Will share the instructions with the right person – a year ago
Immediate access to the full model answer, formatted citations, and rubric breakdown.
Have this question answered from scratch according to your specific instructions and deadline.
Order on TutorsGallery →Will share the instructions with the right person
– a year ago
use FinalExam help – a year ago
Immediate access to the full model answer, formatted citations, and rubric breakdown.
Have this question answered from scratch according to your specific instructions and deadline.
Order on TutorsGallery →use FinalExam help
– a year ago
[>Physiology homework help](https://www.sweetstudy.com/fields/biology-physiology) What is treatment integrity – a year ago
Immediate access to the full model answer, formatted citations, and rubric breakdown.
Have this question answered from scratch according to your specific instructions and deadline.
Order on TutorsGallery →[>Physiology homework help](https://www.sweetstudy.com/fields/biology-physiology)
What is treatment integrity
– a year ago
– a year ago **files (3)** – ## CASP-RCT-Checklist-PDF-Fillable.pdf – ## Instructions.RCTCriticalAppraisal.docx – RCTMindfulnessinSchizophrenia.pdf **## CASP-RCT-Checklist-PDF-Fillable.pdf** CASP Randomised Controlled Trial Standard Checklist: 11 questions to help you make sense of a randomised cont…
Immediate access to the full model answer, formatted citations, and rubric breakdown.
Have this question answered from scratch according to your specific instructions and deadline.
Order on TutorsGallery →– a year ago
**files (3)**
– ## CASP-RCT-Checklist-PDF-Fillable.pdf
– ## Instructions.RCTCriticalAppraisal.docx
– RCTMindfulnessinSchizophrenia.pdf
**## CASP-RCT-Checklist-PDF-Fillable.pdf**
CASP Randomised Controlled Trial Standard Checklist:
11 questions to help you make sense of a randomised controlled trial (RCT)
Main issues for consideration: Several aspects need to be considered when appraising a
randomised controlled trial:
Is the basic study design valid for a randomised
controlled trial? (Section A)
Was the study methodologically sound? (Section B)
What are the results? (Section C)
Will the results help locally? (Section D)
The 11 questions in the checklist are designed to help you think about these aspects
systematically.
How to use this appraisal tool: The first three questions (Section A) are screening questions
about the validity of the basic study design and can be answered quickly. If, in light of your
responses to Section A, you think the study design is valid, continue to Section B to assess
whether the study was methodologically sound and if it is worth continuing with the appraisal by
answering the remaining questions in Sections C and D.
Record ‘Yes’, ‘No’ or ‘Can’t tell’ in response to the questions. Prompts below all but one of the
questions highlight the issues it is important to consider. Record the reasons for your answers
in the space provided. As CASP checklists were designed to be used as educational/teaching
tools in a workshop setting, we do not recommend using a scoring system.
About CASP Checklists: The CASP RCT checklist was originally based on JAMA Users’ guides to the
medical literature 1994 (adapted from Guyatt GH, Sackett DL and Cook DJ), and piloted with
healthcare practitioners. This version has been updated taking into account the CONSORT 2010
guideline (http://www.consort-statement.org/consort-2010, accessed 16 September 2020).
Citation: CASP recommends using the Harvard style, i.e. Critical Appraisal Skills Programme
(2020). CASP (insert name of checklist i.e. Randomised Controlled Trial) Checklist. [online]
Available at: insert URL. Accessed: insert date accessed.
©CASP this work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution – Non-Commercial- Share
A like. To view a copy of this licence, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) part of OAP Ltd www.casp-uk.net
2
Study and citation: …………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Section A: Is the basic study design valid for a randomised controlled trial?
1. Did the study address a clearly focused
research question?
CONSIDER:
Was the study designed to assess the outcomes
of an intervention?
Is the research question ‘focused’ in terms of:
• Population studied
• Intervention given
• Comparator chosen
• Outcomes measured?
Yes No Can’t tell
o o
2. Was the assignment of participants to
interventions randomised?
CONSIDER:
• How was randomisation carried out? Was
the method appropriate?
• Was randomisation sufficient to eliminate
systematic bias?
• Was the allocation sequence concealed
from investigators and participants?
Yes No Can’t tell
o o o
3. Were all participants who entered the study
accounted for at its conclusion?
CONSIDER:
• Were losses to follow-up and exclusions
after randomisation accounted for?
• Were participants analysed in the study
groups to which they were randomised
(intention-to-treat analysis)?
• Was the study stopped early? If so, what
was the reason?
Yes No Can’t tell
o o o
Section B: Was the study methodologically sound?
4.
• Were the participants ‘blind’ to
intervention they were given?
• Were the investigators ‘blind’ to the
intervention they were giving to
participants?
• Were the people assessing/analysing
outcome/s ‘blinded’?
Yes No Can’t tell
o o o
o o
o o o
5. Were the study groups similar at the start of
the randomised controlled trial?
CONSIDER:
• Were the baseline characteristics of each
study group (e.g. age, sex, socio-economic
group) clearly set out?
• Were there any differences between the
study groups that could affect the
outcome/s?
Yes No Can’t tell
o o o
3
6. Apart from the experimental intervention, did
each study group receive the same level of
care (that is, were they treated equally)?
CONSIDER:
• Was there a clearly defined study protocol?
• If any additional interventions were given
(e.g. tests or treatments), were they similar
between the study groups?
• Were the follow-up intervals the same for
each study group?
Yes No Can’t tell
o o o
Section C: What are the results?
7. Were the effects of intervention reported
comprehensively?
CONSIDER:
•
• What outcomes were measured, and were
they clearly specified?
• How were the results expressed? For
binary outcomes, were relative and
absolute effects reported?
• Were the results reported for each
outcome in each study group at each
follow-up interval?
• Was there any missing or incomplete data?
• Was there differential drop-out between the
study groups that could affect the results?
• Were potential sources of bias identified?
• Which statistical tests were used?
• Were p values reported?
Yes No Can’t tell
o o o
8. Was the precision of the estimate of the
intervention or treatment effect reported?
CONSIDER:
• Were confidence intervals (CIs) reported?
Yes No Can’t tell
o o o
9. Do the benefits of the experimental
intervention outweigh the harms and costs?
CONSIDER:
• What was the size of the intervention or
treatment effect?
• Were harms or unintended effects
reported for each study group?
• Was a cost-effectiveness analysis
undertaken? (Cost-effectiveness analysis
allows a comparison to be made between
different interventions used in the care of
the same condition or problem.)
Yes No Can’t tell
o o o
Was a power calculation underta en?
4
Section D: Will the results help locally?
10. Can the results be applied to your local
population/in your context?
CONSIDER:
• Are the study participants similar to the
people in your care?
• Would any differences between your
population and the study participants alter
the outcomes reported in the study?
• Are the outcomes important to your
population?
• Are there any outcomes you would have
wanted information on that have not been
studied or reported?
• Are there any limitations of the study that
would affect your decision?
Yes No Can’t tell
o o o
11. Would the experimental intervention provide
greater value to the people in your care than
any of the existing interventions?
