coursework-banner

Evidence Based Project Part 1 Identifying Research Methodologies

Evidence Based Project Part 1 Identifying Research Methodologies

Opioid use in pregnancy is becoming common despite the health risk factors it presents to both the child and the pregnant mother. There is need to offer educational interventions to discourage the use of opioid among the pregnant mothers. The purpose of this study is to develop an evidence and identify research methodology in exploring the issue on opioid use in pregnancy.

 

Full citation of the selected article Article #1 Article #2 Article #3 Article #4
Gabrhelík, R., Mahic, M., Lund, I. O., Bramness, J., Selmer, R., Skovlund, E., Handal, M., & Skurtveit, S. (2020). Cannabis use during pregnancy and risk of adverse birth outcomes: A longitudinal cohort study. European Addiction Research, 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1159/000510821 Azuine, R. E., Ji, Y., Chang, H., Kim, Y., Ji, H., DiBari, J., Hong, X., Wang, G., Singh, G. K., Pearson, C., Zuckerman, B., Surkan, P. J., & Wang, X. (2019). Prenatal risk factors and perinatal and postnatal outcomes associated with maternal opioid exposure in an urban, low-income, multiethnic US population. JAMA Network Open2(6), e196405. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.6405 Brogly, S. (2019). Maternal and child health after prenatal opioid exposure. JAMA Network Open2(6), e196428. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.6428 Maghsoudlou, S., Cnattingius, S., Montgomery, S., Aarabi, M., Semnani, S., Wikström, A., & Bahmanyar, S. (2018). Opium use during pregnancy and infant size at birth: A cohort study. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth18(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-018-1994-8
Why you chose this article and/or how it relates to the clinical issue of interest (include a brief explanation of the ethics of research related to your clinical issue of interest) The article explores the risk factors associated with the use of cannabis during pregnancy and thus suitable for this study. The data in the article will be used to explore the clinical issue of cannabis use in pregnancy and so gather enough evidence to discourage the use of the drug in pregnancy. The study was selected because it explores the risk factors, perinatal and postnatal outcomes linked with the use of opioid in pregnancy. The study helps in widening the scope and understanding of the burden of opioid use in pregnancy. The article is peer-reviewed and provides sufficient evidence on the impact of opioid use in pregnancy and thus suitable for this study. The study is relevant to the issue being addressed in this case because it provides evidence on the physical impact of the opioid use on the unborn babies. The study was selected because it provides the correlation between the use of opioid in pregnancy and the infant size. The study provides significant evidence to justify the harmful impact of opioid use in pregnancy.
Brief description of the aims of the research of each peer-reviewed article The purpose of the study was to explore the relationship between cannabis use in pregnancy and the birth outcomes.   The aim of the study was to explore the effects of exposure to opioid in pregnancy to the mother and the unborn child. The aim of the study was to explore the relationship between opioid use and the child’s birth weight.
Brief description of the research methodology used Be sure to identify if the methodology used was qualitative, quantitative, or a mixed-methods approach. Be specific. The research methodology involved prospective cohort and qualitative design. A total of 19,685 participants were recruited. The study methodology involved a quantitative cohort study that enrolled a total of 8509 participants. The study involves prospective cohort study that was quantitative in nature. The study enrolled mother-infant pairs at the delivery. The developmental progress of the infants exposed and those unexposed were monitored and compared. The study involved a quantitative design. A prospective cohort study was used to determine the correlation between opioid use in pregnancy and the child’s birthweight.
A brief description of the strengths of each of the research methodologies used, including reliability and validity of how the methodology was applied in each of the peer-reviewed articles you selected. The study involved a large sample population and so provides reliable and valid data. The strength of the study is that it involves a large sample size. Also, the sample population used was appropriate. Therefore, the findings from the study are valid and reliable. The study’s strength is that it compared the risk of exposure to opioid in pregnancy and uses the odd ratio to justify the conclusion. Also, a large sample population was used thus making the findings valid and reliable. The study’s strength is that it covered a large sample population and uses appropriate statistical test to determine the association between the variables of interest.
General Notes/Comments Prolonged use of cannabis in pregnancy cause harm to the unborn child. The prenatal exposure to opioid is linked to increased risk for adverse outcomes in pregnancy and the newborn. Exposure to opioid in pregnancy results in poor developmental outcomes for the newborn. Use of opioid use in pregnancy results in low birth weight in children.

 

Conclusion

The evidence developed indicate that use of opioid in pregnancy presents a significant harm to the mothers and unborn children. Pregnant women should minimize the use of opioid to enhance the safety of their unborn children. The harmful outcomes linked to the use of opioid vary as indicated in the research findings above.

Matrix Worksheet

 

Full citation of selected article Article #1 Article #2 Article #3 Article #4
Tuna, R., & Kahraman, B. (2019). Workplace bullying: A qualitative study on experiences of Turkish nurse managers. Journal of Nursing Management27(6), 1159-1166. https://doi.org/10.1111/jonm.12787

 

 

Lee, E. M., & Kim, D. H. (2018). Moderating effects of professional self-concept in relationship between workplace bullying and nursing service quality among hospital nurses. Journal of Korean Academy of Nursing Administration24(5), 375-386. https://doi.org/10.11111/jkana.2018.24.5.375 Kim, Y., Lee, E., & Lee, H. (2019). Association between workplace bullying and burnout, professional quality of life, and turnover intention among clinical nurses. PLoS One14(12), e0226506. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0226506 Al-Ghabeesh, S. H., & Qattom, H. (2019). Workplace bullying and its preventive measures and productivity among emergency department nurses. Israel Journal of Health Policy Research8(1), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-019-4268-x
Why you chose this article and/or how it relates to the clinical issue of interest (include a brief explanation of the ethics of research related to your clinical issue of interest) The article examines workplace bullying in three dimensions- causes, effects, and prevention measures. It confirms how bullying hampers nurses’ ability to provide safe and effective patient care, adversely affecting nurses’ well-being and patient satisfaction. The study was approved appropriately and participants informed before participation.

 

 

 

The article is an in-depth study of the implications of workplace bullying on the quality of nursing service. It coincides with Faghihi et al. (2021) observation that workplace bullying hampers nurses’ ability to provide quality care. Informed consent and confidentiality were priority areas during data collection. It relates to the clinical issue of interest by describing the detrimental effects of workplace bullying, necessitating evidence-based interventions. The article explores the devastating effects of workplace bullying and the need for its prevention. The primary argument is that preventing workplace bullying is the foundation of a professional and supportive work environment. On ethics, participants were briefed about the study particulars including objectives, confidentiality, and anonymity. Thus, they participated willingly. The article explores workplace bullying in detail and proposes intervention measures. Like Karatuna et al. (2020), the article confirms that workplace bullying is prevalent among nurses and widespread in stressful work environments. Training on workplace bullying can help nurses to cope effectively.  Ethics of research visible in the article include seeking approval to protect the rights of the participants.
Brief description of the aims of the research of each peer-reviewed article The study’s aim was to determine the presence of workplace bullying among junior and senior nursing staff, causes, impacts, and possible prevention measures. Lee and Kim (2018) identified the effects of workplace bullying on the quality of nursing service. Kim et al. (2019) examined the relationship between workplace bullying and turnover intention, burnout, and nurses’ quality of life. The primary aim was to examine the prevalence of workplace bullying in nursing and practical prevention measures. The study is based on the premise that workplace bullying is preventable by responding effectively to personal and workplace factors.
Brief description of the research methodology used Be sure to identify if the methodology used was qualitative, quantitative, or a mixed-methods approach. Be specific. Tuna and Kahraman (2019) relied solely on interviews. 11 open-ended interview questions were administered to 25 ward managers. Hence, the study was qualitative.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lee and Kim (2018) collected data using questionnaires. Participants were 280 nurses working in J Province hospitals. Therefore, it was quantitative. The study was a cross-sectional design where data was collected via structured questionnaires.Therefore, it was quantitative. Al-Ghabeesh and Qattom (2019) surveyed nurses in five hospitals in Jordan. They involved a four-part questionnaire, implying that the study was quantitative.
A brief description of the strengths of each of the research methodologies used, including reliability and validity of how the methodology was applied in each of the peer-reviewed articles you selected. Interviews enable researchers to collect detailed information about a study’s phenomenon. Same questions can be asked. Through interviews, researchers could get a greater attention to participants’ perspectives on bullying.

