5
points

4
points

3
points

2
points

1
point

Introduction
&

Conclusion

(5
points)

· Introduction
concisely describes the purpose and direction of the project. 

· Clearly
describes the nature of the problem and identifies the interventions being
examined.

· Provides
some relevant statistics or facts to emphasize the importance of issues and engage
reader interest.

· The
topic is clearly nursing intervention.

· Concludes
with a well-constructed summary of what was addressed in the project.

· Introduction
generally describes the purpose and direction of the project. 

· Identifies
the interventions being examined but does not introduce the problem.

· Does
not provide relevant statistics or facts to emphasize the importance of the
issue to engage the reader.

· The
topic is related to nursing intervention or practice.

· Concludes
with a brief summary of what was addressed in project.

· Introduction
generally describes the purpose and direction of the project. 

· Identifies
the interventions being examined but does not introduce the problem.

· Does
not provide relevant statistics or facts to emphasize the importance of the
issue to engage the reader.

· Topic
is related to nursing intervention or practice.

· Concludes
with a summary of what was found in literature in relation to practice
examined.

· Introduction
is excessively long, bringing in data better presented elsewhere in the project.  OR

· Introduction
does not state purpose or direction for project 

· Topic
is unrelated to nursing intervention or practice.

· Conclusion
provides incomplete summarization of the current practice and/or the rival
practice but does not summarize other required elements of the project.

· No
introduction provided, instead begins with discussion of problem.

· Introduction
is nearly entirely opinion and fails to identify purpose or direction of project.

· Topic
is unrelated to nursing intervention or practice.

· Conclusion
is opinion on what intervention to adopt without substantiating evidence.

History
of Nursing Practice

(5
points)

· Clearly
identifies the problem the interventions address.

· Identifies
a nursing intervention or practice as well as a new, emerging
intervention/practice. 

· Clearly
summarizes the history of and/or previous research on the practice/
intervention.

· Briefly
mentions the problem the interventions address.

· Identifies
multiple nursing practice interventions, making it unclear which is the
current and which is the emerging practice. OR

· Identifies
only the current practice without introducing an emerging practice

· Discusses
some of the history and/or previous research surrounding the practice/
intervention.

· Does
not identify the problem the interventions address.

· Generally,
discusses interventions used to address the problem but does not clearly
identify a current and emerging practice.

· Minimal
history or previous research of the practice/ intervention is presented.

· Omission
or inaccurate identification of the problem addressed by interventions.

· Fails
to identify both a current and emerging practice.

· Identifies
a medical practice issue instead of a nursing intervention.

· Unable
to provide a history of interventions used to address problem.

· Omits
this section or addresses it only as 2-3 sentences within the context of the
analysis section

10-9
points

8-7
points

6-5
points

4-3
points

2-1
points

Review
of Literature Examining the Intervention

(10
points)

· Accurately
summarizes significant findings found from review of literature regarding the
current and rival practice.

· Clearly
presents advantages & disadvantages for both the current and rival practice.

· Analysis
leads to a definitive stance on recommendations for best practice.

· Analysis
is well-supported by references from literature.

· Provides
statistical information to support conclusions. 

· Summarizes
most significant findings found from review of literature regarding the
current and rival practice.

· Presents
some advantages or disadvantages for both the current and rival practice.

· Analysis
alludes to recommendations for best practice but is not definitive.

· Most
statements are supported by references from literature.

· Provides
statistical information to support some but not all conclusions. 

· Summarizes
findings found from review of literature regarding interventions to address
issue.

· Presents
advantages or disadvantages for various interventions.

· Makes
general recommendations for best practice but is based on opinion.

· Some
statements are supported by references from literature.

· Provides
occasional statistical information to support conclusion. 

· Research
selected is not relevant to the argument or is vague and incomplete.

· Research
is only relevant for some aspects of analysis OR

· Findings
are not clearly articulated.

· The
relationship between research & practice is unclear or inaccurate, major
errors in logic are present.

· Position
is vague.

· Advantages
& disadvantages are not clearly defined.

· Little
or no supporting evidence provided to support conclusions.