CONSIDER:
• What resources are needed to introduce
this intervention taking into account time,
finances, and skills development or training
needs?
• Are you able to disinvest resources in one
or more existing interventions in order to
be able to re-invest in the new
intervention?
Yes No Can’t tell
o o o
APPRAISAL SUMMARY: Record key points from your critical appraisal in this box. What is your
conclusion about the paper? Would you use it to change your practice or to recommend changes to
care/interventions used by your organisation? Could you judiciously implement this intervention
without delay?
**## Instructions.RCTCriticalAppraisal.docx**
Instructions: Module 4: Critical Appraisal of a Randomized Control Trial (RCT)
For this RCT critical appraisal assignment, you will complete an appraisal of the following article:
Respond to this prompt following rubric guidelines as posted:
· State your overall appraisal of this article (include/exclude/seek further info) and
**provide a rationale** of approximately 2-3 paragraphs, citing evidence from the article, as to why you think the article is appropriate to include or not in the making of a clinically-based decision. This will be your response to the final question on the CASP RCT Checklist.
· Complete the
[CASP RCT Checklist](https://frontiernursing.instructure.com/courses/4863/files/2831848?wrap=1) [Download CASP RCT Checklist](https://frontiernursing.instructure.com/courses/4863/files/2831848/download?download_frd=1) [Open this document with ReadSpeaker docReader](https://docreader.readspeaker.com/docreader/?cid=14495&lang=en_us&url=https%3A%2F%2Finst-fs-iad-prod.inscloudgate.net%2Ffiles%2F5318bdb7-33d3-48e2-8662-706119293d25%2FCASP-RCT-Checklist-PDF-%2520Fillable.pdf%3Ftoken%3DeyJ0eXAiOiJKV1QiLCJhbGciOiJIUzUxMiJ9.eyJpYXQiOjE3NDU4NzA5ODQsInVzZXJfaWQiOm51bGwsInJlc291cmNlIjoiL2ZpbGVzLzUzMThiZGI3LTMzZDMtNDhlMi04NjYyLTcwNjExOTI5M2QyNS9DQVNQLVJDVC1DaGVja2xpc3QtUERGLSUyMEZpbGxhYmxlLnBkZiIsImp0aSI6Ijg0ZjRjNWU3LTY3ODUtNDI1MS05OGE0LWE2ZTFiMzg3ZTBkMCIsImhvc3QiOm51bGwsImV4cCI6MTc0NTk1NzM4NH0.ztj_buEjwXwuMxA4dRAb4Acg6hEytXCbFagUj557iMqzEg7dCHKUq00oD7eWRQoX5_7iiVYXXc7B-5jFTbk0AA) critical appraisal tool and use this information to guide your final thoughts on the usefulness of this article. Be sure to provide examples and support for your responses. Please do not simply answer "yes" or "no". You will write your responses directly on the tool. If you do not have room to write a response, you may write it on a separate page–just identify which question it goes with. No additional papers are needed for this assignment.
**RCT Critical Appraisal Rubric (1)**
| | | |
| — | — | — |
| RCT Critical Appraisal Rubric (1) |
| **Criteria** | **Ratings** | **Pts** |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCASP RCT Checklist: Section A–Introduction and Basic Study Design | | | | |
| — | — | — |
| **4 pts**<br>**The student introduces the article, evaluates each component of the validity of the basic study design identified on the CASP Checklist, and provides a rationale for responses.** | **2 pts**<br>**Some of the components are missing from the report such as a response to the question or supporting rationale for the responses.** | **0 pts**<br>**More than half the information is missing or incomplete., The rationale is not appropriate to support the responses or is superficial in depth.** | | 4 pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCASP RCT Checklist: Section B–Study Methodology | | | | |
| — | — | — |
| **4 pts**<br>**The student responds to/evaluates each component of the validity of the study methodology identified on the CASP Cheklslist and provides a rationale for responses.** | **2 pts**<br>**Some of the components are missing from the report such as a response to the question or supporting rationale for the responses.** | **0 pts**<br>**More than half the information is missing or incomplete., The rationale is not appropriate to support the responses or is superficial in depth.** | | 4 pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCASP RCT Checklist: Section C–Results | | | | |
| — | — | — |
| **4 pts**<br>**The student responds to/evaluates each component of the clarity of the results section identified on the CASP Checklist and provides a rationale for responses.** | **2 pts**<br>**Some of the components are missing from the report such as a response to the question or supporting rationale for the responses.** | **0 pts**<br>**More than half the information is missing or incomplete., The rationale is not appropriate to support the responses or is superficial in depth.** | | 4 pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCASP RCT Checklist: Section D: Clinical Applicability of the Results | | | | |
| — | — | — |
| **4 pts**<br>**The student responds to/evaluates each component of the validity of the clinical applicability identified on the CASP Checklist and provides a rationale for responses.** | **2 pts**<br>**Partially Correct**<br>Only 1 follow-up question is included with the initial post; or questions are uploaded after the initial post is made. | **0 pts**<br>**More than half the information is missing or incomplete., The rationale is not appropriate to support the responses or is superficial in depth.** | | 4 pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCASP Appraisal Summary | | | | |
| — | — | — |
| **4 pts**<br>**The student composes a thoughtful and in-depth response summarizing the article and its applicability to clinical practice. The student writes with a professional tone at a graduate level / scholarly tone** | **2 pts**<br>**The student provides a response that is mainly supported by statements from the appraisal and shows some depth of response. The student writes with a professional tone at a graduate level / scholarly tone with few errors.** | **0 pts**<br>**The response shows no depth and does not adequately provide a summary of the needed information. There are numerous spelling, punctuation, case, or grammatical issues** | | 4 pts |
| Total Points: 20 |
**RCTMindfulnessinSchizophrenia.pdf**
This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/rctmindfulnessinschizophrenia-pdf-10277463)
**RCTMindfulnessinSchizophrenia.pdf**
This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/rctmindfulnessinschizophrenia-pdf-10277463)
**## CASP-RCT-Checklist-PDF-Fillable.pdf**
CASP Randomised Controlled Trial Standard Checklist:
11 questions to help you make sense of a randomised controlled trial (RCT)
Main issues for consideration: Several aspects need to be considered when appraising a
randomised controlled trial:
Is the basic study design valid for a randomised
controlled trial? (Section A)
Was the study methodologically sound? (Section B)
What are the results? (Section C)
Will the results help locally? (Section D)
The 11 questions in the checklist are designed to help you think about these aspects
systematically.
How to use this appraisal tool: The first three questions (Section A) are screening questions
about the validity of the basic study design and can be answered quickly. If, in light of your
responses to Section A, you think the study design is valid, continue to Section B to assess
whether the study was methodologically sound and if it is worth continuing with the appraisal by
answering the remaining questions in Sections C and D.
Record ‘Yes’, ‘No’ or ‘Can’t tell’ in response to the questions. Prompts below all but one of the
questions highlight the issues it is important to consider. Record the reasons for your answers
in the space provided. As CASP checklists were designed to be used as educational/teaching
tools in a workshop setting, we do not recommend using a scoring system.
