research methodologies | My Assignment Tutor

Weighting: 55% of final grade Couse objectives assessed: CO2, CO3, CO5, CO6 CO2: Describe the difference approaches to research methodologies CO3: Discuss the ethical principles that underpin research CO5: Apply a critical approach to reviewing the literature CO6: Analyse research findings relevant to a research question Component/CO assessedHigh Distinction 85% +Distinction 75-84%Credit 65-74%P1 55-64%P2 50-54%F1 40-49%F2 0-39%PART 1 1500-word equivalentQ1 to Q3 Wt: 20%Q 1a & bAs for P1.As for P1.As for P1.Correctly identified the research aim/question.The clarity (or lack of clarity) of the research question was justified, e.g. via the description of relevant PICO/PICo elements for the study.Identified the research question but minor elements of the question may be missing or misinterpreted.Some (but not all) elements of PIO/PICO identified from the research aim/question to form the basis of justificationMajor elements of the aim/question were missing or misinterpreted.Attempted to justify the clarity (or lack of clarity) of the research aim/question, but the PICO/PICo elements were mostly incorrectly extracted.Has not identified the research aim/research question (e.g. wrong aim/question, OR response missing)No or irrelevant attempt to justify the clarity (or the lack of clarity) of the research question, OR response missingQ 2Excellent argument of the relevance of research to practiceAs for D, plusArgument supported by a thorough analysis of the potential study findings, and comprehensive account of practice aspects, and big picture thinkingAdvanced argument of the relevance of research to practiceAs for C, plusSome evidence of in-depth thinking or big picture thinking, e.g. detailing how an intervention might benefit health consumers and/or health care systemsGood argument of the relevance of research to practiceAs for P1 e.g. a more complete listing of potential findings to the research question were proposed,ORe.g. more structured discussion on how each finding could inform practice, such as referencing appropriate practice standardsBasic argument regarding the relevance of research to practicee.g. some potential findings to the research question were proposed, and how they could inform some aspects of practice reported.Marginal argument regarding the relevance of research to practiceSomewhat incomplete argument regarding the relevance, for example, only referring to either the research question, or the practical aspectsPoor argument regarding the relevance of research to practiceArgument showed misinterpretation of Question 2 mostlyORArgument not plausible or relevant for the study, or not understandable in many placesVery poor to no argument regarding the relevance of research to practiceResponse was missing for Question 2;ORResponse not addressing the question 2Question 3Excellent understanding of ethical principles in researchAs D, plus, comprehensive listing and detailed explanation of possible ethical risks for the study.ANDThorough description and explanation of risk minimisation strategiesAdvanced understanding of ethical principles in researchAs C, plus Thorough identification of possible risks for the studyORThorough identification and explanations as to why each strategy minimised each ethical riskGood understanding of ethical principles in researchAs for P1 and e.g. able to identify most relevant risks for the given study.ORMost risk minimisation strategies were proposed, and they corresponded to the risksBasic understanding of ethical principles in researche.g. able to identify some relevant risks for the given study.Some risk minimisation strategies were proposed and relevant to the risksMore risks and risk minimisation strategies could have been extracted.Marginal understanding of ethical principles in researche.g. some proposed risks were related to ethics, others were not, e.g. methods issues mistaken as ethical issues.e.g. some risk minimisation strategies were relevant to ethics, others were not: e.g. rigor improvement strategy.Poor understanding of ethical principles in researche.g. reporting study methods issues in many places as if they were ethical risks/ the proposed risks not plausible for the study in many placesConfused ethical risk minimisation strategies with something else (e.g. bias reduction strategy) in many placesVery poor to no understanding of ethical principles in researchIncorrect identification of ethical risks throughoutIncorrect identification of risk minimisation strategies/no response throughoutNo response recorded for Q3Question 4 to Question 6 Wt: 25%Excellent understanding and/or skills in critiquing a research studyQualitative Methodology Participants Methods/Data collection Rigor Quantitative Study Design Sample Intervention Methods/Data collection validityAs for D, plusThe explanation on how certain research components related to study validity/rigor was exceptional and showed in-depth thinking on study methodsAdvanced understanding and/or skills in critiquing a research studyQualitative Methodology Participants Methods/Data collection Rigor Quantitative Study Design Sample Intervention Methods/Data collection validityAs for C, plusThe explanation on how certain research components relate to study validity/rigor showed some in-depth thinking. e.g.how an RCT was a superior design over other experimental study designsGood understanding and/or skills in critiquing a research studyQualitative Methodology Participants Methods/Data collection Rigor Quantitative Study Design Sample Intervention Methods/Data collection validityAll relevant research components were correctly extracted from the study.The explanation on how certain research components related to study validity/rigor was mostly succinct.Basic understanding and/or skills in critiquing a research studyQualitative Methodology Participants Methods/Data collection Rigor Quantitative Study Design Sample Intervention Methods/Data collection validityMost relevant research components were extracted from the study correctly.How certain research components related to the validity (or rigor) of the study was explained. The explanation was on track but lacked detail and was basic overall.Marginal understanding and/or skills in critiquing a research studyQualitative Methodology Participants Methods/Data collection Rigor Quantitative Study Design Sample Intervention Methods/Data collection validityThere was effort to extract relevant research components, however, the responses often needed to be read into.How certain research components related to study validity/rigor was explained, but the explanation was limited and incoherent at timesPoor understanding and/or skills in critiquing a research studyQualitative Methodology Participants Methods/Data collection Rigor Quantitative Study Design Sample Intervention Methods/Data collection validityFailed to extract relevant research components for the study in many places.The explanation on how research components related to study validity/rigor was mostly irrelevant. For example, misinterpretation of certain research components.Very poor to no understanding and/or skills in critiquing a research studyQualitative Methodology Participants Methods/Data collection Rigor Quantitative Study Design Sample Intervention Methods/Data collection validityFail to extract relevant research components almost all the time, e.g. extracting incorrect information, OR no response recorded to some questions in this sectionLittle insights to how certain research components relate to study validity/rigorQ7 to Q9 Wt: 20%Exceptional understanding and/or skills in critiquing a research studyFindings Limitations Applicability to clinical practiceAs for D, plus,Demonstrated original and critical thinking. i.e, deep insights to the relationship between internal and external validity of a studyEvidence of broad reading beyond course materials.Advanced understanding and/or skills in critiquing a research studyFindings Limitations Applicability to clinical practiceAs for C, plusSome evidence of critical thinking in explaining limitations, e.g. expanding or challenging authors report on study limitationsORCritical thinking in considering applicability of the study to practice, e.g .considering practice context in addition to study’s strengthsEvidence of reading beyond course materials.Good understanding and/or skills in critiquing a research studyFindings Limitations Applicability to clinical practiceAll relevant research components (e.g. main findings) were extracted.Explanation of study limitations was provided and showed good comprehension of authors’ report.OR Explanation of why the study should (or should not) be used to inform practice considered both the strengths and limitations of the studyBasic understanding and/or skills in critiquing a research studyFindings Limitations Applicability to clinical practiceMost relevant research components (e.g. main findings) were extracted.Explanation of study limitations was provided, and mostly based on the authors’ report.Explanation of why the study should (or should not) be used to inform practice was provided, and based on some selected aspects of the study methodsMarginal understanding and/or skills in critiquing a research studyFindings Limitations Applicability to clinical practiceThere was effort to extract relevant research components correctly, however, some research components needed to be read intoThe explanation of study limitation and/or applicability to practice was provided, but not effectively communicated or vague.Poor understanding and/or skills in critiquing a research studyFindings Limitations Applicability to clinical practiceMost research components were not correctly extracted (e.g. mistaking participant demographics as main findings)The explanation of study limitation and/or applicability to practice was provided, but the argument was mostly irrelevant, unclear or incorrectVery poor to no understanding and/or skills in critiquing a research studyFindings Limitations Applicability to clinical practiceFail to extract relevant research components almost all the time;The explanation of study limitation and/or applicability to practice was provided, but the argument were almost always irrelevant, unclear or incorrect.OR no response was recorded for some questions in this sectionPART 2 Reflection (1000 words) (30%)Excellent discussion of the relationship between knowledge, research and practiceA compelling argument on the relationship between knowledge, research and practice that involves effective comparing and contrasting throughout, e.g. how knowledge generated from personal experience might be different to that produced by research. How each influences practice.Advanced discussion of the relationship between knowledge, research, and practiceAs for C plusSome evidence of critical or in-depth thinking. e.g. including counterargument in presenting views on the relationship between knowledge, research, and practiceGood discussion of the relationship between knowledge, research, and practiceAs for P1, plusAnswers to questions detailed (e.g. detailing source of information), which were used to discuss the relationship between knowledge, research and practice.Basic discussion of the relationship between knowledge, research, and practiceMost reflection questions were answered using own experiences or citing relevant literature on immunisation safety. The answers might not be detailed, ORsome aspects of the questions omitted, but nonetheless, showed the ability to differentiate research, knowledge, and practice, and how one relates to the otherMarginal discussion of the relationship between knowledge, research, and practiceMost questions were attempted. Some responses had low relevance to the questions. The view on the relationship between knowledge, research, and practice was hard to gauge at times.Reading into was requiredPoor discussion of the relationship between knowledge, research, and practiceMost responses to the reflection questions were irrelevant, for example, either not discussing immunisation related matters / presenting personal opinions regarding immunisation safety in most places in Part IIVery poor to no discussion of the relationship between knowledge, research, and practiceMost or all reflection questions were not responded to.OR Most or all reflection questions were not addressed due to misinterpretation of the question.Overall writing and presentationWt: 5%As for P1As for P1As for P1Written with clarity. Correct sentence and paragraph structure, grammar, vocabulary, spelling, punctuation, use of 3rd person and use of inclusive language.Adhered to word limit (within ±10% of the stated word count) where actual word limit is stated.Correctuse of UniSA Harvard reference system.No evidence of plagiarism.Minor problemswith clarity and/or sentence and paragraph structure, grammar, vocabulary, spelling, punctuation, use of 3rd person, inclusive language.Adhered to word limit (within ±10% of the stated word count) where actual word limit is stated.Mostlycorrect use of UniSA Harvard reference system.No evidence of plagiarism.Clarity is lacking and/or there are problems with sentence and paragraph structure, grammar, vocabulary, spelling, punctuation, use of 3rd person, inclusive language.>10% variation to word limit (where actual word limit is stated).Poor adherence to UniSA Harvard reference system.No evidence of plagiarism.Poorly written responses and major problems with sentence and paragraph structure, grammar, vocabulary, spelling, punctuation, use of 3rd person, inclusive language.>20% variation to word limit (where actual word limit is stated).UniSA Harvard reference system not used/no referencing.Evidence of plagiarism – will be referred to Academic Integrity

QUALITY: 100% ORIGINAL PAPER – NO PLAGIARISM – CUSTOM PAPER

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *