{"id":15875,"date":"2023-04-20T01:17:43","date_gmt":"2023-04-20T01:17:43","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.goodacademic.com\/blog\/questions\/article-analysis-2-points-130-rubric-assessment-traits-requires-lopeswrite\/"},"modified":"2023-04-20T01:17:43","modified_gmt":"2023-04-20T01:17:43","slug":"article-analysis-2-points-130-rubric-assessment-traits-requires-lopeswrite","status":"publish","type":"questions","link":"https:\/\/www.goodacademic.com\/blog\/questions\/article-analysis-2-points-130-rubric-assessment-traits-requires-lopeswrite\/","title":{"rendered":"Article Analysis 2 Points 130 Rubric Assessment Traits Requires Lopeswrite"},"content":{"rendered":"

Article Analysis 2 Points 130 Rubric Assessment Traits Requires Lopeswrite<\/p>\n

Assessment Description<\/div>\n
Search the GCU Library and find two new health care articles that use quantitative research. Do not use articles from a previous assignment, or articles that appear in the topic Resources or textbook.<\/div>\n
Complete an article analysis for each using the “Article Analysis: Part 2” template.<\/div>\n
Refer to the “Patient Preference and Satisfaction in Hospital-at-Home and Usual Hospital Care for COPD Exacerbations: Results of a Randomised Controlled Trial,” in conjunction with the “Article Analysis Example 2,” for an example of an article analysis.<\/div>\n
While APA style is not required for the body of this assignment, solid academic writing is expected, and documentation of sources should be presented using APA formatting guidelines, which can be found in the APA Style Guide, located in the Student Success Center.<\/div>\n
This assignment uses a rubric. Please review the rubric prior to beginning the assignment to become familiar with the expectations for successful completion. <\/div>\n
You are required to submit this assignment to LopesWrite. A link to the LopesWrite technical support articles is located in Class Resources if you need assistance.<\/div>\n
 <\/div>\n
 <\/div>\n
 <\/div>\n
 <\/div>\n
 <\/div>\n
 <\/div>\n
 <\/div>\n
 <\/div>\n
 <\/div>\n
 <\/div>\n
 <\/div>\n
 <\/div>\n
Rubric Criteria<\/div>\n
Two Quantitative Articles<\/div>\n
13 points<\/div>\n
Criteria Description<\/div>\n
Two Quantitative Articles<\/div>\n
5. 5: Excellent<\/div>\n
13 points<\/div>\n
Two articles are presented. Both articles are based on quantitative research.<\/div>\n
4. 4: Good<\/div>\n
11.05 points<\/div>\n
N\/A<\/div>\n
3. 3: Satisfactory<\/div>\n
9.75 points<\/div>\n
Two articles are presented. Of the articles presented, only one articles are based on quantitative research<\/div>\n
2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory<\/div>\n
8.45 points<\/div>\n
N\/A<\/div>\n
1. 1: Unsatisfactory<\/div>\n
0 points<\/div>\n
Fewer than two articles are presented. None of the articles presented use quantitative research.<\/div>\n
Article Citation and Permalink<\/div>\n
13 points<\/div>\n
Criteria Description<\/div>\n
Article Citation and Permalink<\/div>\n
5. 5: Excellent<\/div>\n
13 points<\/div>\n
Article citation and permalink are presented. Article citation is accurately presented in APA format. Page numbers are accurate and used in all areas when citing information.<\/div>\n
4. 4: Good<\/div>\n
11.05 points<\/div>\n
Article citation and permalink are presented. Article citation is presented in APA format. Page numbers are used in to cite information. There are minor errors.<\/div>\n
3. 3: Satisfactory<\/div>\n
9.75 points<\/div>\n
Article citation and permalink are presented. Article citation is presented in APA format, but there are errors. Page numbers to cite information are missing, or incorrect, in some areas.<\/div>\n
2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory<\/div>\n
8.45 points<\/div>\n
Article citation and permalink are presented. There are significant errors. Page numbers are not indicated to cite information, or the page numbers are incorrect.<\/div>\n
1. 1: Unsatisfactory<\/div>\n
0 points<\/div>\n
Article citation and permalink are omitted.<\/div>\n
Broad Topic Area\/Title<\/div>\n
13 points<\/div>\n
Criteria Description<\/div>\n
Broad Topic Area\/Title<\/div>\n
5. 5: Excellent<\/div>\n
13 points<\/div>\n
Broad topic area and title are fully presented and accurate.<\/div>\n
4. 4: Good<\/div>\n
11.05 points<\/div>\n
Broad topic area and title are presented. There are some minor errors, but the content overall is accurate.<\/div>\n
3. 3: Satisfactory<\/div>\n
