Key Criteria

High Distinction

100–85%

Distinction

84.9–75%

Credit

74.9–65%

Pass

64.9–50%

Fail

<49.9%

TOTAL

PART A: Written Research Question – 1000 - word

Written summary and justification

(5%)

(5–4.25)

The written assessment provides a comprehensive summary and justification of a literature review search question using the PICO framework.

(4.2–3.8)

The written assessment provides a clear summary and justification of a literature review search question using the PICO framework.

(3.75–3.55)

The written assessment partly provides justification of a literature review search question using the PICO framework.

(3.50–2.5)

The written assessment lacks some content that indicates an incomplete justification of a literature review search question using the PICO framework.

(2.5–0)

There is minimal, incorrect or omitted content that justifies a literature review search question using the PICO framework.

Rationale for chosen topic

(5%)

(5–4.25)

Concise and comprehensive discussion with nurse leaders/s, e.g., Nurse Unit Manager, to select a nursing-related topic of interests that is relevant to the context of nursing practice. Discussion justifies the chosen topic to focus a research question on and, has a rationale for the topic selection, explaining why it is important in the chosen context of nursing practice.

(4.2–3.8)

Concise and comprehensive discussion with nurse leaders/s, e.g., Nurse Unit Manager, to select a nursing-related topic of interests that is relevant to the context of nursing practice. Discussion justifies the chosen topic to focus a research question on and, has a rationale for the topic selection, explaining why it is important in the chosen context of nursing practice.

(3.75–3.55)

Mostly concise discussion with nurse leaders/s, e.g., Nurse Unit Manager, to select a nursing-related topic of interests that is relevant to the context of nursing practice. Discussion justifies the chosen topic to focus a research question on and, has a rationale for the topic selection, explaining why it is important in the chosen context of nursing practice.

(3.50–2.5)

The rational for the chosen topic is not concise and does not include discussion with nurse leaders/s, e.g., Nurse Unit Manager, to select a nursing-related topic of interests that is relevant to the context of nursing practice and does not justify the chosen topic to focus a research question or has a rationale for the topic selection, explaining why it is important in the chosen context of nursing practice.

(2.5–0)

There is minimal or discussion of the chosen topic, justification or rationale for the topic selection, explaining why it is important in the chosen context of nursing practice.

Review of the literature

(10%)

(10–8.5)

Concise and comprehensive review of the existing literature related to the chosen topic. Discussion justifies the chosen topic through identifying the gaps or unanswered questions in the current literature.

(8.4–7.5)

Concise review of the existing literature related to the chosen topic. Discussion justifies the chosen topic through identifying the gaps or unanswered questions in the current literature.

(7.4–6.5)

Mostly concise review of the existing literature related to the chosen topic. Discussion justifies the chosen topic through identifying the gaps or unanswered questions in the current literature.

(6.4–5)

The review of the existing literature is not concise and/or does not include a justification of the chosen topic through identifying the gaps or unanswered questions in the current literature.

(4.9–0)

There is minimal or no review and justification for the chosen topic.

Nursing-related problem

(10%)

(10–8.5)

Concise and comprehensive specific nursing-related problem related to the chosen topic. Discussion demonstrates how the problem should be addressed through research and has practical implications for nursing practice.

(8.4–7.5)

Concise specific nursing-related problem related to the chosen topic. Discussion demonstrates how the problem should be addressed through research and has practical implications for nursing practice.

(7.4–6.5)

Mostly concise specific nursing-related problem related to the chosen topic. Discussion demonstrates how the problem should be addressed through research and has practical implications for nursing practice.

(6.4–5)

The nursing related problem is not concise and/or the discussion does not demonstrate how the problem should be addressed through research and has practical implications for nursing practice.

(4.9–0)

There is minimal or no nursing related problem and the discussion does not demonstrate how the problem should be addressed through research and has practical implications for nursing practice.

PICO framework

(10%)

(10–8.5)

Concise and comprehensive discussion of the PICO framework. Discussion included the following elements of the chosen research question:

Population/Patient,

Intervention,

Comparison and Outcome.

(8.4–7.5)

Concise and comprehensive discussion of the PICO framework. Discussion included the following elements of the chosen research question:

Population/Patient,

Intervention,

Comparison and Outcome.

(7.4–6.5)

Concise and comprehensive discussion of the PICO framework. Discussion included the following elements of the chosen research question:

Population/Patient,

Intervention,

Comparison and Outcome.

(6.4–5)

Concise and comprehensive discussion of the PICO framework. Discussion included the following elements of the chosen research question:

Population/Patient,

Intervention,

Comparison and Outcome.

(4.9–0)

Concise and comprehensive discussion of the PICO framework. Discussion included the following elements of the chosen research question:

Population/Patient,

Intervention,

Comparison and Outcome.

Research question

(10%)

(10–8.5)

A concise and well well-structured research question using the PICO elements Population/patient, Intervention, Comparison and

Outcome.

(8.4–7.5)

A well well-structured research question using the PICO elements Population/patient, Intervention, Comparison and Outcome.

(7.4–6.5)

Mostly well-structured research question using the PICO elements:

Population/patient,

Intervention, Comparison

And Outcome.

(6.4–5)

Research question provided. There are some gaps in research question that exclude the PICO elements  

Population/patient,

Intervention, Comparison

And Outcome.

(4.9–0)

There is incorrect content relating to the content relating to research question using the PICO elements, Population/patient

Intervention, Comparison

And Outcome.

PART B: Annotated Bibliography

Introduction and conclusion

(5%)

(5–4.25)

The case study has a clear and succinct introduction and conclusion. The introduction provides excellent background information and outlines the direction of the case study, and the conclusion succinctly summarises the key points.

(4.2–3.8)

The case study has a clear introduction and conclusion. The introduction provides good background information and outlines the direction of the case study, and the conclusion summarises most key points.

(3.75–3.55)

The case study has an adequate introduction and conclusion. The introduction provides some background information and outlines the direction of the case study, and the conclusion summarises some key points.

(3.50–2.5)

An introduction and conclusion have been attempted in the case study. The introduction provides limited background information and outline of the case study’s direction, and the conclusion has a few key points.

(2.5–0)

The introduction has significant errors or omissions of aims and direction of content or the introduction is not provided. Logical direction of the case study is unclear. The conclusion does not summarise the assessment or is omitted.

Selection of 6 peer-reviewed journal articles

(10%)

(10–8.5)

Six best peer-reviewed journal articles were chosen from the literature search. Each reference for the peer-reviewed article is comprehensively and concisely placed above each annotated bibliography using 7th edition American Psychology Association (APA) referencing style.

(8.4–7.5)

Six best peer-reviewed journal articles were chosen from the literature search. Each reference for the peer-reviewed article is concisely placed above each annotated bibliography using 7th edition American Psychology Association (APA) referencing style.

(7.4–6.5)

Six best peer-reviewed journal articles were chosen from the literature search. Each reference for the peer-reviewed article is placed above each annotated bibliography using 7th edition American Psychology Association (APA) referencing style.

(6.4–5)

Six best peer-reviewed journal articles were chosen from the literature search. Each reference for the peer-reviewed article is not concise and placed above each annotated bibliography using 7th edition American Psychology Association (APA) referencing style.

(4.9–0)

Very limited or six best peer-reviewed journal articles were not chosen from the literature search. Each reference for the peer-reviewed article is not placed above each annotated bibliography using 7th edition American Psychology Association (APA) referencing style.

Credibility of articles

(10%)

(10–8.5)

Comprehensive and concise discussion using a table for each annotated bibliography, is used to explain the credibility of the chosen articles to answer the research questions. The following column headings for each annotated bibliography were used author/s, year and country, study aim, design, sample and population, method, analysis and findings.

(8.4–7.5)

Concise discussion using a table for each annotated bibliography, is used to explain the credibility of the chosen articles to answer the research questions. The following column headings for each annotated bibliography were used author/s, year and country, study aim, design, sample and population, method, analysis and findings.

(7.4–6.5)

Mostly concise discussion using a table for each annotated bibliography is used to explain the credibility of the chosen articles to answer the research questions. The following column headings for each annotated bibliography were used author/s, year and country, study aim, design, sample and population, method, analysis and findings.