 

Questionnaires are a reliable method when it comes to data collection from a large population sample. It is easy and quick to collect data via questionnaires too. Participants answer the same questions, which makes questionnaires valid and reliable. Besides data collection from large sample populations, cross-sectional studies are quick to conduct. Wang and Cheng (2020) also found them instrumental in determining the relationship between exposures and outcomes. Surveys are highly reliable since they can collect data from a large sample. They have little observer subjectivity and a good statistical significance.
General Notes/Comments The article is a useful resource for understanding workplace bullying and prevention measures. It will be used to explain how workplace bullying can be reduced in health care settings.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The article is highly informative on the effects of workplace bullying, showing the need for moderation via evidence-based interventions. The article confirms the detrimental effect of workplace bullying, justifying the need for further exploration from a solution point of view. The article will be pivotal in further exploration of bullying among nurses and practical interventions. It helps to understand the problem quantitatively.

 

 

References

Al-Ghabeesh, S. H., & Qattom, H. (2019). Workplace bullying and its preventive measures and productivity among emergency department nurses. Israel Journal of Health Policy Research8(1), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-019-4268-x

Faghihi, M., Farshad, A., Abhari, M. B., Azadi, N., & Mansourian, M. (2021). The components of workplace violence against nurses from the perspective of women working in a hospital in Tehran: A qualitative study. BMC Women’s Health21(1), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12905-021-01342-0

Karatuna, I., Jönsson, S., & Muhonen, T. (2020). Workplace bullying in the nursing profession: A cross-cultural scoping review. International Journal of Nursing Studies111, 103628. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2020.103628

Kim, Y., Lee, E., & Lee, H. (2019). Association between workplace bullying and burnout, professional quality of life, and turnover intention among clinical nurses. PLoS One14(12), e0226506. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0226506

Lee, E. M., & Kim, D. H. (2018). Moderating effects of professional self-concept in relationship between workplace bullying and nursing service quality among hospital nurses. Journal of Korean Academy of Nursing Administration24(5), 375-386. https://doi.org/10.11111/jkana.2018.24.5.375

Tuna, R., & Kahraman, B. (2019). Workplace bullying: A qualitative study on experiences of Turkish nurse managers. Journal of Nursing Management27(6), 1159-1166. https://doi.org/10.1111/jonm.12787

Wang, X., & Cheng, Z. (2020). Cross-sectional studies: Strengths, weaknesses, and recommendations. Chest158(1), S65-S71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chest.2020.03.012

 

  Excellent Good Fair Poor
Main Posting 45 (45%) – 50 (50%)

Answers all parts of the discussion question(s) expectations with reflective critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources.

 

Supported by at least three current, credible sources.

 

Written clearly and concisely with no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style.

40 (40%) – 44 (44%)

Responds to the discussion question(s) and is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.

 

At least 75% of post has exceptional depth and breadth.

 

Supported by at least three credible sources.

 

Written clearly and concisely with one or no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style.

35 (35%) – 39 (39%)

Responds to some of the discussion question(s).

 

One or two criteria are not addressed or are superficially addressed.

 

Is somewhat lacking reflection and critical analysis and synthesis.

 

Somewhat represents knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.

 

Post is cited with two credible sources.

 

Written somewhat concisely; may contain more than two spelling or grammatical errors.

 

Contains some APA formatting errors.

0 (0%) – 34 (34%)

Does not respond to the discussion question(s) adequately.

 

Lacks depth or superficially addresses criteria.

 

Lacks reflection and critical analysis and synthesis.

 

Does not represent knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.

 

Contains only one or no credible sources.

 

Not written clearly or concisely.

 

Contains more than two spelling or grammatical errors.

 

Does not adhere to current APA manual writing rules and style.

Main Post: Timeliness 10 (10%) – 10 (10%)

Posts main post by day 3.

0 (0%) – 0 (0%) 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)

Does not post by day 3.

First Response 17 (17%) – 18 (18%)

Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings.

 

Responds fully to questions posed by faculty.

 

Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources.

 

Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.

 

Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.

 

Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed.

 

Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.

15 (15%) – 16 (16%)

Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings.

 

Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.

 

Responses to faculty questions are answered, if posed.

 

Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources.

 

Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.

13 (13%) – 14 (14%)

Response is on topic and may have some depth.

 

Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication.

 

Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed.

 

Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited.

0 (0%) – 12 (12%)

Response may not be on topic and lacks depth.

 

Responses posted in the discussion lack effective professional communication.

 

Responses to faculty questions are missing.

 

No credible sources are cited.

Second Response 16 (16%) – 17 (17%)

Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings.

 

Responds fully to questions posed by faculty.

 

Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources.

 

Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.

 

Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.

 

Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed.

 

Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.

14 (14%) – 15 (15%)

Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings.

 

Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.

 

Responses to faculty questions are answered, if posed.

 

Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources.

 

Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.

12 (12%) – 13 (13%)

Response is on topic and may have some depth.

 

Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication.

 

Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed.

 

Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited.

0 (0%) – 11 (11%)

Response may not be on topic and lacks depth.

 

Responses posted in the discussion lack effective professional communication.

 

Responses to faculty questions are missing.

 

No credible sources are cited.

Participation 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)

Meets requirements for participation by posting on three different days.

0 (0%) – 0 (0%) 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)

Does not meet requirements for participation by posting on 3 different days.

Total Points: 100

Click here to ORDER an A++ paper from our Verified MASTERS and DOCTORATE WRITERS: Evidence-Based Project, Part 1: Identifying Research Methodologies

Lopes Write Policy

For assignments that need to be submitted to Lopes Write, please be sure you have received your report and Similarity Index (SI) percentage BEFORE you do a “final submit” to me.

Once you have received your report, please review it. This report will show you grammatical, punctuation, and spelling errors that can easily be fixed. Take the extra few minutes to review instead of getting counted off for these mistakes.

Review your similarities. Did you forget to cite something? Did you not paraphrase well enough? Is your paper made up of someone else’s thoughts more than your own?

Visit the Writing Center in the Student Success Center, under the Resources tab in LoudCloud for tips on improving your paper and SI score.

Late Policy

The university’s policy on late assignments is 10% penalty PER DAY LATE. This also applies to late DQ replies.

Please communicate with me if you anticipate having to submit an assignment late. I am happy to be flexible, with advance notice. We may be able to work out an extension based on extenuating circumstances.

If you do not communicate with me before submitting an assignment late, the GCU late policy will be in effect.

I do not accept assignments that are two or more weeks late unless we have worked out an extension.

As per policy, no assignments are accepted after the last day of class. Any assignment submitted after midnight on the last day of class will not be accepted for grading.

Communication

Communication is so very important. There are multiple ways to communicate with me:

Questions to Instructor Forum: This is a great place to ask course content or assignment questions. If you have a question, there is a good chance one of your peers does as well. This is a public forum for the class.

Individual Forum: This is a private forum to ask me questions or send me messages. This will be checked at least once every 24 hours.

Important information for writing discussion questions and participation

Welcome to class

Hello class and welcome to the class and I will be your instructor for this course. This is a -week course and requires a lot of time commitment, organization, and a high level of dedication. Please use the class syllabus to guide you through all the assignments required for the course. I have also attached the classroom policies to this announcement to know your expectations for this course. Please review this document carefully and ask me any questions if you do. You could email me at any time or send me a message via the “message” icon in halo if you need to contact me. I check my email regularly, so you should get a response within 24 hours. If you have not heard from me within 24 hours and need to contact me urgently, please send a follow up text to

I strongly encourage that you do not wait until the very last minute to complete your assignments. Your assignments in weeks 4 and 5 require early planning as you would need to present a teaching plan and interview a community health provider. I advise you look at the requirements for these assignments at the beginning of the course and plan accordingly. I have posted the YouTube link that explains all the class assignments in detail. It is required that you watch this 32-minute video as the assignments from week 3 through 5 require that you follow the instructions to the letter to succeed. Failure to complete these assignments according to instructions might lead to a zero. After watching the video, please schedule a one-on-one with me to discuss your topic for your project by the second week of class. Use this link to schedule a 15-minute session. Please, call me at the time of your appointment on my number. Please note that I will NOT call you.

Please, be advised I do NOT accept any assignments by email. If you are having technical issues with uploading an assignment, contact the technical department and inform me of the issue. If you have any issues that would prevent you from getting your assignments to me by the deadline, please inform me to request a possible extension. Note that working fulltime or overtime is no excuse for late assignments. There is a 5%-point deduction for every day your assignment is late. This only applies to approved extensions. Late assignments will not be accepted.

If you think you would be needing accommodations due to any reasons, please contact the appropriate department to request accommodations.

Plagiarism is highly prohibited. Please ensure you are citing your sources correctly using APA 7th edition. All assignments including discussion posts should be formatted in APA with the appropriate spacing, font, margin, and indents. Any papers not well formatted would be returned back to you, hence, I advise you review APA formatting style. I have attached a sample paper in APA format and will also post sample discussion responses in subsequent announcements.

Your initial discussion post should be a minimum of 200 words and response posts should be a minimum of 150 words. Be advised that I grade based on quality and not necessarily the number of words you post. A minimum of TWO references should be used for your initial post. For your response post, you do not need references as personal experiences would count as response posts. If you however cite anything from the literature for your response post, it is required that you cite your reference. You should include a minimum of THREE references for papers in this course. Please note that references should be no more than 5 years old except recommended as a resource for the class. Furthermore, for each discussion board question, you need ONE initial substantive response and TWO substantive responses to either your classmates or your instructor for a total of THREE responses. There are TWO discussion questions each week, hence, you need a total minimum of SIX discussion posts for each week. I usually post a discussion question each week. You could also respond to these as it would count towards your required SIX discussion posts for the week.

I understand this is a lot of information to cover in 5 weeks, however, the Bible says in Philippians 4:13 that we can do all things through Christ that strengthens us. Even in times like this, we are encouraged by God’s word that we have that ability in us to succeed with His strength. I pray that each and every one of you receives strength for this course and life generally as we navigate through this pandemic that is shaking our world today. Relax and enjoy the course!

Hi Class,

Please read through the following information on writing a Discussion question response and participation posts.

Contact me if you have any questions.

Important information on Writing a Discussion Question

  • Your response needs to be a minimum of 150 words (not including your list of references)
  • There needs to be at least TWO references with ONE being a peer reviewed professional journal article.
  • Include in-text citations in your response
  • Do not include quotes—instead summarize and paraphrase the information
  • Follow APA-7th edition
  • Points will be deducted if the above is not followed

Participation –replies to your classmates or instructor

  • A minimum of 6 responses per week, on at least 3 days of the week.
  • Each response needs at least ONE reference with citations—best if it is a peer reviewed journal article
  • Each response needs to be at least 75 words in length (does not include your list of references)
  • Responses need to be substantive by bringing information to the discussion or further enhance the discussion. Responses of “I agree” or “great post” does not count for the word count.
  • Follow APA 7th edition
  • Points will be deducted if the above is not followed
  • Remember to use and follow APA-7th edition for all weekly assignments, discussion questions, and participation points.
  • Here are some helpful links
  • Student paper example
  • Citing Sources
  • The Writing Center is a great resource

Rubric

NURS_6052_Module02_Week03_Assignment_Rubric
NURS_6052_Module02_Week03_Assignment_Rubric
Criteria Ratings Pts

Part 1: Identifying Research Methodologies After reading each of the four peer-reviewed articles you selected, use the Matrix Worksheet template to analyze the methodologies applied in each article. Your analysis should include the following: *The full citation of each peer-reviewed article in APA format *A brief statement explaining why you chose this peer-reviewed article and/or how it relates to your clinical issue of interest, including a brief explanation of the ethics of research related to your clinical issue of interest. *A brief description of the aims of the research of each article *A brief description of the research methodology used. Be sure to identify if the methodology used was qualitative, quantitative, or a mixed methods approach.