9.75 points<\/div>\n
Broad topic area and title are summarized. There are some minor inaccuracies.<\/div>\n
2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory<\/div>\n
8.45 points<\/div>\n
Broad topic area and title are referenced but are incomplete.<\/div>\n
1. 1: Unsatisfactory<\/div>\n
0 points<\/div>\n
Broad topic area and title are omitted.<\/div>\n
Hypothesis<\/div>\n
13 points<\/div>\n
Criteria Description<\/div>\n
Hypothesis<\/div>\n
5. 5: Excellent<\/div>\n
13 points<\/div>\n
Hypothesis is accurate and clearly defined.<\/div>\n
4. 4: Good<\/div>\n
11.05 points<\/div>\n
Hypothesis is defined. Hypothesis is generally defined. There are some minor inaccuracies.<\/div>\n
3. 3: Satisfactory<\/div>\n
9.75 points<\/div>\n
Hypothesis is generally defined. There are some minor inaccuracies.<\/div>\n
2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory<\/div>\n
8.45 points<\/div>\n
Hypothesis is summarized. There are major inaccuracies or omissions.<\/div>\n
1. 1: Unsatisfactory<\/div>\n
0 points<\/div>\n
Definition of hypothesis is omitted. The definition of the hypothesis is incorrect.<\/div>\n
Independent and Dependent Variable Type and Data for Variable<\/div>\n
13 points<\/div>\n
Criteria Description<\/div>\n
Independent and Dependent Variable Type and Data for Variable<\/div>\n
5. 5: Excellent<\/div>\n
13 points<\/div>\n
Variable types and data for variables are presented and accurate.<\/div>\n
4. 4: Good<\/div>\n
11.05 points<\/div>\n
Variable types and data for variables are presented. Minor detail is needed for accuracy.<\/div>\n
3. 3: Satisfactory<\/div>\n
9.75 points<\/div>\n
Variable types and data for variables are presented. There are inaccuracies.<\/div>\n
2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory<\/div>\n
8.45 points<\/div>\n
Variable types and data for variables are presented. There are major inaccuracies or omissions.<\/div>\n
1. 1: Unsatisfactory<\/div>\n
0 points<\/div>\n
Variable types and data for variables are omitted.<\/div>\n
Population of Interest for the Study<\/div>\n
13 points<\/div>\n
Criteria Description<\/div>\n
Population of Interest for the Study<\/div>\n
5. 5: Excellent<\/div>\n
13 points<\/div>\n
Population of interest for the study is presented and accurate.<\/div>\n
4. 4: Good<\/div>\n
11.05 points<\/div>\n
Population of interest for the study is presented. Minor detail is needed for accuracy.<\/div>\n
3. 3: Satisfactory<\/div>\n
9.75 points<\/div>\n
Population of interest for the study is presented. There are inaccuracies.<\/div>\n
2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory<\/div>\n
8.45 points<\/div>\n
Population of interest for the study is presented. There are major inaccuracies or omissions.<\/div>\n
1. 1: Unsatisfactory<\/div>\n
0 points<\/div>\n
Population of interest for the study is omitted.<\/div>\n
Sample<\/div>\n
13 points<\/div>\n
Criteria Description<\/div>\n
Sample<\/div>\n
5. 5: Excellent<\/div>\n
13 points<\/div>\n
Sample is presented and accurate. Page citation for sample information is provided.<\/div>\n
4. 4: Good<\/div>\n
11.05 points<\/div>\n
Sample is presented. Minor detail is needed for accuracy. Page citation for sample information is provided.<\/div>\n
3. 3: Satisfactory<\/div>\n
9.75 points<\/div>\n
Sample is presented. There are inaccuracies.<\/div>\n
2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory<\/div>\n
8.45 points<\/div>\n
Sample is presented. There are major inaccuracies or omissions.<\/div>\n
1. 1: Unsatisfactory<\/div>\n
0 points<\/div>\n
Sample is omitted.<\/div>\n
Sampling Method<\/div>\n
13 points<\/div>\n
Criteria Description<\/div>\n
Sampling Method<\/div>\n
5. 5: Excellent<\/div>\n
13 points<\/div>\n
Sampling method is presented and accurate.<\/div>\n
4. 4: Good<\/div>\n
11.05 points<\/div>\n
Sampling is presented. Minor detail is needed for accuracy.<\/div>\n
3. 3: Satisfactory<\/div>\n
9.75 points<\/div>\n
Sampling is presented. There are inaccuracies. Page citation for sample information is omitted.<\/div>\n
2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory<\/div>\n
8.45 points<\/div>\n
Sampling is presented. There are major inaccuracies or omissions.<\/div>\n
1. 1: Unsatisfactory<\/div>\n
0 points<\/div>\n
Sampling method is omitted.<\/div>\n
How Was Data Collected<\/div>\n
13 points<\/div>\n
Criteria Description<\/div>\n
How Was Data Collected<\/div>\n
5. 5: Excellent<\/div>\n
13 points<\/div>\n