(6.4–5)

The annotated bibliography is not concise and/or does not include explain the credibility of the chosen articles to answer the research questions. The following column headings for each annotated bibliography were not used author/s, year and country, study aim, design, sample and population, method, analysis and findings.

(4.9–0)

There is limited or explanation of the credibility of the chosen articles to answer the research questions. The following column headings for each annotated bibliography were not used author/s, year and country, study aim, design, sample and population, method, analysis and findings.

Appraisal of 6 Peer-reviewed Journal Articles

(15%)

(15–12.75)

Six peer reviewed journal articles are critically appraised using the five components of academic credibility – Authority, Relevance, Coverage, Objectivity and Currency (ARCOC) to appraise your 6 peer reviewed journal articles.

(12.74–11.25)

Six peer reviewed journal articles are comprehensively appraised in detail using the five components of academic credibility – Authority, Relevance, Coverage, Objectivity and Currency (ARCOC) to appraise your 6 peer reviewed journal articles.

(11.24–9.75)

Six peer reviewed journal articles are mostly appraised in some detail using the five components of academic credibility – Authority, Relevance, Coverage, Objectivity and Currency (ARCOC) to appraise your 6 peer reviewed journal articles.

(9.74–7.5)

Six peer-reviewed journal articles demonstrate minimal appraisal and using the five components of academic credibility – Authority, Relevance, Coverage, Objectivity and Currency (ARCOC) to appraise your 6 peer reviewed journal articles.

(7.4–0)

Very limited or no discussion of six peer reviewed journal articles using the five components of academic credibility – Authority, Relevance, Coverage, Objectivity and Currency (ARCOC) to appraise your 6 peer reviewed journal articles.

Professional writing and presentation (Parts A and B)

(5%)

(5–4.25)

Content is clear, accurate and presented in a logical, succinct order demonstrating a comprehensive understanding of the topic. There are no errors in English grammar, spelling, and punctuation. Language of the discipline is comprehensively used. The assessment is substantiated with a minimum of 6 appropriate contemporary peer reviewed journal articles. Formatting requirements applied without error. Literature cited is published in the last 7 years.

(4.2–3.8)

Content is frequently clear, correct and presented in a logical order demonstrating a good understanding of the topic. English grammar, spelling, and punctuation conventions have 1 error. Language of the discipline is frequently used. The assessment is substantiated with a minimum of 5 appropriate contemporary peer reviewed journal articles. Formatting requirements applied with 1 error. Majority of literature cited is published in the last 7 years.

(3.75–3.55)

Content is mostly clear, correct and presented in a logical order demonstrating a sound understanding of the topic. English grammar, spelling, and punctuation conventions have 2 errors. Language of the discipline is mostly used. The assessment is substantiated with a minimum of 4 appropriate contemporary peer reviewed journal articles. Formatting requirements applied with 2 errors. Most literature cited is published in the last 7 years.

(3.50–2.5)

Content is frequently clear, correct and presented in a logical order demonstrating a reasonable understanding of the topic. English grammar, spelling, and punctuation conventions have 3 errors. Language of the discipline is used. The assessment is substantiated with a minimum of 3 contemporary peer reviewed mostly appropriate journal articles. Formatting requirements applied with 3 errors. Some literature cited is published in the last 7 years.

(2.5–0)

Content is consistently unclear or incorrect and is disorganised demonstrating insufficient understanding of the topic. English grammar, spelling and punctuation conventions have ≥4 errors. Language of the discipline is infrequently or incorrectly used. The assessment is substantiated with ≤2 contemporary peer reviewed, appropriate journal articles. Formatting requirements applied with ≥4 errors. Majority of literature cited is published ≥7 years.

Referencing (Parts A and B)

(5%)

(5–4.25)

Acknowledges all sources or literature. The assessment is substantiated with a minimum of 6, appropriate contemporary peer reviewed journal articles. Meets APA 7^th Edition referencing standards with no errors in-text and the reference list.

(4.2–3.8)

Acknowledges majority of sources of literature. The assessment is substantiated with a minimum of 5, appropriate contemporary peer reviewed journal articles. Meets APA 7^th Edition referencing standards with 1 error in-text and/or the reference list.

(3.75–3.55)

Acknowledges most sources of literature. The assessment is substantiated with a minimum of 4, appropriate contemporary peer reviewed journal articles. Meets APA 7^th Edition referencing standards with 2 errors in-text and/or the reference list.

(3.50–2.5)

Acknowledges some sources of literature. The assessment is substantiated with a minimum of 3, appropriate contemporary peer reviewed journal articles. Meets APA 7^th Edition referencing standards with 3 errors in-text and/or the reference list.

(2.5–0)

Acknowledges some sources and/or has ≥4 or more APA 7^th Edition referencing errors in-text and/or the reference list

or references not provided.

Grade:

Marker:

Date:

Feedback:

Key Criteria

High Distinction

84.5–100%

Distinction

74.50–84.49%

Credit

64.50–74.49%

Pass

49.50–64.49%

Fail

<49.5%

TOTAL

Introduction and conclusion

(10%)

(10–8.5)

The literature review or systematic review has a clear and succinct introduction and conclusion. The introduction provides excellent background information and outlines the aim/s of the assessment, and the conclusion succinctly summarises the key points.

(8.4–7.5)

The literature review or systematic review has a clear introduction and conclusion. The introduction provides good background information and outlines the aim/s of the assessment, and the conclusion summarises most key points.

(7.4–6.5)

The literature review or systematic review has an adequate introduction and conclusion. The introduction provides some background information and outlines the aim/s of the assessment, and the conclusion summarises some key points.

(6.4–5)

An introduction and conclusion have been attempted in the literature review or systematic review. The introduction provides limited background information and an outline of the assessment aim/s, and the conclusion has a few key points.

(4.9–0)

The introduction has significant errors or omissions of background and aims of content or the not evident or provided. The logical direction of the literature review or systematic is unclear. The conclusion does not summarise the literature review or systematic review or is omitted.

Research question

(5%)

(5–4.25)

The research question developed in Assessment 1 is succinctly stated.

(4.2–3.8)

The research question developed in Assessment 1 is succinctly stated.

(3.75–3.55)

The research question developed in Assessment 1 is succinctly stated.

(3.50–2.5)

The research question developed in Assessment 1 is succinctly stated.

(2.50–0)

The research question developed in Assessment 1 is not succinctly stated.

Literature review or systematic review

(30%)

(30–25.5)

Key studies and methodologies were examined through an extensive, comprehensive, and systematic search of relevant sources of high-quality peer-reviewed literature. Trends and gaps in the evidence in relation to the research question have been comprehensively articulated. The findings of each study have been consistently and succinctly related to the research question.

(25.4–22.4)

The majority of key studies and methodologies were examined through a detailed examination of high-quality peer-reviewed literature. Trends and gaps in the evidence in relation to the research question have been clearly and succinctly articulated. The findings of each study have been consistently related to the research question.

(22.3–19.4)

Many key studies and methodologies of mostly relevant sources of high-quality peer-reviewed literature were discussed. Trends and gaps in the evidence in relation to the research question have been articulated. The findings of each study have been mostly related to the research question.

19.3–15.0)

Some key studies and methodologies were from some sources of high-quality peer-reviewed literature were discussed. Trends and gaps in the evidence in relation to the research question have articulated but lacks some clarity. The findings of some have been attempted to be related to the research question.

(14.5–0)

Key studies and methodologies were incorrectly or not examined, and/or relevant sources of high-quality peer reviewed literature were minimal or not cited. Trends and gaps in the evidence in relation to the research question were minimally articulated or omitted. The findings of each study have been incorrectly or not related to the research question.

Critical analysis and synthesis

(35%)

(35–29.5)

Critically analysed and synthesised evidence drawing from an extensive range of relevant, seminal and/or current sources evidence related to the research question.

(29.74–26.5)

Analysed and synthesised evidence from a range of relevant, seminal and/or current sources related to the research question.

(26–22.75)

Analysed and synthesised evidence from relevant, seminal and/or current sources related to the research question.

