thing that could be changed, or

· Provide a summary of strengths, weaknesses, and areas for improvement, or

· Self-evaluation shows little correlation to faculty evaluation- either grossly over- or under-estimates performance.

· Fails to complete evaluation of presentation.