· Provides
minimal valid research. OR

· Summarizes
results of research without placing in context of intervention analysis

· No
clear analysis of advantages & disadvantages

· Unable
to articulate an evidence-based position

· Majority
of content is unsubstantiated opinion.

5
points

4
points

3
points

2
points

1
point

Take
a Stand &

Barriers
and Recommendations

(5
points)

· Clearly
states if nursing intervention should continue or discontinue and is
supported by research; must be cited.

· Is able
to make independent valid inferences based on research to identify several
potential barriers.

· Provides
thorough analysis of barriers that prevent the recommended evidence based
best- practice nursing intervention from being implemented. 

· Provides
at least 2 recommendations for overcoming the identified barriers. 

· Briefly
or unclearly states if nursing intervention should continue or discontinue is
supported by research; must be cited.

· Makes
at least 2 conceivable  inferences ,
but not consistently supported by research information.

· Briefly analyzes barriers that
prevent the recommended evidence based best- practice nursing intervention
from being implemented. 

· Provides at least 2 recommendations
for overcoming the identified barriers. 

· The stance on whether nursing
intervention should continue or not is unclear; may or may not include
supported research or citation.

· Only able to identify barriers
presented by author of articles. OR

· Only identifies two barriers that are
weakly supported.

· Paraphrases analysis of barriers
found in research that prevent the recommended evidence based best- practice
nursing intervention from being implemented.

· Provides at least 1 recommendation
for overcoming the identified barriers. 

· Slide
included but no clear stance, research, or citation included.

· Shallow
or incomplete analysis of barriers identified in research that prevent or
hinder the implementation of the evidence based best practice nursing
intervention.

· Provides
only one weakly supported strategy for overcoming potential or existing
barriers.

· No
slide included for stance on intervention.

· No
analysis of barriers is presented

· Presents
a list of potential barriers completely devoid of support in the literature.

· No OR
unrealistic strategy provided for overcoming potential barriers. 

Professional Style

(5 points)

· Is
coherently & logically organized, and easy to follow.

· Consistently
uses headings correctly

· Minimal
spelling or grammatical errors.

· Terminology
is clearly defined, avoiding jargon or personal opinion.

· Is
written at a professional level with regard to target audience (nursing).

· Is
clear, concise, and persuasive.

· Correctly
uses APA format & style throughout.

· Meets
requirements of at least 5 scholarly references (4 citations within the last
5 years).

·  Includes Title and Reference slide in
correct APA format.

· Is
generally well-organized and easy to follow.

· Uses
headings

· Occasional
spelling & grammatical errors.

· Terminology
is usually defined, with occasional inclusion of personal opinion.

· Is written
at a professional level with regard to target audience (nursing).

· Is
usually clear & persuasive but could be more concise.

· Uses
APA format & style throughout with occasional errors present.

· Meets
requirements of 4 pages of at least 5 scholarly references (3 citations
within the last 5 years).

· Includes
Title and Reference slide with some errors in APA format.

· Is somewhat organized but often
challenging to follow.

· Does not use headings to direct
reader.

· Frequent spelling, grammatical, or
mechanical errors.

· Terminology is occasionally defined,
with frequent inclusion of personal opinion.

· Writing needs to be more concise,
containing excess verbiage.

· Frequent errors in APA format &
style throughout.

· Meets requirements of at least 4
scholarly reference  (3 citations
within the last 5 years).

· Includes Title and Reference slide
with many errors in APA format.

· Is
poorly organized, difficult to read – does not flow logically from one part
to another.

· Does
not use headings

· Frequent
spelling & grammatical errors.

· Frequent
mechanical errors such as inconsistencies in language or verb tense and poor
structure which distracts the learner.

· Writing
is unclear with excess verbiage.

· At
times includes large passages at a medical level.

· Does
not follow APA style or cite sources using APA format.

· Title
or Reference slide absent or does not follow APA format.

· Fewer
than 4 scholarly journals cited or most journals older than 5 years.

· Is very
poorly organized and extremely difficult to follow – intent usually unclear.

· No use
of headings and unclear what section is being addressed.

· Frequent
spelling, grammatical, and mechanical errors.

· No
attempt made to use APA style.

· No
citations in text

· Reference
slide absent or does not follow APA format and only lists public websites.

· Title slide
absent or makes no attempt to follow APA format.

10-9
points

8-7
points

6-5
points

4-3
points

2-1
points

Presentation

(10
points)

· Distributes
evaluation forms to those in attendance. 

· Chooses
an effective, engaging method of presenting findings and conclusions.

· States
how topic area was chosen and its relevance to nursing practice.

· Present
a clear, concise summary of all required elements of the paper:  history, analysis of practice supported by
research, discussion of barriers, and potential solutions for overcoming
barriers.

· Provides
comprehensive, concise summary to conclude the presentation.

· Makes a
clear, logical practice recommendation to change or continue current nursing
practice as a result of the research process.

· Presents
substantiating evidence throughout presentation.

· Presentation
meets 15–20-minute time standard.

· Conducts
presentation in a professional, poised manner.

· Distributes
evaluation forms to those in attendance. 

· Chooses
a logical method of presenting findings & conclusions.

· States
why topic area was chosen without clearly stating its relevance to nursing
practice.

· Summarizes
most of the required elements of the paper: 
history, analysis of practice supported by research, discussion of
barriers, and potential solutions for overcoming barriers.

· Provides
a brief summary to conclude the presentation.

· Makes a
vague recommendation to change or continue current nursing practice as a
result of the research process.

· Often
presents substantiating evidence.

· Presentation
is 13-14 minutes or goes over 20 minutes.

· Conducts
presentation in a relatively poised manner, with some anxiety present.

• Needs
reminder to distribute evaluation forms.

•
Chooses less than optimal method of presenting findings & conclusions.

· Vaguely states why topic area was
chosen without stating its relevance to nursing practice.

•
Summarizes some of the required elements of the paper:  history, analysis of practice supported by
research, discussion of barriers, and potential solutions for overcoming barriers.

•
Conclusion did not include a summary of presentation.

• No
clear recommendation to change or continue current nursing

 practice as a result of the research
process.

•
Occasionally presents substantiating evidence.

· Presentation is 11-13 minutes.

· Anxiety
at times detracts from presentation.

· Needs
reminder to distribute evaluation forms.

· Minimal
evidence of preparation for presentation.

· Fails
to state why topic area is important to nursing.

· The
presentation is not logically organized and addresses only one of the
required elements.

·  Minimal conclusion

· Recommendation
for practice is contrary to the information presented.

· Minimal
evidence provided for conclusions or information shared.

· Presentation
is 9-11 minutes.

· Anxiety
at times detracts from presentation.

· No
evaluation forms distributed.

· No
preparation for presentation evident.

· Fails
to state why topic area was chosen.

· Begins
with a disorganized discussion of interventions explored.

· Provides
no substantiating evidence for conclusions.

· Makes
no recommendations for practice.

· No
substantive conclusion present, “That’s all I have” or “I’m done.”

· Presentation
is less than 9 minutes.

· Extreme
anxiety prevents logical presentation of data.

10-9
points

8-7
points

6-5
points

4-3
points

2-1
points

Evaluation

(10
points)

· Identifies
at least two things to change if given the opportunity to present information
again.

· Provides
a thorough discussion of strengths, weaknesses and areas for improvement of
the presentation based on audience evaluation forms

· Provides
an accurate self-evaluation based on personal insight and audience feedback
with close correlation to faculty evaluation.

· Identifies
at least one thing to change if given the opportunity to present information
again.

· Provides
a discussion of some strengths, weaknesses and areas for improvement of the
presentation based on audience evaluation forms.

· Provides
a self-evaluation based on audience feedback with some correlation to faculty
evaluation.

· Vaguely
states one thing that could be changed if presented again.

· A
somewhat accurate summary of a few strengths, weaknesses or areas for
improvement. 

· Self-evaluation
does not include accurate summary of audience feedback from evaluation forms
with significant divergence from faculty evaluation.

· Self-evaluation
consistently over- or under-estimates performance.

· Provides
incomplete evaluation- failing to either

· State
one thing that could be changed, or

· Provide
a summary of strengths, weaknesses, and areas for improvement, or

· Self-evaluation
shows little correlation to faculty evaluation- either grossly over- or
under-estimates performance.

· Fails
to complete evaluation of presentation.