About CASP Checklists: The CASP RCT checklist was originally based on JAMA Users’ guides to the
medical literature 1994 (adapted from Guyatt GH, Sackett DL and Cook DJ), and piloted with
healthcare practitioners. This version has been updated taking into account the CONSORT 2010
guideline (http://www.consort-statement.org/consort-2010, accessed 16 September 2020).
Citation: CASP recommends using the Harvard style, i.e. Critical Appraisal Skills Programme
(2020). CASP (insert name of checklist i.e. Randomised Controlled Trial) Checklist. [online]
Available at: insert URL. Accessed: insert date accessed.
©CASP this work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution – Non-Commercial- Share
A like. To view a copy of this licence, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) part of OAP Ltd www.casp-uk.net
2
Study and citation: …………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Section A: Is the basic study design valid for a randomised controlled trial?
1. Did the study address a clearly focused
research question?
CONSIDER:
Was the study designed to assess the outcomes
of an intervention?
Is the research question ‘focused’ in terms of:
• Population studied
• Intervention given
• Comparator chosen
• Outcomes measured?
Yes No Can’t tell
o o
2. Was the assignment of participants to
interventions randomised?
CONSIDER:
• How was randomisation carried out? Was
the method appropriate?
• Was randomisation sufficient to eliminate
systematic bias?
• Was the allocation sequence concealed
from investigators and participants?
Yes No Can’t tell
o o o
3. Were all participants who entered the study
accounted for at its conclusion?
CONSIDER:
• Were losses to follow-up and exclusions
after randomisation accounted for?
• Were participants analysed in the study
groups to which they were randomised
(intention-to-treat analysis)?
• Was the study stopped early? If so, what
was the reason?
Yes No Can’t tell
o o o
Section B: Was the study methodologically sound?
4.
• Were the participants ‘blind’ to
intervention they were given?
• Were the investigators ‘blind’ to the
intervention they were giving to
participants?
• Were the people assessing/analysing
outcome/s ‘blinded’?
Yes No Can’t tell
o o o
o o
o o o
5. Were the study groups similar at the start of
the randomised controlled trial?
CONSIDER:
• Were the baseline characteristics of each
study group (e.g. age, sex, socio-economic
group) clearly set out?
• Were there any differences between the
study groups that could affect the
outcome/s?
Yes No Can’t tell
o o o
3
6. Apart from the experimental intervention, did
each study group receive the same level of
care (that is, were they treated equally)?
CONSIDER:
• Was there a clearly defined study protocol?
• If any additional interventions were given
(e.g. tests or treatments), were they similar
between the study groups?
• Were the follow-up intervals the same for
each study group?
Yes No Can’t tell
o o o
Section C: What are the results?
7. Were the effects of intervention reported
comprehensively?
CONSIDER:
•
• What outcomes were measured, and were
they clearly specified?
• How were the results expressed? For
binary outcomes, were relative and
absolute effects reported?
• Were the results reported for each
outcome in each study group at each
follow-up interval?
• Was there any missing or incomplete data?
• Was there differential drop-out between the
study groups that could affect the results?
• Were potential sources of bias identified?
• Which statistical tests were used?
• Were p values reported?
Yes No Can’t tell
o o o
8. Was the precision of the estimate of the
intervention or treatment effect reported?
CONSIDER:
• Were confidence intervals (CIs) reported?
Yes No Can’t tell
o o o
9. Do the benefits of the experimental
intervention outweigh the harms and costs?
CONSIDER:
• What was the size of the intervention or
treatment effect?
• Were harms or unintended effects
reported for each study group?
• Was a cost-effectiveness analysis
undertaken? (Cost-effectiveness analysis
allows a comparison to be made between
different interventions used in the care of
the same condition or problem.)
Yes No Can’t tell
o o o
Was a power calculation underta en?
4
Section D: Will the results help locally?
10. Can the results be applied to your local
population/in your context?
CONSIDER:
• Are the study participants similar to the
people in your care?
• Would any differences between your
population and the study participants alter
the outcomes reported in the study?
• Are the outcomes important to your
population?
• Are there any outcomes you would have
wanted information on that have not been
studied or reported?
• Are there any limitations of the study that
would affect your decision?
Yes No Can’t tell
o o o
11. Would the experimental intervention provide
greater value to the people in your care than
any of the existing interventions?
CONSIDER:
• What resources are needed to introduce
this intervention taking into account time,
finances, and skills development or training
needs?
• Are you able to disinvest resources in one
or more existing interventions in order to
be able to re-invest in the new
intervention?
Yes No Can’t tell
o o o
APPRAISAL SUMMARY: Record key points from your critical appraisal in this box. What is your
conclusion about the paper? Would you use it to change your practice or to recommend changes to
care/interventions used by your organisation? Could you judiciously implement this intervention
without delay?
**## Instructions.RCTCriticalAppraisal.docx**
Instructions: Module 4: Critical Appraisal of a Randomized Control Trial (RCT)
For this RCT critical appraisal assignment, you will complete an appraisal of the following article:
Respond to this prompt following rubric guidelines as posted:
· State your overall appraisal of this article (include/exclude/seek further info) and
**provide a rationale** of approximately 2-3 paragraphs, citing evidence from the article, as to why you think the article is appropriate to include or not in the making of a clinically-based decision. This will be your response to the final question on the CASP RCT Checklist.
· Complete the
[CASP RCT Checklist](https://frontiernursing.instructure.com/courses/4863/files/2831848?wrap=1) [Download CASP RCT Checklist](https://frontiernursing.instructure.com/courses/4863/files/2831848/download?download_frd=1) [Open this document with ReadSpeaker docReader](https://docreader.readspeaker.com/docreader/?cid=14495&lang=en_us&url=https%3A%2F%2Finst-fs-iad-prod.inscloudgate.net%2Ffiles%2F5318bdb7-33d3-48e2-8662-706119293d25%2FCASP-RCT-Checklist-PDF-%2520Fillable.pdf%3Ftoken%3DeyJ0eXAiOiJKV1QiLCJhbGciOiJIUzUxMiJ9.eyJpYXQiOjE3NDU4NzA5ODQsInVzZXJfaWQiOm51bGwsInJlc291cmNlIjoiL2ZpbGVzLzUzMThiZGI3LTMzZDMtNDhlMi04NjYyLTcwNjExOTI5M2QyNS9DQVNQLVJDVC1DaGVja2xpc3QtUERGLSUyMEZpbGxhYmxlLnBkZiIsImp0aSI6Ijg0ZjRjNWU3LTY3ODUtNDI1MS05OGE0LWE2ZTFiMzg3ZTBkMCIsImhvc3QiOm51bGwsImV4cCI6MTc0NTk1NzM4NH0.ztj_buEjwXwuMxA4dRAb4Acg6hEytXCbFagUj557iMqzEg7dCHKUq00oD7eWRQoX5_7iiVYXXc7B-5jFTbk0AA) critical appraisal tool and use this information to guide your final thoughts on the usefulness of this article. Be sure to provide examples and support for your responses. Please do not simply answer "yes" or "no". You will write your responses directly on the tool. If you do not have room to write a response, you may write it on a separate page–just identify which question it goes with. No additional papers are needed for this assignment.
**RCT Critical Appraisal Rubric (1)**
| | | |
| — | — | — |
| RCT Critical Appraisal Rubric (1) |
| **Criteria** | **Ratings** | **Pts** |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCASP RCT Checklist: Section A–Introduction and Basic Study Design | | | | |
| — | — | — |
| **4 pts**<br>**The student introduces the article, evaluates each component of the validity of the basic study design identified on the CASP Checklist, and provides a rationale for responses.** | **2 pts**<br>**Some of the components are missing from the report such as a response to the question or supporting rationale for the responses.** | **0 pts**<br>**More than half the information is missing or incomplete., The rationale is not appropriate to support the responses or is superficial in depth.** | | 4 pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCASP RCT Checklist: Section B–Study Methodology | | | | |
| — | — | — |
| **4 pts**<br>**The student responds to/evaluates each component of the validity of the study methodology identified on the CASP Cheklslist and provides a rationale for responses.** | **2 pts**<br>**Some of the components are missing from the report such as a response to the question or supporting rationale for the responses.** | **0 pts**<br>**More than half the information is missing or incomplete., The rationale is not appropriate to support the responses or is superficial in depth.** | | 4 pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCASP RCT Checklist: Section C–Results | | | | |
| — | — | — |
| **4 pts**<br>**The student responds to/evaluates each component of the clarity of the results section identified on the CASP Checklist and provides a rationale for responses.** | **2 pts**<br>**Some of the components are missing from the report such as a response to the question or supporting rationale for the responses.** | **0 pts**<br>**More than half the information is missing or incomplete., The rationale is not appropriate to support the responses or is superficial in depth.** | | 4 pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCASP RCT Checklist: Section D: Clinical Applicability of the Results | | | | |
| — | — | — |
| **4 pts**<br>**The student responds to/evaluates each component of the validity of the clinical applicability identified on the CASP Checklist and provides a rationale for responses.** | **2 pts**<br>**Partially Correct**<br>Only 1 follow-up question is included with the initial post; or questions are uploaded after the initial post is made. | **0 pts**<br>**More than half the information is missing or incomplete., The rationale is not appropriate to support the responses or is superficial in depth.** | | 4 pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCASP Appraisal Summary | | | | |
| — | — | — |
| **4 pts**<br>**The student composes a thoughtful and in-depth response summarizing the article and its applicability to clinical practice. The student writes with a professional tone at a graduate level / scholarly tone** | **2 pts**<br>**The student provides a response that is mainly supported by statements from the appraisal and shows some depth of response. The student writes with a professional tone at a graduate level / scholarly tone with few errors.** | **0 pts**<br>**The response shows no depth and does not adequately provide a summary of the needed information. There are numerous spelling, punctuation, case, or grammatical issues** | | 4 pts |
| Total Points: 20 |
**RCTMindfulnessinSchizophrenia.pdf**
This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/rctmindfulnessinschizophrenia-pdf-10277463)
**## CASP-RCT-Checklist-PDF-Fillable.pdf**
CASP Randomised Controlled Trial Standard Checklist:
11 questions to help you make sense of a randomised controlled trial (RCT)
Main issues for consideration: Several aspects need to be considered when appraising a
randomised controlled trial:
Is the basic study design valid for a randomised
controlled trial? (Section A)
Was the study methodologically sound? (Section B)
What are the results? (Section C)
Will the results help locally? (Section D)
The 11 questions in the checklist are designed to help you think about these aspects
systematically.
How to use this appraisal tool: The first three questions (Section A) are screening questions
about the validity of the basic study design and can be answered quickly. If, in light of your
responses to Section A, you think the study design is valid, continue to Section B to assess
whether the study was methodologically sound and if it is worth continuing with the appraisal by
answering the remaining questions in Sections C and D.
Record ‘Yes’, ‘No’ or ‘Can’t tell’ in response to the questions. Prompts below all but one of the
questions highlight the issues it is important to consider. Record the reasons for your answers
in the space provided. As CASP checklists were designed to be used as educational/teaching
tools in a workshop setting, we do not recommend using a scoring system.
About CASP Checklists: The CASP RCT checklist was originally based on JAMA Users’ guides to the
medical literature 1994 (adapted from Guyatt GH, Sackett DL and Cook DJ), and piloted with
healthcare practitioners. This version has been updated taking into account the CONSORT 2010
guideline (http://www.consort-statement.org/consort-2010, accessed 16 September 2020).
Citation: CASP recommends using the Harvard style, i.e. Critical Appraisal Skills Programme
(2020). CASP (insert name of checklist i.e. Randomised Controlled Trial) Checklist. [online]
Available at: insert URL. Accessed: insert date accessed.
©CASP this work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution – Non-Commercial- Share
A like. To view a copy of this licence, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) part of OAP Ltd www.casp-uk.net
2
Study and citation: …………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Section A: Is the basic study design valid for a randomised controlled trial?
1. Did the study address a clearly focused
research question?
CONSIDER:
Was the study designed to assess the outcomes
of an intervention?
Is the research question ‘focused’ in terms of:
• Population studied
• Intervention given
• Comparator chosen
• Outcomes measured?
Yes No Can’t tell
o o
2. Was the assignment of participants to
interventions randomised?
CONSIDER:
• How was randomisation carried out? Was
the method appropriate?
• Was randomisation sufficient to eliminate
systematic bias?
• Was the allocation sequence concealed
from investigators and participants?
Yes No Can’t tell
o o o
3. Were all participants who entered the study
accounted for at its conclusion?
CONSIDER:
• Were losses to follow-up and exclusions
after randomisation accounted for?
• Were participants analysed in the study
groups to which they were randomised
(intention-to-treat analysis)?
• Was the study stopped early? If so, what
was the reason?
Yes No Can’t tell
o o o
Section B: Was the study methodologically sound?
4.
• Were the participants ‘blind’ to
intervention they were given?
• Were the investigators ‘blind’ to the
intervention they were giving to
participants?
• Were the people assessing/analysing
outcome/s ‘blinded’?
Yes No Can’t tell
o o o
o o
o o o
5. Were the study groups similar at the start of
the randomised controlled trial?
CONSIDER:
• Were the baseline characteristics of each
study group (e.g. age, sex, socio-economic
group) clearly set out?
• Were there any differences between the
study groups that could affect the
outcome/s?
Yes No Can’t tell
o o o
3
6. Apart from the experimental intervention, did
each study group receive the same level of
care (that is, were they treated equally)?
CONSIDER:
• Was there a clearly defined study protocol?
• If any additional interventions were given
(e.g. tests or treatments), were they similar
between the study groups?
• Were the follow-up intervals the same for
each study group?
Yes No Can’t tell
o o o
Section C: What are the results?
7. Were the effects of intervention reported
comprehensively?
CONSIDER:
•
• What outcomes were measured, and were
they clearly specified?
• How were the results expressed? For
binary outcomes, were relative and
absolute effects reported?
• Were the results reported for each
outcome in each study group at each
follow-up interval?
• Was there any missing or incomplete data?
• Was there differential drop-out between the
study groups that could affect the results?
• Were potential sources of bias identified?
• Which statistical tests were used?
• Were p values reported?
Yes No Can’t tell
o o o
8. Was the precision of the estimate of the
intervention or treatment effect reported?
CONSIDER:
• Were confidence intervals (CIs) reported?
Yes No Can’t tell
o o o
9. Do the benefits of the experimental
intervention outweigh the harms and costs?
CONSIDER:
• What was the size of the intervention or
treatment effect?
• Were harms or unintended effects
reported for each study group?
• Was a cost-effectiveness analysis
undertaken? (Cost-effectiveness analysis
allows a comparison to be made between
different interventions used in the care of
the same condition or problem.)
Yes No Can’t tell
o o o
Was a power calculation underta en?
4
Section D: Will the results help locally?
10. Can the results be applied to your local
population/in your context?
CONSIDER:
• Are the study participants similar to the
people in your care?
• Would any differences between your
population and the study participants alter
the outcomes reported in the study?
• Are the outcomes important to your
population?
• Are there any outcomes you would have
wanted information on that have not been
studied or reported?
• Are there any limitations of the study that
would affect your decision?
Yes No Can’t tell
o o o
11. Would the experimental intervention provide
greater value to the people in your care than
any of the existing interventions?
CONSIDER:
• What resources are needed to introduce
this intervention taking into account time,
finances, and skills development or training
needs?
• Are you able to disinvest resources in one
or more existing interventions in order to
be able to re-invest in the new
intervention?
Yes No Can’t tell
o o o
APPRAISAL SUMMARY: Record key points from your critical appraisal in this box. What is your
conclusion about the paper? Would you use it to change your practice or to recommend changes to
care/interventions used by your organisation? Could you judiciously implement this intervention
without delay?
**## Instructions.RCTCriticalAppraisal.docx**
Instructions: Module 4: Critical Appraisal of a Randomized Control Trial (RCT)
For this RCT critical appraisal assignment, you will complete an appraisal of the following article:
Respond to this prompt following rubric guidelines as posted:
· State your overall appraisal of this article (include/exclude/seek further info) and
**provide a rationale** of approximately 2-3 paragraphs, citing evidence from the article, as to why you think the article is appropriate to include or not in the making of a clinically-based decision. This will be your response to the final question on the CASP RCT Checklist.
· Complete the
[CASP RCT Checklist](https://frontiernursing.instructure.com/courses/4863/files/2831848?wrap=1) [Download CASP RCT Checklist](https://frontiernursing.instructure.com/courses/4863/files/2831848/download?download_frd=1) [Open this document with ReadSpeaker docReader](https://docreader.readspeaker.com/docreader/?cid=14495&lang=en_us&url=https%3A%2F%2Finst-fs-iad-prod.inscloudgate.net%2Ffiles%2F5318bdb7-33d3-48e2-8662-706119293d25%2FCASP-RCT-Checklist-PDF-%2520Fillable.pdf%3Ftoken%3DeyJ0eXAiOiJKV1QiLCJhbGciOiJIUzUxMiJ9.eyJpYXQiOjE3NDU4NzA5ODQsInVzZXJfaWQiOm51bGwsInJlc291cmNlIjoiL2ZpbGVzLzUzMThiZGI3LTMzZDMtNDhlMi04NjYyLTcwNjExOTI5M2QyNS9DQVNQLVJDVC1DaGVja2xpc3QtUERGLSUyMEZpbGxhYmxlLnBkZiIsImp0aSI6Ijg0ZjRjNWU3LTY3ODUtNDI1MS05OGE0LWE2ZTFiMzg3ZTBkMCIsImhvc3QiOm51bGwsImV4cCI6MTc0NTk1NzM4NH0.ztj_buEjwXwuMxA4dRAb4Acg6hEytXCbFagUj557iMqzEg7dCHKUq00oD7eWRQoX5_7iiVYXXc7B-5jFTbk0AA) critical appraisal tool and use this information to guide your final thoughts on the usefulness of this article. Be sure to provide examples and support for your responses. Please do not simply answer "yes" or "no". You will write your responses directly on the tool. If you do not have room to write a response, you may write it on a separate page–just identify which question it goes with. No additional papers are needed for this assignment.
**RCT Critical Appraisal Rubric (1)**
| | | |
| — | — | — |
| RCT Critical Appraisal Rubric (1) |
| **Criteria** | **Ratings** | **Pts** |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCASP RCT Checklist: Section A–Introduction and Basic Study Design | | | | |
| — | — | — |
| **4 pts**<br>**The student introduces the article, evaluates each component of the validity of the basic study design identified on the CASP Checklist, and provides a rationale for responses.** | **2 pts**<br>**Some of the components are missing from the report such as a response to the question or supporting rationale for the responses.** | **0 pts**<br>**More than half the information is missing or incomplete., The rationale is not appropriate to support the responses or is superficial in depth.** | | 4 pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCASP RCT Checklist: Section B–Study Methodology | | | | |
| — | — | — |
| **4 pts**<br>**The student responds to/evaluates each component of the validity of the study methodology identified on the CASP Cheklslist and provides a rationale for responses.** | **2 pts**<br>**Some of the components are missing from the report such as a response to the question or supporting rationale for the responses.** | **0 pts**<br>**More than half the information is missing or incomplete., The rationale is not appropriate to support the responses or is superficial in depth.** | | 4 pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCASP RCT Checklist: Section C–Results | | | | |
| — | — | — |
| **4 pts**<br>**The student responds to/evaluates each component of the clarity of the results section identified on the CASP Checklist and provides a rationale for responses.** | **2 pts**<br>**Some of the components are missing from the report such as a response to the question or supporting rationale for the responses.** | **0 pts**<br>**More than half the information is missing or incomplete., The rationale is not appropriate to support the responses or is superficial in depth.** | | 4 pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCASP RCT Checklist: Section D: Clinical Applicability of the Results | | | | |
| — | — | — |
| **4 pts**<br>**The student responds to/evaluates each component of the validity of the clinical applicability identified on the CASP Checklist and provides a rationale for responses.** | **2 pts**<br>**Partially Correct**<br>Only 1 follow-up question is included with the initial post; or questions are uploaded after the initial post is made. | **0 pts**<br>**More than half the information is missing or incomplete., The rationale is not appropriate to support the responses or is superficial in depth.** | | 4 pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCASP Appraisal Summary | | | | |
| — | — | — |
| **4 pts**<br>**The student composes a thoughtful and in-depth response summarizing the article and its applicability to clinical practice. The student writes with a professional tone at a graduate level / scholarly tone** | **2 pts**<br>**The student provides a response that is mainly supported by statements from the appraisal and shows some depth of response. The student writes with a professional tone at a graduate level / scholarly tone with few errors.** | **0 pts**<br>**The response shows no depth and does not adequately provide a summary of the needed information. There are numerous spelling, punctuation, case, or grammatical issues** | | 4 pts |
| Total Points: 20 |
**RCTMindfulnessinSchizophrenia.pdf**
This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/rctmindfulnessinschizophrenia-pdf-10277463)
In-depth study guidance and analytical solution covering Last one.