(22.74–17.5)

Appraised evidence with some using some relevant, seminal and/or current sources related mostly to the research question.

(17.4–0)

Provided description of evidence or viewpoints with minimal or nor analysis, synthesis or questioning with minimal or no relationship to the research question.

Articulated a persuasive position through critical interrogation and evaluation of the credibility and rigour of the available evidence to develop a coherent analysis and identification of the evidence gaps in the literature in relation to the research question.

Assimilated a variety of perspectives to strongly argue a position through appraisal and synthesis of the majority literature to identify the majority of gaps in the literature in relation to the research question.

Argued a position demonstrating development of critical thinking through appraisal and synthesis of most of the literature and identified most gaps in the literature in relation to the research question.

Presented a position and provided some argument to draw defensible conclusions from some credible literature and provided some gaps in the literature in relation to the research question.

Presented a position that demonstrates minimal argument or defensible conclusions and identified minimal or no gaps in the literature in relation to the research question.

Professional writing and presentation

(10%)

(10–8.5)

Content is clear, accurate and presented in a logical, succinct order demonstrating a comprehensive understanding of the topic. There are no errors in English grammar, spelling, and punctuation. Language of the discipline is comprehensively used. Formatting requirements applied without error. Literature cited is published in the last 7 years.

(8.4–7.5)

Content is frequently clear, correct and presented in a logical order demonstrating a good understanding of the topic. English grammar, spelling, and punctuation conventions have 1 error. Language of the discipline is frequently used. Formatting requirements are applied with 1 error. Majority of literature cited is published in the last 7 years.

(7.4–6.5)

Content is mostly clear, correct and presented in a logical order demonstrating a sound understanding of the topic. English grammar, spelling, and punctuation conventions have 2 errors. Language of the discipline is mostly used. Formatting requirements are applied with 2 errors. Most literature cited is published in the last 7 years.

(6.4–5)

Content is frequently clear, correct and presented in a logical order demonstrating a reasonable understanding of the topic. English grammar, spelling, and punctuation conventions have 3 errors. Language of the discipline is used. Formatting requirements are applied with 3 errors. Some literature cited is published in the last 7 years.

(4.9–0)

Content is consistently unclear or incorrect and is disorganised demonstrating insufficient understanding of the topic. English grammar, spelling and punctuation conventions have ≥4 errors. Language of the discipline is infrequently or incorrectly used. Formatting requirements are applied with ≥4 errors. Majority of literature cited is published ≥7 years.

Referencing

(10%)

(10–8.5)

Acknowledges all sources of peer reviewed literature. Has no APA 7^th Edition referencing errors and all references have been cited. The assessment is substantiated with a minimum of 25 appropriate contemporary peer reviewed journal articles. Meets APA 7^th Edition referencing standards with no errors in-text and the reference list.

(8.4–7.5)

Acknowledges majority sources of peer reviewed literature. Has 1 APA 7^th Edition referencing errors or references not provided. The assessment is substantiated with a minimum of 20–24, appropriate contemporary peer reviewed journal articles. Meets APA 7^th Edition referencing standards with no more than 1 errors in-text and the reference list.

(7.4–6.5)

Acknowledges most sources of peer reviewed literature. Has 2 APA 7^th Edition referencing errors or references not provided. The assessment is substantiated with a minimum of 18–20, appropriate contemporary peer reviewed journal articles. Meets APA 7^th Edition referencing standards with no more than 2 errors in-text and the reference list.

(6.4–5.0)

Acknowledges some sources of peer reviewed literature. Has 3 APA 7^th Edition referencing errors or references not provided. The assessment is substantiated with a minimum of 13–17, appropriate contemporary peer reviewed journal articles. Meets APA 7^th Edition referencing standards with no more than 3 errors in-text and the reference list.

(4.9–0)

Acknowledges some sources peer reviewed literature. Has ≥4 or more APA 7^th Edition referencing errors or references not provided. The assessment cites ≤12 sources of peer reviewed evidence and/or evidence is not appropriate. Has ≥4 or more APA 7^th Edition referencing errors in-text and the reference list.

TOTAL:

MARKER:

Marker’s feedback: