Assignment: Evidence-Based Project, Part 3: Critical Appraisal of Research
Realtors rely on detailed property appraisalsconducted using appraisal toolsto assign market values to houses and other properties. These values are then presented to buyers and sellers to set prices and initiate offers.
Research appraisal is not that different. The critical appraisal process utilizes formal appraisal tools to assess the results of research to determine value to the context at hand. Evidence-based practitioners often present these findings to make the case for specific courses of action.
In this Assignment, you will use an appraisal tool to conduct a critical appraisal of published research. You will then present the results of your efforts.
To Prepare:
Reflect on the four peer-reviewed articles you selected in Module 2 and the four systematic reviews (or other filtered high- level evidence) you selected in Module 3.
Reflect on the four peer-reviewed articles you selected in Module 2 and analyzed in Module 3.
Review and download the Critical Appraisal Tool Worksheet Template provided in the Resources.
The Assignment (Evidence-Based Project)
Part 3A: Critical Appraisal of Research
Conduct a critical appraisal of the four peer-reviewed articles you selected by completing the Evaluation Table within the Critical Appraisal Tool Worksheet Template. Choose a total of four peer- reviewed articles that you selected related to your clinical topic of interest in Module 2 and Module 3.
Note: You can choose any combination of articles from Modules 2 and 3 for your Critical Appraisal. For example, you may choose two unfiltered research articles from Module 2 and two filtered research articles (systematic reviews) from Module 3 or one article from Module 2 and three articles from
Module 3. You can choose any combination of articles from the prior Module Assignments as long as both modules and types of studies are represented.
Part 3B: Critical Appraisal of Research
Based on your appraisal, in a 1-2-page critical appraisal, suggest a best practice that emerges from the research you reviewed. Briefly explain the best practice, justifying your proposal with APA citations of the research.
By Day 7 of Week 7
Learning Resources
Note: To access this modules required library resources, please click on the link to the Course Readings List, found in the Course Materials section of your Syllabus.
Required Readings
Melnyk, B. M., & Fineout-Overholt, E. (2018). Evidence-based practice in nursing & healthcare: A guide to best practice (4th ed.). Philadelphia, PA: Wolters Kluwer.
Chapter 5, Critically Appraising Quantitative Evidence for Clinical Decision Making (pp. 124188)
Chapter 6, Critically Appraising Qualitative Evidence for Clinical Decision Making (pp. 189218)
Fineout-Overholt, E., Melnyk, B. M., Stillwell, S. B., & Williamson, K. M. (2010a). Evidence-based practice step by step: Critical appraisal of the evidence: Part I. American Journal of Nursing, 110(7), 4752. doi:10.1097/01.NAJ.0000383935.22721.9c
Note: You will access this article from the Walden Library databases.
Fineout-Overholt, E., Melnyk, B. M., Stillwell, S. B., & Williamson, K. M. (2010b). Evidence-based practice, step by step: Critical appraisal of the evidence: Part II: Digging deeperexamining the keeper studies. American Journal of Nursing, 110(9), 4148. doi:10.1097/01.NAJ.0000388264.49427.f9
Note: You will access this article from the Walden Library databases.
Fineout-Overholt, E., Melnyk, B. M., Stillwell, S. B., & Williamson, K. M. (2010c). Evidence-based practice, step by step: Critical appraisal of the evidence: Part III: The process of synthesis: Seeing similarities and differences across the body of evidence. American Journal of Nursing, 110(11), 4351. doi: 10.1097/01.NAJ.0000390523.99066.b5
Note: You will access this article from the Walden Library databases.
Williamson, K. M. (2009). Evidence-based practice: Critical appraisal of qualitative evidence. Journal of the American Psychiatric Nurses Association, 15(3), 202207. doi:10.1177/1078390309338733
Note: You will access this article from the Walden Library databases.
Document: Critical Appraisal Tool Worksheet Template (Word document)
Required Media
Laureate Education (Producer). (2018). Appraising the Research [Video file]. Baltimore, MD: Author.
Accessible player
Laureate Education (Producer). (2018). Interpreting Statistics [Video file]. Baltimore, MD: Author.
Accessible player
Laureate Education (Producer). (2018). Review of research: Hierarchy of evidence pyramid [Mutlimedia file]. Baltimore, MD: Author.
Schulich Library McGill. (2017, June 6). Types of reviews [Video file]. Retrieved from
Rubric Detail
Select Grid View or List View to change the rubric’s layout.
Name: NURS_6052_Module04_Week07_Assignment_Rubric
Grid View
List View
Excellent Good Fair Poor
Part 3A: Critical Appraisal of Research Conduct a critical appraisal of the four peer-reviewed articles you selected and analyzed by completing the Critical Appraisal Tool Worksheet Template. Be sure to include: An Evaluation Table
45 (45%) – 50 (50%)
The critical appraisal accurately and clearly provides a detailed evaluation table. The responses provide a detailed, specific, and accurate evaluation of each of the peer-reviewed articles selected.
40 (40%) – 44 (44%)
The critical appraisal accurately provides an evaluation table. The responses provide an accurate evaluation of each of the peer-reviewed articles selected with some specificity.
35 (35%) – 39 (39%)
The critical appraisal provides an evaluation table that is inaccurate or vague. The responses provide an inaccurate or vague evaluation of each of the peer-reviewed articles selected.
0 (0%) – 34 (34%)
The critical appraisal provides an evaluation table that is inaccurate and vague or is missing.
Part 3B: Evidence-Based Best Practices Based on your appraisal, suggest a best practice that emerges from the research you reviewed. Briefly explain the best practice, justifying your proposal with APA citations of the research.
32 (32%) – 35 (35%)
The responses accurately and clearly suggest a detailed best practice that is fully aligned to the research reviewed.
The responses accurately and clearly explain in detail the best practice, with sufficient justification of why this represents a best practice in the field. The responses provide a complete, detailed, and specific synthesis of two outside resources reviewed on the best practice explained. The response fully integrates at least two outside resources and two or three course-specific resources that fully support the responses provided.
Accurate, complete, and full APA citations are provided for the research reviewed.
28 (28%) – 31 (31%)
The responses accurately suggest a best practice that is adequately aligned to the research reviewed.
The responses accurately explain the best practice, with adequately justification of why this represents a best practice in the field. The responses provide an accurate synthesis of at least one outside resource reviewed on the best practice explained. The response integrates at least one outside resource and two or three course-specific resources that may support the responses provided.
Accurate and complete APA citations are provided for the research reviewed.
25 (25%) – 27 (27%)
The responses inaccurately or vaguely suggest a best practice that may be aligned to the research reviewed.
The responses inaccurately or vaguely explain the best practice, with inaccurate or vague justification for why this represents a best practice in the field. The responses provide a vague or inaccurate synthesis of outside resources reviewed on the best practice explained. The response minimally integrates resources that may support the responses provided.
Inaccurate and incomplete APA citations are provided for the research reviewed.
0 (0%) – 24 (24%)
The responses inaccurately and vaguely suggest a best practice that may be aligned to the research reviewed or are missing.
The responses inaccurately and vaguely explain the best practice, with inaccurate and vague justification for why this represents a best practice in the field, or are missing. A vague and inaccurate synthesis of no outside resources reviewed on the best practice explained is provided or is missing. The response fails to integrate any resources to support the responses provided.
Inaccurate and incomplete APA citations are provided for the research reviewed or is missing.
Written Expression and FormattingParagraph Development and Organization:
Paragraphs make clear points that support well-developed ideas, flow logically, and demonstrate continuity of ideas. Sentences are carefully focusedneither long and rambling nor short and lacking substance. A clear and comprehensive purpose statement and introduction is provided which delineates all required criteria.
5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity.
A clear and comprehensive purpose statement, introduction, and conclusion is provided which delineates all required criteria.
4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity 80% of the time.
Purpose, introduction, and conclusion of the assignment is stated yet is brief and not descriptive.
3.5 (3.5%) – 3.5 (3.5%)
Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity 6079% of the time.