The means of data collection are presented and accurate. Page citation for sample information is provided.<\/div>\n
4. 4: Good<\/div>\n
11.05 points<\/div>\n
The means of data collection are presented. Minor detail is needed for accuracy. Page citation for sample information is provided.<\/div>\n
3. 3: Satisfactory<\/div>\n
9.75 points<\/div>\n
The means of data collection are presented. There are inaccuracies. Page citation for sample information is omitted.<\/div>\n
2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory<\/div>\n
8.45 points<\/div>\n
The means of data collection are presented. There are major inaccuracies or omissions.<\/div>\n
1. 1: Unsatisfactory<\/div>\n
0 points<\/div>\n
The means of data collection are omitted.<\/div>\n
Mechanics of Writing<\/div>\n
13 points<\/div>\n
Criteria Description<\/div>\n
Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, and language use)<\/div>\n
5. 5: Excellent<\/div>\n
13 points<\/div>\n
The writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English.<\/div>\n
4. 4: Good<\/div>\n
11.05 points<\/div>\n
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.<\/div>\n
3. 3: Satisfactory<\/div>\n
9.75 points<\/div>\n
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.<\/div>\n
2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory<\/div>\n
8.45 points<\/div>\n
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.<\/div>\n
1. 1: Unsatisfactory<\/div>\n
0 points<\/div>\n
Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice or sentence construction is employed.<\/div>\n
Total130 points<\/div>\n
 <\/div>\n
 <\/div>\n
 <\/div>\n
First Article<\/div>\n
The Use of Morphine to Treat Cancer-Related Pain: A Synthesis of Quantitative and Qualitative Research<\/div>\n
doi:10.1016\/j.jpainsymman.2009.05.014<\/div>\n
Vol. 39 No. 1 January 2010 Journal of Pain and Symptom Management 139<\/div>\n
Kate Flemming, MSc, RN<\/div>\n
Department of Health Sciences, The University of York, Heslington, York, United Kingdom<\/div>\n
https:\/\/eds-s-ebscohost-com.lopes.idm.oclc.org\/eds\/detail\/detail?vid=3&sid=e260464f-c6e7-41bf-9f07-847c7cd00578%40redis&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmUmc2NvcGU9c2l0ZQ%3d%3d#AN=S0885392409007313&db=edselp<\/div>\n
Abstract<\/div>\n
Morphine is the most commonly used opioid for severe cancer-related pain. Despite its established<\/div>\n
effectiveness, it is often used cautiously in clinical practice, particularly outside specialist<\/div>\n
palliative care. This review identifies the key social, contextual, and physical concerns held by<\/div>\n
patients, carers, and health care professionals when using morphine, which might explain the<\/div>\n
caution taken in its use. The review used an approach called critical interpretive synthesis<\/div>\n
(CIS), which combines conventional systematic review techniques with methods for<\/div>\n
interpretative synthesis of qualitative research. An existing review examining the effectiveness of<\/div>\n
morphine and a guideline on its use were synthesized with 19 qualitative articles to establish<\/div>\n
understanding of how context of use can affect the established effectiveness of morphine. The<\/div>\n
article argues for the appropriateness of CIS for answering questions of this type. The results<\/div>\n
demonstrate that using morphine is a balancing act and a trade-off between pain relief and<\/div>\n
adverse effects. Deep-seated concerns regarding the symbolism of morphine, addiction, and<\/div>\n
tolerance are held by patients, carers, and clinicians, which influence prescription and use.<\/div>\n
Cancer pain is a referent for disease status and has existential meaning, with the introduction of<\/div>\n
morphine becoming a metaphor for impending death. Cancer pain is intersubjective, with its<\/div>\n
perception and reporting influenced by those with whom the patient interacts. By understanding<\/div>\n
the context and social meaning surrounding the use of morphine to treat cancer pain, health<\/div>\n
care professionals can begin to anticipate, acknowledge, and address some of the barriers to its<\/div>\n
use, thereby enhancing pain control. J Pain Symptom Manage 2010;39:139e154.<\/div>\n
Second Article<\/div>\n
Quantitative research on the impact of COVID-19 on frontline nursing staff at a military hospital in Saudi Arabia<\/div>\n
Loujain Sharif, Khalid Almutairi, Khalid Sharif, Alaa Mahsoon, Maram Banakhar, Salwa Albeladi, Yaser Alqahtani, Zalikha Attar, Farida Abdali, Rebecca Wright<\/div>\n
Nurs Open. 2023 Jan; 10(1): 217\u2013229.<\/div>\n
Published online 2022 Jul 22. doi: 10.1002\/nop2.1297<\/div>\n
 <\/div>\n
https:\/\/www-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.lopes.idm.oclc.org\/pmc\/articles\/PMC9349684\/<\/div>\n
 <\/div>\n
Abstract<\/div>\n
 <\/div>\n
Aim<\/div>\n
The aim of the study was to examine the relationship between stress, psychological symptoms and job satisfaction among frontline nursing staff at a military hospital in Saudi Arabia during the COVID\u201019 pandemic.<\/div>\n
 <\/div>\n
Design<\/div>\n
Descriptive cross\u2010sectional study.<\/div>\n
 <\/div>\n
Methods<\/div>\n
Data were collected using an online survey. All Registered Nurses (N =\u20091,225) working at a military hospital between February to April 2021 were contacted, 625 responded (51%). Data were analysed using descriptive and multivariate analysis, Student’s t\u2010test for independent samples and one\u2010way analysis of variance followed by Tukey’s multiple comparison tests.<\/div>\n
 <\/div>\n
Results<\/div>\n
Stress was experienced more significantly than depression or anxiety. Approximately 29% of the change in scores for psychological symptoms was explained by age group, being a Saudi national and working in emergency departments (F [3,620] =\u200919.063, p\u2009<\u20090.0001). A 37% change in nursing stress scores was explained by nationality and work department. (F [5,618] =\u200919.754, p <\u20090.0001). A 29% change in job satisfaction scores was explained by nationality and work department (F [3,620] =\u200919.063, p <\u20090.0001).<\/div>\n
Article Analysis 2<\/div>\n
Article Citation<\/div>\n
and Permalink<\/div>\n
(APA format)<\/div>\n
 <\/div>\n
Article 1<\/div>\n
Article 2<\/div>\n
Point<\/div>\n
Description<\/div>\n
Description<\/div>\n
Broad Topic Area\/Title<\/div>\n
 <\/div>\n
 <\/div>\n
 <\/div>\n
Define Hypotheses<\/div>\n
 <\/div>\n
 <\/div>\n
 <\/div>\n
 <\/div>\n
Define Independent and Dependent Variables and Types of Data for Variables<\/div>\n
 <\/div>\n
 <\/div>\n
 <\/div>\n
 <\/div>\n
Population of Interest for the Study<\/div>\n
 <\/div>\n
 <\/div>\n
 <\/div>\n
 <\/div>\n
Sample<\/div>\n
 <\/div>\n
 <\/div>\n
 <\/div>\n
 <\/div>\n
Sampling Method<\/div>\n
 <\/div>\n
 <\/div>\n
 <\/div>\n
 <\/div>\n
How Were Data Collected?<\/div>\n
 <\/div>\n
 <\/div>\n
 <\/div>\n
 <\/div>\n
 <\/div>\n
 <\/div>\n
 <\/div>\n
EXAMPLE<\/div>\n
 <\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Article Analysis 2 Points 130 Rubric Assessment Traits Requires Lopeswrite Assessment Description Search the GCU Library and find two new health care articles that use quantitative research. Do not use articles from a previous assignment, or articles that appear in the topic Resources or textbook. Complete an article analysis for each using the “Article Analysis: […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":[],"disciplines":[190],"paper_types":[],"tagged":[],"aioseo_notices":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.goodacademic.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/questions\/15875"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.goodacademic.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/questions"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.goodacademic.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/questions"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.goodacademic.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.goodacademic.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=15875"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.goodacademic.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/questions\/15875\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.goodacademic.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=15875"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"disciplines","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.goodacademic.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/disciplines?post=15875"},{"taxonomy":"paper_types","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.goodacademic.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/paper_types?post=15875"},{"taxonomy":"tagged","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.goodacademic.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tagged?post=15875"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}