Assessment Brief | My Assignment Tutor

PUBH6005_Assessment Brief 3 Page 1 of 8 Supplementary Assessment BriefSubject Code and TitlePUBH6005: EpidemiologyAssessmentAssessment 3: Critical AppraisalIndividual/GroupIndividualLearning OutcomesThis assessment addresses the followinglearning outcomes:1. Understand the difference betweenassociation and causation, statisticaland public health significance2. Critically evaluate epidemiologicalstudies, including potential for bias,confounding and chance errorsSubmissionDue Sunday 31st May 11:55pmAEST/AEDT*Weighting40%Total Marks and word count100 marks ,Approximate word count : 1500 words *Please Note: This time is Sydney time (AEST or AEDT). Please convert to your own timezone(eg. Adelaide = 11:25pm).PUBH6005_Assessment Brief 3 Page 2 of 8Context:This assessment requires you to apply the knowledge and skills gained in all the modules to undertake a criticalappraisal. You will need to appraise 3 articles of a topic and research question given to you by your facilitator.Research question: Is there an association between tobacco and oral/ head cancers? You can choose anypopulation/country. You can also choose studies from different countries. For example case-control studyfrom Asia and/or cohort study from Europe.1. Search the library database to find three studies that answer your researchquestion. All three studies must be of different study designs. For instance, youcould include cross-sectional, case-control, cohort and RCTs. Systematicreviews and literature reviews are not allowed. These studies do not have toprove their hypothesis or agree with each other. Please note that marks will bededucted if all identified papers are of similar study.2. Critically appraise all three articles you found. Your answers are to be written inthe tables provided to you which was based on CASP checklist and other types ofchecklist (JBI checklist for cross-sectional study).3. In the table, you are required to answer either “Yes”, “No”, “Unclear”.4. For each of the answer of “Yes”, “No” or “Unclear”, you will need toprovide the “Evidence” that you found in the article to support youranswers.5. For each of the “Evidence”, you will need to critically appraise statingyour justification, compare and contrasting or/and providing solution.Please see table for an example of how “evidence” is written.References: The quality of references used is important. “high qualityReference” is defined as articles which are peer-reviewed and published in notableinternational and national journals. Articles such as newspaper, websites, social mediastatements, unsolicited articles and non-peer reviewed articles are not of “high qualityreference”. You shall Include all the sources you have used within your text and organizethem in alphabetical order according to APA 6th edition style. Please see example of thequality and the style of referencing.PUBH6005_Assessment Brief 3 Page 6 of 8Resources for this assignmentCritically appraising INDIVIDUAL articlesRychetnick, L., Frommer, M., Hawe, P., & Shiell, A. (2002). Criteria for evaluating evidence onpublic health. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 56, 119-127.Young, J.M., & Solomon, M.J. (2009). How to critically appraise an article. Nature ClinicalPractice Gastroenterology and Hepatology. 6, 82-91.CASP UK. Critical appraisal skills program checklists (2018). Retrieved from http://www.caspuk.net/#!casp-tools- checklists/c18f8Thinking about biasSkelly, A. C., Dettori J. R., & Brodt, E. K. (2012). Assessing bias: the importance of consideringconfounding. Evidence Based Spine Care Journal, 3(1), 9-12Note: Please refer to the Academic Writing Guide as available in the Academic Skills section on yourLearning Portal PUBH6005_Assessment Brief 4Page 7 of 8 PUBH6005 Assessment 3 Marking Rubric AssessmentAttributesUnacceptablePoorFunctionalProficientAdvancedExceptionalCritical Appraisal Checklist, 30 marksTable 1:Checklist is used toappraise the studywith supportingevidence and criticalappraisal.(30 marks)Fails to answer eachquestion and providesupporting evidence.Poor critical appraisal.0 1 2 3 4 5All questionsanswered but somesupporting evidence.Irrelevant criticalappraisal.6 7 8 9 10Answered allquestions andsupportingevidence arerelevant.Acceptable criticalappraisal.11 12 13 14 15Answered allquestions andsupportingevidence arerelevant withcritical appraisal.16 17 18 19 20Answered allquestions andsupporting evidenceare relevant with welldeveloped, someoriginal criticalappraisal.21 22 23 24 25Answered all questionsand broad-range, highquality supportingevidence with highlydeveloped, originalcritical appraisal.26 27 28 29 30Table 2:Checklist is used toappraise the studywith supportingevidence and criticalappraisal.(30 marks)Fails to answer eachquestion and providesupporting evidence.Poor critical appraisal.0 1 2 3 4 5All questionsanswered but somesupporting evidence.Irrelevant criticalappraisal.6 7 8 9 10Answered allquestions andsupportingevidence arerelevant.Acceptable criticalappraisal.11 12 13 14 15Answered allquestions andsupportingevidence arerelevant withcritical appraisal.16 17 18 19 20Answered allquestions andsupporting evidenceare relevant withhighly developed,some original criticalappraisal.21 22 23 24 25Answered all questionsand broad-range, highquality supportingevidence are relevantwith highly developed,original critical appraisal.26 27 28 29 30Table 3:Checklist is used toappraise the studywith supportingevidence and criticalappraisal.(30 marks)Fails to answer eachquestion and providesupporting evidence.Poor critical appraisal.0 1 2 3 4 5All questionsanswered but somesupporting evidence.Irrelevant criticalappraisal.6 7 8 9 10Answered allquestions andsupportingevidence arerelevant.Acceptable criticalappraisal.11 12 13 14 15Answered allquestions andsupportingevidence arerelevant withcritical appraisal.16 17 18 19 20Answered allquestions andsupporting evidenceare relevant withhighly developed,some original criticalappraisal.21 22 23 24 25Answered all questionsand broad-range, highquality supportingevidence are relevantwith highly developed,original critical appraisal.26 27 28 29 30References(10 marks)Lack of referencing.0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5Insufficientreferencing or/andgross mistakes inAPA 6th Edition styleMinimal referencingor/and somemistakes in APA 6thAdequatereferencing or/andminimal mistakes inNo mistakes in APA 6thEdition style and intext citation.7.5 8 8.5No mistakes in APA 6thEdition style and in-textcitation. PUBH6005_Assessment Brief 4 Page 8 of 8 and improper in-textcitation.3 3.5 4Edition style and intext citation.4.5 5 5.5APA 6th Edition styleand in-text citation.6 6.5 79 9.5 10

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

Leave a Reply

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