you will be required to write a report critically appraising one quantitative and qualitative research article no systematic reviews or meta analyses allowed – exclusivewritings.com

You will need to consider and critically discuss all items on the HLSC641 appraisal checklist, below:

  1. Do you agree with the rationale for conducting this study?
  2. Was the research design appropriate?
  3. Were participants recruited in an acceptable way?
  4. Was the exposure accurately measured?
  5. Was the outcome accurately measured?
  6. What were the results and do you believe them (e.g., did the analysis adjust for confounders)?
  7. Can the results be applied to the population?
  8. Any potential conflicts of interest?

Weight: 40%

Length: 2100 words ± 10% (including in-text references but excluding the end reference list)

Format: Report; 1.5 line spacing

Referencing style: APA 6/7

Assessment criteria:

Assessment criteria (LO: 3)

Standard achieved

High Distinction (HD)

Distinction (D)

Credit (CR)

Pass (PA)

Fail (NN)

Criterion 1

HLSC641 checklist

HLSC641 checklist used and all items addressed. No misunderstanding evident.

HLSC641 checklist used and most items addressed. No misunderstanding evident.

HLSC641 checklist used and most items addressed, but some misinterpretation evident.

HLSC641 checklist used and many items addressed, but some misinterpretation evident.

Unsatisfactory use of HLSC641 checklist or not used. Or criterion not attempted.

Marks

4.25-5

3.75-4

3.25-3.5

2.5-3

0-2

Criterion 2

Study aspects, other than data collection techniques

Excellent evidence-based discussion of the different aspects of the chosen study in direct relation to the HLSC641 checklist items (e.g., recruitment strategy), underpinned by the scientific peer-reviewed literature. All critiques include evidence-based discussion. Implications of study aspects sophistically discussed, including internal and external validity. Full understanding evident.

Very good evidence-based discussion of the different aspects of the chosen study in direct relation to the HLSC641 checklist items (e.g., recruitment strategy), underpinned by the scientific peer-reviewed literature. Most critiques include evidence-based discussion. Implications of study aspects discussed, including internal and external validity. Comprehensive understanding evident.

Adequate evidence-based explanation of the different aspects of the chosen study in direct relation to the HLSC641 checklist items (e.g., recruitment strategy), underpinned by the peer-reviewed scientific literature, but some key detail missing and/or lack of clarity in some assertions. Good understanding of study aspects evident but lacking in places.

Minimal evidence-based explanation and/or description of the different aspects of the chosen study and/or lacking direct relation to the HLSC641 checklist items (e.g., recruitment strategy), underpinned by the peer-reviewed scientific literature. Some key detail missing and/or lack of clarity in some assertions. Basic understanding of study aspects evident.

Unsatisfactory and/or non-evidence-based explanation/description of the different aspects of the chosen study and/or no relation to the HLSC641 checklist items (e.g., recruitment strategy). Key detail missing. Lack of understanding on most aspects of study aspects. Or criterion not attempted.

Marks

12.75-15

11.25-12.4

9.75-11

7.5-9.4

0-7

Criterion 3

Data collection techniques

Excellent evidence-based discussion in relation to other data collection techniques and associated biases. Validity and reliability are accurately and sophisticatedly-discussed using evidence and implications outlined. Full understanding evident.

Very good evidence-based discussion in relation to other data collection techniques and associated biases. Validity and reliability are accurately and thoroughly discussed using evidence. Comprehensive understanding evident.

Adequate evidence-based explanation in relation to other data collection techniques and validity and reliability and associated bias but lacks detail in places. Good understanding evident.

Partial evidence-based explanation/description in relation to other data collection techniques, validity and reliability, and/or biases. Key detail missing in argument/s and/or minor inaccuracies. Basic understanding evident.

Unsatisfactory and/or non-evidence-based explanation/description in relation to other data collection techniques and/or no mention of validity and reliability and/or too many incorrect assertions. Or criterion not attempted.

Marks

8.5-10

7.5-8

6.5-7

5-6

0-4

Criterion 4

Scientific writing, formatting, grammar, punctuation, and spelling

Very high quality of scientific writing, logical, clear and eloquent; and meets word limit and formatting requirements. There are no errors with grammar, spelling, punctuation, and meaning is easily discernible. The essay reads without interruption.

Very good quality of scientific writing, mostly clear, logical and well written throughout, although minor errors evident; and meets word limit and formatting requirements. There are minimal errors with grammar, spelling, punctuation, and meaning is easily discernible.

Good quality of writing, logical, albeit unscientific in places (e.g., emotive language); and meets word limit and formatting requirements. There are some errors with grammar, spelling, and punctuation, but meaning is easily discernible.

Low quality of writing, unscientific in places (e.g., emotive language), errors in spelling/sentence structure/organisation, but meaning is discernible. Within or close to word limit requirements. Formatting requirements not met.

Poor standard of writing with limited logic and constant errors in grammar, spelling, punctuation, and/or sentence/paragraph structure. Errors detract significantly, and/or the reader cannot understand, partially or fully, the meaning of what has been written. Word limit and/or formatting requirements have not been met.

Marks

4.25-5

3.75-4

3.25-3.5

2.5-3

0-2

Criterion 5

References and referencing

References used are credible, relevant, and of high quality. Mixed use of peer-reviewed scientific journal articles, high quality databases, and/or reports. APA 6 referencing is accurate in all instances. All statements of fact and ideas taken from elsewhere are referenced. Multiple sources of data used, mainly peer-reviewed scientific literature.

References used are credible, relevant, and of high quality. Mixed use of peer-reviewed scientific journal articles, high quality databases, and/or reports. APA 6 referencing is accurate on most occasions. Almost all statements of fact and ideas taken from elsewhere are referenced. Multiple sources of data used, mainly peer-reviewed scientific literature.

References used are mostly credible, relevant, and of good quality. Albeit reliant on one source of references: peer-reviewed scientific journal articles, high quality databases, or reports. APA 6 referencing is accurate on most occasions. Almost all statements of fact and ideas taken from elsewhere are referenced. Good range of references used.

Some references used are credible, relevant, and of good quality. Multiple errors in APA 6 referencing. Limited range of references used.

Multiple references used are not credible, relevant, and/or of good quality. Multiple errors in APA 6 referencing. Limited range of references used or no references at all.

Marks

4.25-5

3.75-4

3.25-3.5

2.5-3

0-2

Overall marks available: 40 marks (40% toward overall unit grade)

ORDER NOW