Just Click on Below Link To Download This Course:
http://bit.ly/2NjImay
DNP 820 Week 3 Critical Appraisal of Practice Guidelines
GCU
Details:
While there are several tools to critically appraise
practice guidelines, the most comprehensively validated appraisal tool is the
AGREE II Instrument. The AGREE II Instrument can be used by individual
practitioners to critically appraise health guidelines and by decision makers
to inform policy decisions. The purpose of the AGREE II Instrument is to
provide a framework to:
- Assess the quality of guidelines.
- Provide a methodological strategy
for the development of guidelines.
- Inform
what information and how the information ought to be reported in
guidelines.
Overall assessment includes rating the overall quality of
the guideline and whether the guideline would be recommended for use in
practice.
Items are rated on a 7-point scale from 1 (Strongly
Disagree) to 7 (Strongly Agree). A score of 1 is given when there is no
information on that item or if it is poorly reported. A score of 7 is given if
the quality of reporting is excellent and when full criteria have been met
(Score explanations found in the AGREE II-GRS Instrument).
A quality score is calculated for each of the six
domains, which are independently scored. Domain scores are calculated by
summing up all the scores of the items in the domain and by scaling the total
as a percentage of the maximum possible score for that specific domain.
For this assignment, you will choose a guideline and
assess the overall quality and whether the guideline would be recommended for
use in practice.
General
Requirements:
Use the following information to ensure successful completion
of this assignment:
- Download the AGREE II instrument.
- Doctoral learners are required to
use APA style for their writing assignments. The APA Style Guide is
located in the Student Success Center. An abstract is not required.
- This assignment uses a rubric.
Please Review the rubric prior to the beginning to become familiar with
the expectations for successful completion.
- You
are not required to submit this assignment to LopesWrite.
Directions:
Perform the following tasks to complete this assignment:
- Using the AGREE II instrument as
your guide, create a table that discusses a practice guideline in which
you might have questioned the recommendations. (Note: You may be able to
copy and paste the instrument into a new Word document and complete the
information.)
- Each
domain must have its own cell (similar to the one shown in the manual) and
add domain scores and an overall guideline assessment. Be sure to include
comments and additional considerations that influenced your rating
decision and cite any sources used.
Portfolio
Practice Hours:
Practice immersion assignments are based on your current
course objectives, and are intended to be application-based learning using your
real-world practice setting. These assignments earn practice immersion hours,
and are indicated in the assignment by a Portfolio Practice Hours statement
which reminds you, the learner, to enter in a corresponding case log in Typhon.
Actual clock hours are entered, but the average hours associated with each
practice immersion assignment is 10.
You are required to complete your assignment using
real-world application. Real-world application requires the use of
evidence-based data, contemporary theories, and concepts presented in the
course. The culmination of your assignment must present a viable application in
a current practice setting. For more information on parameters for
practice immersion hours, please refer to DNP resources in the DC Network.
To earn portfolio practice hours, enter the following
after the references section of your paper:
Practice
Hours Completion Statement DNP-820
I,
(INSERT NAME), verify that I have completed (NUMBER OF) clock hours in
association with the goals and objectives for this assignment. I have also
tracked said practice hours in the Typhon Student Tracking System for
verification purposes and will be sure that all approvals are in place from my
faculty and practice mentor.
Critical
Appraisal of Practice Guidelines
|
|
1
Unsatisfactory 0.00% |
2
Less Than Satisfactory 74.00% |
3
Satisfactory 79.00% |
4
Good 87.00% |
5
Excellent 100.00% |
|
|
70.0 %Content
|
|
|||||
|
20.0 %Discuss a practice guideline in which you might
have questioned the recommendations.
|
Discussion
of the practice is not presented.
|
Discussion
of the practice is presented but incomplete.
|
Discussion
of the practice is presented but at a cursory level.
|
Discussion
of the practice is clearly presented and convincing. Sources cited are from
current scholarly but some outdated sources.
|
Discussion
of the practice is clearly presented and perceptive. Sources cited are from
current scholarly sources.
|
|
|
25.0 %Create a table for each domain (similar to the
one shown in the manual) and add domain scores and an overall guideline
assessment.
|
A
table with each domain is not presented.
|
A
table with each domain is presented but incomplete.
|
A
table with each domain is presented but at a cursory level.
|
A
table with each domain is clearly presented. Scores are present for each
domain and justification is beyond surface understanding.
|
A
table with each domain is clearly presented. Scores are present for each
domain and justification is insightful.
|
|
|
25.0 %Create a table for the overall guideline assessment.
|
A
table for the overall guideline assessment is not presented.
|
A
table for the overall guideline assessment is presented but incomplete.
|
A
table for the overall guideline assessment is presented but at a cursory
level.
|
A
table for the overall guideline assessment is clearly presented and
convincing.
|
A
table for the overall guideline assessment is clearly presented and
perceptive.
|
|
|
20.0 %Organization and Effectiveness
|
|
|||||
|
7.0 %Thesis Development and Purpose
|
Paper
lacks any discernible overall purpose or organizing claim.
|
Thesis
and/or main claim are insufficiently developed and/or vague; purpose is not
clear.
|
Thesis
is apparent and appropriate to purpose.
|
Thesis
is clear and forecasts the development of the paper. Thesis is descriptive
and reflective of the arguments and appropriate to the purpose.
|
Thesis
is comprehensive and contains the essence of the paper. Thesis statement
makes the purpose of the paper clear.
|
|
|
8.0 %Argument Logic and Construction
|
Statement
of purpose is not justified by the conclusion. The conclusion does not
support the claim made. Argument is incoherent and uses noncredible sources.
|
Sufficient
justification of claims is lacking. Argument lacks consistent unity. There
are obvious flaws in the logic. Some sources have questionable credibility.
|
Argument
is orderly, but may have a few inconsistencies. The argument presents minimal
justification of claims. Argument logically, but not thoroughly, supports the
purpose. Sources used are credible. Introduction and conclusion bracket the
thesis.
|
Argument
shows logical progressions. Techniques of argumentation are evident. There is
a smooth progression of claims from introduction to conclusion. Most sources
are authoritative.
|
Clear
and convincing argument that presents a persuasive claim in a distinctive and
compelling manner is present. All sources are authoritative.
|
|
|
5.0 %Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling,
punctuation, grammar, language use)
|
Surface
errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning.
Inappropriate word choice and/or sentence construction are used.
|
Frequent
and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistencies in
language choice (register), sentence structure, and/or word choice are
present.
|
Some
mechanical errors or typos are present, but are not overly distracting to the
reader. Correct sentence structure and audience-appropriate language are
used.
|
Prose
is largely free of mechanical errors, although a few may be present. A
variety of sentence structures and effective figures of speech are used.
|
Writer
is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English.
|
|
|
10.0 %Format
|
|
|||||
|
5.0 %Paper Format (Use of appropriate style for the
major and assignment)
|
Template
is not used appropriately or documentation format is rarely followed
correctly.
|
Appropriate
template is used, but some elements are missing or mistaken. A lack of
control with formatting is apparent.
|
Appropriate
template is used. Formatting is correct, although some minor errors may be
present.
|
Appropriate
template is fully used. There are virtually no errors in formatting style.
|
All
format elements are correct.
|
|
|
5.0 %Documentation of Sources (citations, footnotes,
references, bibliography, etc., as appropriate to assignment and style)
|
Sources are not documented.
|
Documentation of sources is inconsistent or incorrect, as appropriate
to assignment and style, with numerous formatting errors.
|
Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style,
although some formatting errors may be present.
|
Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and
format is mostly correct.
|
Sources are completely and correctly documented, as appropriate to
assignment and style, and format is free of error.
|
|

No comments:
Post a Comment