90 to >80.0 pts

Excellent
The response accurately and clearly provides a full citation of each article in APA format. …The responses accurately and thoroughly explain the selection of these articles and/or how they relate to a clinical issue of interest, including a detailed explanation of the ethics of research. …The responses accurately and clearly describe the aims of the research. …The responses accurately and clearly describe the research methodology used, and clearly identify the type of methodology used with specific and relevant examples. …The responses accurately and clearly describe the strengths of each of the research methodologies used, including a detailed explanation of the reliability and validity of how the methodology was applied in each of the articles selected.

80 to >71.0 pts

Good
The response accurately provides a full citation of each article in APA format. …The responses accurately explain the selection of these articles and/or how they relate to a clinical issue of interest, including a detailed explanation of the ethics of research. …The responses accurately describe the aims of the research. …The responses accurately describe the research methodology used, and clearly identify the type of methodology used with specific and relevant examples. …The responses accurately describe the strengths of each of the research methodologies used, including a detailed explanation of the reliability and validity of how the methodology was applied in each of the articles selected.

71 to >62.0 pts

Fair
The response provides incomplete or inaccurate citations of each peer-reviewed article in APA format. …The responses inaccurately or vaguely explain the selection of these articles and/or how they relate to a clinical issue of interest, including the explanation of the ethics. …The responses inaccurately or vaguely describe the aims of the research of each article. …The responses inaccurately or vaguely describe the research methodology used and the type of methodology used, with only some examples. …The responses inaccurately or vaguely describe the strengths of each of the research methodologies used, including the explanation of the reliability and validity of how the methodology was applied in each of the articles selected.

62 to >0 pts

Poor
The response inaccurately and vaguely provides a citation of each peer-reviewed article in APA format or is missing. …The responses inaccurately & vaguely explain the selection of these articles and/or how they relate to a clinical issue, including the explanation of ethics of research, or they are missing. …The responses inaccurately and vaguely describe the aims of the research, or they are missing. …The responses inaccurately and vaguely describe the research methodology used, the type of methodology used with no examples present, or they are missing. …The responses inaccurately and vaguely describe the strengths of each of the methodologies used, including the explanation of the reliability and validity of the methodology, or they are missing.
90 pts

Resource Synthesis

5 to >4.0 pts

Excellent
The responses provide a complete, detailed, and specific synthesis of two outside resources related to the selection of articles and two or three course-specific resources in addition to the four articles reviewed in the matrix.

4 to >3.0 pts

Good
The responses provide an accurate synthesis of at least one outside resource related to the selection of articles. The response integrates at least one outside resource and two or three course-specific resources in addition to the four articles reviewed in the matrix.

3 to >2.0 pts

Fair
The responses provided vaguely or inaccurately synthesize outside resources related to the selection of the articles. The response minimally integrates resources that may support the responses provided in addition to the four articles reviewed in the matrix.

2 to >0 pts

Poor
The responses provide a vague and inaccurate synthesis of outside resources related to the selection of the articles and fail to integrate any resources to support the responses provided, or synthesis is missing.
5 pts

Written Expression and Formatting—English Writing Standards: Correct grammar, mechanics, and proper punctuation.

5 to >4.0 pts

Excellent
Uses correct grammar, spelling, and punctuation with no errors.

4 to >3.0 pts

Good
Contains a few (one or two) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors.

3 pts

Fair
Contains several (three or four) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors.

3 to >0 pts

Poor
Contains many (five or more) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors that interfere with the reader’s understanding.
5 pts
Total Points: 100