Rubric Detail

A rubric lists grading criteria that instructors use to evaluate student work. Your instructor linked a rubric to this item and made it available to you. Select Grid
View or List View to change the rubric's layout.

Name: 662 Literature Review Paper

Exit

Grid View List View

  Excellent Good Fair Unacceptable

Clinical Question
5 (6.25%) 4.5 (5.625%) 3.5 (4.375%) 0 (0.00%)
Student uses PICO to Student Student’s clinical
Student provides a formulate their clinical provides a question and
th hd i ti ti d id l d i ti f
 thorough description question and provides a general description of
  of their clinical
Excellent general
Good purpose of their description
Fair of purpose is lacking
Unacceptable
question and clear investigation. their clinical significant detail, OR
purpose of their question and the clinical question
investigation. Uses purpose of and/or purpose is
PICO formatting for their missing.
their clinical question. investigation.

Feedback:
Nice introduction to your
clinical question. You gave
aa good understanding as
to why your question was
relevant.

Identifies/references
10 (12.50%) 8.5 (10.625%) 7.5 (9.375%) 0 (0.00%)
the source of the
At least 3 P-R sources are 1-2 P-R sources Does not supply P-R
answer and identifies
At least 3 peer- cited with adequate are cited which resources or lacks
why reference(s) is/are
i d (P R) j tifi ti t h th t ib t t j tifi ti t
 y ( )
reviewed (P-R) sources justification as to why the contribute to justification as to
appealing/interesting
  are cited which
Excellent resources
Good are of interest. answering
Fair the why the resources
Unacceptable
contribute to question with provided help to
answering the adequate answer the question.
question. Provides justification as
excellent justification to why these
as to why these resources are
resources are of of interest.
interest.

Feedback:
I liked that you clustered
your studies together as
you introduced them and
discussed their relevancy
towards answering your
question.

Provides brief
10 (12.50%) 8.5 (10.625%) 7.5 (9.375%) 0 (0.00%)
description of
Provides adequate Provides fair Poorly describes or
methods/analysis
Concisely and description of methods description of fails to describe
thoroughly describes and data analysis of all methods and methods and data
the methods and data cited references. data analysis analysis processes of
analysis of all cited processes of cited references.
references. some cited
references, but
Feedback: may be lacking
You provide a brief but in clarity or
thorough description of certain
each study. components
may be
missing.


Provides synopsis of 10 (12.50%) 8.5 (10.625%) 7.5 (9.375%) 0 (0.00%)

conclusions/

Provides adequate Provides fair Poorly describes the

discussion Concisely and summary of summary of findings/conclusions
thoroughly findings/conclusions of findings/ of evidence
 findings/conclusions of findings/ of evidence
summarizes the at least 3 P-R sources but conclusions of obtained; OR is
  Excellent
findings/ conclusions Good Fair Unacceptable
could be more specific less than P-R missing summaries
of at least 3 P-R with how it applies to sources, or to P-R references; OR
sources and how it answering clinical summary is summaries provide
applies to answering question. missing clarity no connection to the
the student’s clinical or connection clinical question.
question. to clinical
Feedback: question.
An interesting point to
make - although I would not
expect you to be aware of
this - is that Dunning et al.
is part of the American
Academy of Manipulative
Therapy. Dunning is the
leader, of course. I know
there has been some back
and forth in the Op/Ed
columns of JOSPT when
Dunning publishes a new
piece because of the stake
he has in showing through
research that
manipulations are the most
effective or beneficial form
of treatment. Not to say
that he is lying or his
research is flawed, but it is
an interesting point,
particularly since their
results were not necessarily
in line with the results of
 the other two studies.

Assessed the quality of

15 (18.75%) 13 (16.25%) 11.5 0 (0.00%)
the evidence provided (14.375%)
Refers to PEDro or other Does not assess the
 Refers to PEDro or critical appraisal tools Provides some quality of the P-R
  Excellent
other critical appraisal Good
and provides adequate Fair Unacceptable
sources; OR does not
justification or
tools and provides justification for the analysis of the include peer-
thorough justification quality of evidence of at quality of reviewed sources.
for the quality of the least 3 P-R sources. evidence
evidence of at least 3 provided
peer-reviewed without use of
sources. PEDro or other
critical
appraisal tools;
OR only
conducts
critical
appraisal on 1-
2 P-R sources.

Clinical implications
15 (18.75%) 13 (16.25%) 11.5 0 (0.00%)
(relevance to practice?) (14.375%)
Student provides Student fails to link
Student thoroughly adequate link between P- Student P-R evidence to the
d di tl l t R id d l t li i l
 and directly relates R evidence and provides a fair relevance to clinical
  evidence from P-R
Excellent implications
Good for clinical Fair
link between P- practice or
Unacceptable
literature to clinical practice. Some gaps may R evidence and demonstrates poor
implications (either exist in clinical reasoning what it means clinical reasoning in
supporting or refuting or how evidence for clinical their synthesis.
use of supports/refutes use of practice, but is
techniques/treatments technique in patient care missing detail
in patient care) or clarity in
clinical
Feedback:
reasoning.
You describe the clinical
implications nicely, and I
appreciate your suggestion
that choice of technique is
based in the literature, but
also PT skill/confidence and
patient
presentation/preference.

Scholarly Writing 5 (6.25%) 4.5 (5.625%) 3.5 (4.375%) 0 (0.00%)

(including grammar,
Student adheres to Student Student exhibits
spelling, sentence
graduate-level writing, Student exhibits exhibits 3-5 more than 5 spelling
structure, tone, tense,
i l di lli f th 3 lli ti l
 , , ,
including no spelling or fewer than 3 spelling or or grammatical
and formatting).
  grammatical
Excellent errors. Goodgrammatical or grammatical
Fair errors. Tone, tense,
Unacceptable
Appropriate tone, tense, spelling errors and errors. Tone, or construction are
and construction are demonstrates tense, or not consistent with
maintained throughout, graduate-level construction graduate-level
without need to change or writing with would require writing and would
adjust the piece. appropriate tone, moderate require significant
tense, and modification to work to strengthen
construction that improve the the piece.
would require only strength of the
minor adjustment work to ensure
to improve strength graduate-level
of the piece. writing.

Feedback:
Overall, the paper reads
nicely. There are just a
few
grammatical/punctuation
errors throughout.

AMA 10 (12.50%) 8.5 (10.625%) 7.5 (9.375%) 0 (0.00%)

References/Citations
There are the appropriate Missing 1-2 Citations/references
(Reference/Bibliography
number of citations/ There are the references in are not in AMA
Page is Attached,
f All i f ti i t b f li t f tti AND/OR
 g ,
references. All information appropriate number reference list or formatting, AND/OR
Citations Present
  within the paper is cited
Excellent Goodof citations/ information
Fair in greater than 5 errors
Unacceptable
Within Template)
appropriately. Citations and references. All the body of the observed in AMA
references are in AMA information in the paper is formatting.
formatting and without body of the paper is improperly
errors. properly cited. cited (or not
Citations and cited at all).
references are in Citations and
AMA formatting references are
with fewer than 3 in AMA
errors. formatting with
3-5 errors
Feedback: detected.
Just a reminder to
abbreviate the journal
titles for references 1
and 2.

Raw Total: 78.00 (of 80)

Feedback to Learner

Overall, nicely done with this paper.

Name:662 Literature Review Paper

Exit