Immediate access to the full model answer, formatted citations, and rubric breakdown.
Have this question answered from scratch according to your specific instructions and deadline.
Order on TutorsGallery →Full assignment prompt and step-by-step guidance are included in the downloadable solution file.
– a year ago **files (1)** – ## SLE_II.docx **## SLE_II.docx** SLE-II Unit VI Project **Assignment Instructions** This project measures your mastery of ULO 2.7. As you learned in Unit VI, one of a P-12 school administrator’s most important responsibilities is to hire teachers and staff. Everything…
Immediate access to the full model answer, formatted citations, and rubric breakdown.
Have this question answered from scratch according to your specific instructions and deadline.
Order on TutorsGallery →– a year ago
**files (1)**
– ## SLE_II.docx
**## SLE_II.docx**
SLE-II
Unit VI Project
**Assignment Instructions**
This project measures your mastery of ULO 2.7.
As you learned in Unit VI, one of a P-12 school administrator’s most important responsibilities is to hire teachers and staff. Everything from creating job descriptions to effectively executing a selection process may fall under their purview. They must also be aware of legal constraints involved in employment practices since they are actively involved in recruiting, interviewing, and recommending teachers and support staff for employment (Hachiya, 2022).
**Assignment objective:** For this assignment, you will use artificial intelligence (AI) to create a guide superintendents or principals could use to prepare themselves to hire new teachers and staff.
**Instructions:**
1. Select an online AI tool. Some options include ChatGPT, Microsoft Copilot, and Google Gemini.
2. Input your instructions/parameters into the prompt or description area of the tool. It is okay if you need to try more than once to get the output you want but use only two or three attempts. The goal is to reflect on what you could do differently in the future when you respond to the analysis questions in number 4 below.
3. Save the AI-created guide. Feel free to be creative and make it professional and attractive.
4. Finally, write an analysis of the guide on a separate page in the guide. Your analysis should be at least one page in length and include the following:
· How many attempts were required to create a guide you are happy with?
· What mistakes did you make in your initial prompt? For example, did you leave out pertinent information or were you not specific enough?
· Is there anything you would add that the AI tool left out?
· Did it include unnecessary information?
· Did it include any incorrect information?
· Did you find the specific tool you used helpful? Why, or why not?
Your completed assignment must be at least four pages in length. Combine both parts of the assignment into one Word document and upload it to Blackboard. References are not required for this assignment, but if any are used, you should cite and reference them in APA Style.
Unit VII Research Paper
**Assignment Instructions**
This assignment measures your mastery of ULOs 1.2, 1.4, 2.1, 2.3, 2.5, 2.6, 2.7, 2.8, 4.1, 4.2, and 4.3.
For the Unit VII assignment, you will revise sections of your Unit III Research Report and your Unit IV Literature Review. You will then add the discussion, implications, recommendations, and conclusion sections to the paper in addition to an abstract page.
To complete this research paper, you will evaluate current literature on local level P-12 policies and procedures. As you examine scholarly articles in the CSU Online Library, locate research that addresses the following:
· P-12 policies and procedures
· The rights of students in a P-12 school environment
· Issues in a P-12 school environment
· Issues in P-12 policies and procedures
· Administrators’ and teachers’ roles in student discipline
· Program effectiveness in a P-12 school environment
· Discrepancies in P-12 policies and procedures that are associated with teachers’ rights
· Laws associated with teachers’ rights in a P-12 school environment
To complete your final research paper, you will
· revise previously submitted content based on professor feedback;
· summarize your main research findings;
· describe, explain, analyze, and interpret research findings; and
· integrate content from your research report and literature review to create the culminating research paper.
The following sections should be addressed in your paper.
_The sections indicated with (*) indicate previous sections that have already been written for previous assignments; they are included here so that you will not miss any section that might need to be included in this assignment. Also, any recommendations or feedback received from your instructor should be reflected in your final paper._
***Introduction**: Describe your proposal and provide necessary context. Include historical context and a tentative thesis statement. What disagreements exist? What is the relevance of this topic?
***Background**: This section should describe your particular setting and problem, your school, its policies and procedures, guidelines from your state, and/or any other structures in place within which you must work. Also, describe how your potential solution to the issue will be based on the reliability and validity of the data.
***Rationale/Purpose Statement**: Include a theoretical framework. Establish the significance of your research. How and why is your research relevant to its field? Does it fill a gap in the existing body of research? Does it underscore or emphasize existing research? Will it add new, original knowledge to the existing understanding of your subject?
***Research Questions**: This should be one overall question with five guiding questions. The research questions should be presented in a bulleted format.
***Research Plan**: Discuss the methods and sources you will use to conduct your research, including specific references to websites, databases, key texts, or authors that you feel are indispensable to your project. You will cite specific sources in your research plan. Keep in mind that your source material should come from the CSU Online Library databases and course materials. In this section, you should also discuss how you will judge the reliability and validity of the instruments of measurement and data you will review. Include a brief projected timeline and budget for implementation.
***Potential Bias**: Establish your ethos as a researcher here. Disclose your relationship to the project, persons involved, and so on. Where might your perspective be unconsciously skewed?
***Introduction**: Provide a brief overview of the topic and specific issue. Identify your specific area of focus. Briefly describe your methodology and rationale. Provide an appropriate context for reviewing the literature.
What method(s) did you use to determine which resources to include and which to exclude? How is your review organized?
Briefly discuss the overall trends in the published scholarship in this area. What has been said or done on this topic? What is the problem with what has been said and done? What will you offer to solve the problem? How does your solution address social change?
Establish your reason for writing the literature review. Include your working thesis from your research report, and identify the key topics or texts that will appear in the body of your literature review.
***Body**: In this section, you will summarize and synthesize. Provide an overview of the main points from each resource and combine them into a coherent whole.
Analyze and interpret; do not just paraphrase other researchers. Add your own interpretations where possible, discussing the significance of findings in relation to the literature.
Critically evaluate; mention the strengths and weaknesses of your sources.
Write in well-structured paragraphs, using transition words and topic sentences to draw connections, comparisons, and contrasts.
Find the best organizational method for your review. Summarize resources by providing the most relevant information.
Respectfully and objectively critique and evaluate the studies. Use direct quotations sparingly and only if appropriate.
***Conclusion**: Address the following in your conclusion:
· Provide closure for the reader while reminding the reader of the contents and importance of the paper.
· View the bigger picture of the document and its connection to your research report and the proposed research project.
· Remind the reader of the main argument.
· Summarize the major findings of the resources that you reviewed, remembering to keep the focus on your topic.
· Evaluate the current state of scholarship in this area (examples include flaws or gaps in the research, inconsistencies in findings).
· Identify any areas for further research.
· Conclude by making a connection between your topic and a larger area of study, such as discipline.
**Discussion**
· Summarize your key findings. What should readers take away from this paper?
· Review your findings and put them into the context of your overall research. Go back to your literature review, and analyze how your results fit with previous research.
· Describe, analyze, interpret, and explain your findings.
· Explain the significance of your results, and tie everything back to your research questions.
· Acknowledge the limits and/or weaknesses of your research, and identify gaps for future research. Show that you have thought critically about what your research does and does not cover.
· Mention and discuss any unexpected results. Provide a reasonable interpretation of why they may have appeared.
**Implications**
· What impact does your research make on your specific field? High-quality implications will broaden the scope here and provide implications to other fields, creating cross-disciplinary research.
· How and why is your research important to the world? Tell your peers why your research is important for ongoing theory, practice, policymaking, and future research. This must be evidence-based and derived from the results of your paper.
· Be careful not to overstate the impact of your results. Implications should be straightforward, realistic, and plausible.
**Recommendations**
· What are some specific actions that can be taken based on your findings?
· What are some suggestions to improve your field based on your results?
· What can be changed in the future based on your results? This is a call to action on ways certain things in the field can be improved. Convey that something different should be done based on what your analyses revealed.
· Your recommendations should be evidence-based, drawn directly from your results.
· The goal is to make clear, specific, and realistic suggestions to future researchers before they conduct a similar experiment.
**Conclusion**
· Help your readers to understand why your research should matter to them after they have finished reading the paper.
· The conclusion is not merely a summary of the main topics covered or a restatement of your research problem; it should be a synthesis of key points, and if applicable, where you recommend new areas for future research.
· One to two well-developed paragraphs are sufficient. What should happen now?
· Finish strong; leave readers with an understanding of your work’s importance. Avoid generic phrases; be specific.
Your completed research paper should be 8 pages in length, not counting the title page, abstract page, and references page.
Your resources should include your textbook and at least 10 scholarly references.
Unit VIII PowerPoint Presentation
**Assignment Instructions**
This assignment measures your mastery of ULOs 1.4, 2.5, 2.6, 3.1, 4.3, and 4.4.
The purpose for this presentation is to enable you to present your findings in a different format that allows you to focus on the key points from your research paper.
To complete this research PowerPoint presentation, you will summarize your research paper from Unit VII as well as other themes learned in this course by using the following criteria:
· Validate the importance of your research.
· Outline your findings and the analysis of those findings.
· Prompt others from the local academic community to ask questions or provide valuable feedback to further and/or strengthen your research. This is an opportunity for you to include the research questions you proposed in your Unit III Research Paper-you can propose thought-provoking concepts, questions, and ideas in order to generate in-depth thinking and perspectives.
· List several important ethical rules of conduct for measurement.
· Explain and evaluate at least three assessment items and instruments for reliability and credibility concerns, and modify them to make them more reliable and credible if needed.
· Explain why multiple evaluation tools are usually used in educational law assessment.
· Explain the purpose and approach of P-12 school evaluation assessments as they pertain to legal and ethical behavior.
· Discuss future research on the topic. What other goals do you have for this research? How could you build on what you have started here?
As you examine scholarly articles you found for earlier assignments in the CSU Online Library, use the existing work you conducted in the course and formulate concepts and ideas based on your findings. Locate research that addresses the following:
· Local P-12 policies and procedures
· The rights of students in a P-12 school environment
· Issues in a P-12 school environment ·Issues in P-12 policies and procedures
· Administrators’ and teachers’ roles in student discipline
· Program effectiveness in a local level P-12 school environment
· Discrepancies in P-12 policies and procedures associated with teachers’ rights
· Laws associated with teachers’ rights in a P-12 school environment
Your completed presentation must be at least 10 slides in length, not counting the title and reference slides. You must use the speaker notes in PowerPoint to further explain the information on each slide. Be thoughtful in the design of your presentation, and use relevant and appropriate graphics and background.
You must use at least four scholarly sources in your presentation. All references must be cited in APA Style, but APA formatting is otherwise not required.
**## SLE_II.docx**
SLE-II
Unit VI Project
**Assignment Instructions**
This project measures your mastery of ULO 2.7.
As you learned in Unit VI, one of a P-12 school administrator’s most important responsibilities is to hire teachers and staff. Everything from creating job descriptions to effectively executing a selection process may fall under their purview. They must also be aware of legal constraints involved in employment practices since they are actively involved in recruiting, interviewing, and recommending teachers and support staff for employment (Hachiya, 2022).
**Assignment objective:** For this assignment, you will use artificial intelligence (AI) to create a guide superintendents or principals could use to prepare themselves to hire new teachers and staff.
**Instructions:**
1. Select an online AI tool. Some options include ChatGPT, Microsoft Copilot, and Google Gemini.
2. Input your instructions/parameters into the prompt or description area of the tool. It is okay if you need to try more than once to get the output you want but use only two or three attempts. The goal is to reflect on what you could do differently in the future when you respond to the analysis questions in number 4 below.
3. Save the AI-created guide. Feel free to be creative and make it professional and attractive.
4. Finally, write an analysis of the guide on a separate page in the guide. Your analysis should be at least one page in length and include the following:
· How many attempts were required to create a guide you are happy with?
· What mistakes did you make in your initial prompt? For example, did you leave out pertinent information or were you not specific enough?
· Is there anything you would add that the AI tool left out?
· Did it include unnecessary information?
· Did it include any incorrect information?
· Did you find the specific tool you used helpful? Why, or why not?
Your completed assignment must be at least four pages in length. Combine both parts of the assignment into one Word document and upload it to Blackboard. References are not required for this assignment, but if any are used, you should cite and reference them in APA Style.
Unit VII Research Paper
**Assignment Instructions**
This assignment measures your mastery of ULOs 1.2, 1.4, 2.1, 2.3, 2.5, 2.6, 2.7, 2.8, 4.1, 4.2, and 4.3.
For the Unit VII assignment, you will revise sections of your Unit III Research Report and your Unit IV Literature Review. You will then add the discussion, implications, recommendations, and conclusion sections to the paper in addition to an abstract page.
To complete this research paper, you will evaluate current literature on local level P-12 policies and procedures. As you examine scholarly articles in the CSU Online Library, locate research that addresses the following:
· P-12 policies and procedures
· The rights of students in a P-12 school environment
· Issues in a P-12 school environment
· Issues in P-12 policies and procedures
· Administrators’ and teachers’ roles in student discipline
· Program effectiveness in a P-12 school environment
· Discrepancies in P-12 policies and procedures that are associated with teachers’ rights
· Laws associated with teachers’ rights in a P-12 school environment
To complete your final research paper, you will
· revise previously submitted content based on professor feedback;
· summarize your main research findings;
· describe, explain, analyze, and interpret research findings; and
· integrate content from your research report and literature review to create the culminating research paper.
The following sections should be addressed in your paper.
_The sections indicated with (*) indicate previous sections that have already been written for previous assignments; they are included here so that you will not miss any section that might need to be included in this assignment. Also, any recommendations or feedback received from your instructor should be reflected in your final paper._
***Introduction**: Describe your proposal and provide necessary context. Include historical context and a tentative thesis statement. What disagreements exist? What is the relevance of this topic?
***Background**: This section should describe your particular setting and problem, your school, its policies and procedures, guidelines from your state, and/or any other structures in place within which you must work. Also, describe how your potential solution to the issue will be based on the reliability and validity of the data.
***Rationale/Purpose Statement**: Include a theoretical framework. Establish the significance of your research. How and why is your research relevant to its field? Does it fill a gap in the existing body of research? Does it underscore or emphasize existing research? Will it add new, original knowledge to the existing understanding of your subject?
***Research Questions**: This should be one overall question with five guiding questions. The research questions should be presented in a bulleted format.
***Research Plan**: Discuss the methods and sources you will use to conduct your research, including specific references to websites, databases, key texts, or authors that you feel are indispensable to your project. You will cite specific sources in your research plan. Keep in mind that your source material should come from the CSU Online Library databases and course materials. In this section, you should also discuss how you will judge the reliability and validity of the instruments of measurement and data you will review. Include a brief projected timeline and budget for implementation.
***Potential Bias**: Establish your ethos as a researcher here. Disclose your relationship to the project, persons involved, and so on. Where might your perspective be unconsciously skewed?
***Introduction**: Provide a brief overview of the topic and specific issue. Identify your specific area of focus. Briefly describe your methodology and rationale. Provide an appropriate context for reviewing the literature.
What method(s) did you use to determine which resources to include and which to exclude? How is your review organized?
Briefly discuss the overall trends in the published scholarship in this area. What has been said or done on this topic? What is the problem with what has been said and done? What will you offer to solve the problem? How does your solution address social change?
Establish your reason for writing the literature review. Include your working thesis from your research report, and identify the key topics or texts that will appear in the body of your literature review.
***Body**: In this section, you will summarize and synthesize. Provide an overview of the main points from each resource and combine them into a coherent whole.
Analyze and interpret; do not just paraphrase other researchers. Add your own interpretations where possible, discussing the significance of findings in relation to the literature.
Critically evaluate; mention the strengths and weaknesses of your sources.
Write in well-structured paragraphs, using transition words and topic sentences to draw connections, comparisons, and contrasts.
Find the best organizational method for your review. Summarize resources by providing the most relevant information.
Respectfully and objectively critique and evaluate the studies. Use direct quotations sparingly and only if appropriate.
***Conclusion**: Address the following in your conclusion:
· Provide closure for the reader while reminding the reader of the contents and importance of the paper.
· View the bigger picture of the document and its connection to your research report and the proposed research project.
· Remind the reader of the main argument.
· Summarize the major findings of the resources that you reviewed, remembering to keep the focus on your topic.
· Evaluate the current state of scholarship in this area (examples include flaws or gaps in the research, inconsistencies in findings).
· Identify any areas for further research.
· Conclude by making a connection between your topic and a larger area of study, such as discipline.
**Discussion**
· Summarize your key findings. What should readers take away from this paper?
· Review your findings and put them into the context of your overall research. Go back to your literature review, and analyze how your results fit with previous research.
· Describe, analyze, interpret, and explain your findings.
· Explain the significance of your results, and tie everything back to your research questions.
· Acknowledge the limits and/or weaknesses of your research, and identify gaps for future research. Show that you have thought critically about what your research does and does not cover.
· Mention and discuss any unexpected results. Provide a reasonable interpretation of why they may have appeared.
**Implications**
· What impact does your research make on your specific field? High-quality implications will broaden the scope here and provide implications to other fields, creating cross-disciplinary research.
· How and why is your research important to the world? Tell your peers why your research is important for ongoing theory, practice, policymaking, and future research. This must be evidence-based and derived from the results of your paper.
· Be careful not to overstate the impact of your results. Implications should be straightforward, realistic, and plausible.
**Recommendations**
· What are some specific actions that can be taken based on your findings?
· What are some suggestions to improve your field based on your results?
· What can be changed in the future based on your results? This is a call to action on ways certain things in the field can be improved. Convey that something different should be done based on what your analyses revealed.
· Your recommendations should be evidence-based, drawn directly from your results.
· The goal is to make clear, specific, and realistic suggestions to future researchers before they conduct a similar experiment.
**Conclusion**
· Help your readers to understand why your research should matter to them after they have finished reading the paper.
· The conclusion is not merely a summary of the main topics covered or a restatement of your research problem; it should be a synthesis of key points, and if applicable, where you recommend new areas for future research.
· One to two well-developed paragraphs are sufficient. What should happen now?
· Finish strong; leave readers with an understanding of your work’s importance. Avoid generic phrases; be specific.
Your completed research paper should be 8 pages in length, not counting the title page, abstract page, and references page.
Your resources should include your textbook and at least 10 scholarly references.
Unit VIII PowerPoint Presentation
**Assignment Instructions**
This assignment measures your mastery of ULOs 1.4, 2.5, 2.6, 3.1, 4.3, and 4.4.
The purpose for this presentation is to enable you to present your findings in a different format that allows you to focus on the key points from your research paper.
To complete this research PowerPoint presentation, you will summarize your research paper from Unit VII as well as other themes learned in this course by using the following criteria:
· Validate the importance of your research.
· Outline your findings and the analysis of those findings.
· Prompt others from the local academic community to ask questions or provide valuable feedback to further and/or strengthen your research. This is an opportunity for you to include the research questions you proposed in your Unit III Research Paper-you can propose thought-provoking concepts, questions, and ideas in order to generate in-depth thinking and perspectives.
· List several important ethical rules of conduct for measurement.
· Explain and evaluate at least three assessment items and instruments for reliability and credibility concerns, and modify them to make them more reliable and credible if needed.
· Explain why multiple evaluation tools are usually used in educational law assessment.
· Explain the purpose and approach of P-12 school evaluation assessments as they pertain to legal and ethical behavior.
· Discuss future research on the topic. What other goals do you have for this research? How could you build on what you have started here?
As you examine scholarly articles you found for earlier assignments in the CSU Online Library, use the existing work you conducted in the course and formulate concepts and ideas based on your findings. Locate research that addresses the following:
· Local P-12 policies and procedures
· The rights of students in a P-12 school environment
· Issues in a P-12 school environment ·Issues in P-12 policies and procedures
· Administrators’ and teachers’ roles in student discipline
· Program effectiveness in a local level P-12 school environment
· Discrepancies in P-12 policies and procedures associated with teachers’ rights
· Laws associated with teachers’ rights in a P-12 school environment
Your completed presentation must be at least 10 slides in length, not counting the title and reference slides. You must use the speaker notes in PowerPoint to further explain the information on each slide. Be thoughtful in the design of your presentation, and use relevant and appropriate graphics and background.
You must use at least four scholarly sources in your presentation. All references must be cited in APA Style, but APA formatting is otherwise not required.
Hello, could someone help peer review my assignment? – a year ago
Immediate access to the full model answer, formatted citations, and rubric breakdown.
Have this question answered from scratch according to your specific instructions and deadline.
Order on TutorsGallery →Hello, could someone help peer review my assignment?
– a year ago