LiteratureEvaluationrubricdocx.docx

Literature Evaluation Table – Rubric

Collapse All Literature Evaluation Table – RubricCollapse All

Author, Journal (Peer-Reviewed), and Permalink or Working Link to Access Article

2.5 points

Criteria Description

Author, Journal (Peer-Reviewed), and Permalink or Working Link to Access Article

5. 5: Excellent

2.5 points

Author, journal (peer-reviewed), and permalink or working link to access article section is comprehensive and thoroughly developed with supporting details.

4. 4: Good

2.23 points

Author, journal (peer-reviewed), and permalink or working link to access article section is clearly provided and well developed.

3. 3: Satisfactory

1.98 points

Author, journal (peer-reviewed), and permalink or working link to access article section is present.

2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory

1.88 points

Author, journal (peer-reviewed), and permalink or working link to access article section is present, but it lacks detail or is incomplete.

1. 1: Unsatisfactory

0 points

Author, journal (peer-reviewed), and permalink or working link to access article section is not included.

Article Title and Year Published

2.5 points

Criteria Description

Article Title and Year Published

5. 5: Excellent

2.5 points

Article title and year published section is comprehensive and thoroughly developed with supporting details.

4. 4: Good

2.23 points

Article title and year published section is clearly provided and well developed.

3. 3: Satisfactory

1.98 points

Article title and year published section is present.

2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory

1.88 points

Article title and year published section is present, but it lacks detail or is incomplete.

1. 1: Unsatisfactory

0 points

Article title and year published section is not included.

Research Questions (Qualitative) or Hypothesis (Quantitative), and Purposes or Aim of Study

5 points

Criteria Description

Research Questions (Qualitative) or Hypothesis (Quantitative), and Purposes or Aim of Study

5. 5: Excellent

5 points

Research questions (qualitative) or hypothesis (quantitative), and purposes or aim of study section is comprehensive and thoroughly developed with supporting details.

4. 4: Good

4.45 points

Research questions (qualitative) or hypothesis (quantitative), and purposes or aim of study section is clearly provided and well developed.

3. 3: Satisfactory

3.95 points

Research questions (qualitative) or hypothesis (quantitative), and purposes or aim of study section is present.

2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory

3.75 points

Research questions (qualitative) or hypothesis (quantitative), and purposes or aim of study section is present, but it lacks detail or is incomplete.

1. 1: Unsatisfactory

0 points

Research questions (qualitative) or hypothesis (quantitative), and purposes or aim of study section is not included.

Design (Type of Quantitative, or Type of Qualitative)

2.5 points

Criteria Description

Design (Type of Quantitative, or Type of Qualitative)

5. 5: Excellent

2.5 points

Design (type of quantitative, or type of qualitative) section is comprehensive and thoroughly developed with supporting details.

4. 4: Good

2.23 points

Design (type of quantitative, or type of qualitative) section is clearly provided and well developed.

3. 3: Satisfactory

1.98 points

Design (type of quantitative, or type of qualitative) section is present.

2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory

1.88 points

Design (type of quantitative, or type of qualitative) section is present, but it lacks detail or is incomplete.

1. 1: Unsatisfactory

0 points

Design (type of quantitative, or type of qualitative) section is not included.

Setting or Sample

2.5 points

Criteria Description

Setting or Sample

5. 5: Excellent

2.5 points

Setting or sample section is comprehensive and thoroughly developed with supporting details.

4. 4: Good

2.23 points

Setting or sample section is clearly provided and well developed.

3. 3: Satisfactory

1.98 points

Setting or sample section is present.

2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory

1.88 points

Setting or sample section is present, but it lacks detail or is incomplete.

1. 1: Unsatisfactory

0 points

Setting or sample section is not included.

Methods: Intervention or Instruments

2.5 points

Criteria Description

Methods: Intervention or Instruments

5. 5: Excellent

2.5 points

Methods: Intervention or Instruments section is comprehensive and thoroughly developed with supporting details.

4. 4: Good

2.23 points

Methods: Intervention or Instruments section is clearly provided and well developed.

3. 3: Satisfactory

1.98 points

Methods: Intervention or Instruments section is present.

2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory

1.88 points

Methods: Intervention or Instruments section is present, but it lacks detail or is incomplete.

1. 1: Unsatisfactory

0 points

Methods: Intervention or Instruments section is not included.

Analysis

5 points

Criteria Description

Analysis

5. 5: Excellent

5 points

Analysis section is comprehensive and thoroughly developed with supporting details.

4. 4: Good

4.45 points

Analysis section is clearly provided and well developed.

3. 3: Satisfactory

3.95 points

Analysis section is present.

2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory

3.75 points

Analysis section is present, but it lacks detail or is incomplete.

1. 1: Unsatisfactory

0 points

Analysis section is not included.

Key Findings

5 points

Criteria Description

Key Findings

5. 5: Excellent

5 points

Key findings section is comprehensive and thoroughly developed with supporting details.

4. 4: Good

4.45 points

Key findings section is clearly provided and well developed.

3. 3: Satisfactory

3.95 points

Key findings section is present.

2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory

3.75 points

Key findings section is present, but it lacks detail or is incomplete.

1. 1: Unsatisfactory

0 points

Key findings section is not included.

Recommendations

5 points

Criteria Description

Recommendations

5. 5: Excellent

5 points

Recommendations section is comprehensive and thoroughly developed with supporting details.

4. 4: Good

4.45 points

Recommendations section is clearly provided and well developed.

3. 3: Satisfactory

3.95 points

Recommendations section is present.

2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory

3.75 points

Recommendations section is present, but it lacks detail or is incomplete.

1. 1: Unsatisfactory

0 points

Recommendations section is not included.

Explanation of How the Article Supports EBP or Capstone

5 points

Criteria Description

Explanation of How the Article Supports EBP or Capstone

5. 5: Excellent

5 points

Explanation of how the article supports EBP or capstone section is comprehensive and thoroughly developed with supporting details.

4. 4: Good

4.45 points

Explanation of how the article supports EBP or capstone section is clearly provided and well developed.

3. 3: Satisfactory

3.95 points

Explanation of how the article supports EBP or capstone section is provided.

2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory

3.75 points

Explanation of how the article supports EBP or capstone section is present, but it lacks detail or is incomplete.

1. 1: Unsatisfactory

0 points

Explanation of how the article supports EBP or capstone section is not included.

Presentation

5 points

Criteria Description

Presentation

5. 5: Excellent

5 points

The work is well presented and includes all required elements. The overall appearance is neat and professional.

4. 4: Good

4.45 points

The overall appearance is generally neat, with a few minor flaws or missing elements.

3. 3: Satisfactory

3.95 points

The overall appearance is general, and major elements are missing.

2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory

3.75 points

The work is not neat and includes minor flaws or omissions of required elements.

1. 1: Unsatisfactory

0 points

The piece is not neat or organized, and it does not include all required elements.

Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, and language use)

5 points

Criteria Description

Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, and language use)

5. 5: Excellent

5 points

The writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English.

4. 4: Good

4.45 points

Prose is largely free of mechanical errors, although a few may be present. The writer uses a variety of effective sentence structures and figures of speech.

3. 3: Satisfactory

3.95 points

Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but they are not overly distracting to the reader. Correct and varied sentence structure and audience-appropriate language are employed.

2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory

3.75 points

Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistencies in language choice (register) or word choice are present. Sentence structure is correct but not varied.

1. 1: Unsatisfactory

0 points

Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice or sentence construction is employed.

Documentation of Sources

2.5 points

Criteria Description

Documentation of Sources (citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc., as appropriate to assignment and style

5. 5: Excellent

2.5 points

Sources are completely and correctly documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is free of error.

4. 4: Good

2.23 points

Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is mostly correct.

3. 3: Satisfactory

1.98 points

Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, although some formatting errors may be present.

2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory

1.88 points

Documentation of sources is inconsistent or incorrect, as appropriate to assignment and style, with numerous formatting errors.

1. 1: Unsatisfactory

0 points

Sources are not documented.

Total 50 points

 

You can place an order similar to this with us. You are assured of an authentic custom paper delivered within the given deadline besides our 24/7 customer support all through.

 

[order_calculator]