5/7/24, 1:39 PM Rubric Detail – PTH662 Manual Therapy II 22443943 (...

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: PTH 662 Literature Review Paper

Exit

Grid View List View

Show Descriptions Show Feedback

Clinical Question
5 (6.25%)
Excellent 5(6.25%)points
Good 4.5(5.625%)points
Fair 3.5(4.375%)points
Poor 1(1.25%)points

Identifies/references the source of the answer and identifies why reference(s) is/are
appealing/interesting.
10 (12.50%)

Excellent 10(12.50%)points
Good 8.5(10.625%)points
Fair 7.5(9.375%)points
Poor 2(2.50%)points

Provides brief but thorough description of methods/analysis. (If specific methodological points
are missing from the original research, please indicate it in your paper so that you do not lose
points.)
10 (12.50%)
Excellent 10(12.50%)points
Good 8.5(10.625%)points
Fair 7.5(9.375%)points
Poor 2(2.50%)points
Feedback:
Nicely detailed.

Provides synopsis of conclusions/ Discussion **Use your OWN WORDS. Do not copy and paste
author’s conclusions**
8.5 (10.625%)

https://blackboard.cmich.edu/webapps/rubric/do/course/gradeRubric?mode=grid&isPopup=true&rubricCount=1&prefix=_46412304_1&course_id=_234059_1&max… 1/3
5/7/24, 1:39 PM Rubric Detail – PTH662 Manual Therapy II 22443943 (...

Excellent 10(12.50%)points
Good 8.5(10.625%)points
Fair 7.5(9.375%)points
Poor 2(2.50%)points
Feedback:
Having a bit more of a specific discussion on the clinical significance of the findings as it related to
the MCID or analysis of the outcome measures within and between groups would have made this
section perfect. Use the changes in the scores between and within groups to identify if there was
clinical relevance to the changes. Sometimes there can be clinically significant changes that meet
the MCID without having statistically significant differences. Similarly, you can have statistically
significant changes or differences, but it would not be clinically relevant, as in the patient would
necessarily feel or appreciate the changes even though they've occurred.

Assessed the quality of the evidence provided (Note: This section does NOT mean that all the
papers you reference must be found in the PEDro database... your articles can come from any
peer-reviewed search engine. Use the PEDro scale to critically analyze RCT’s you find. The link
to Cardiff University provides additional critical appraisal options for papers that are not RCT’s)
15 (18.75%)
Excellent 15(18.75%)points
Good 13(16.25%)points
Fair 11.5(14.375%)points
Poor 3(3.75%)points
Feedback:
Nice job considering the impact of bias and relating the PEDro scores to trustworthiness.

Clinical implications (relevance to practice?) (Note: This section is worth 15 pts. for a reason. Be
detailed in your linking of the evidence to how it will influence your clinical practice and why.)
15 (18.75%)
Excellent 15(18.75%)points
Good 13(16.25%)points
Fair 11.5(14.375%)points
Poor 3(3.75%)points
Feedback:
You did a nice job summarizing the content of the articles and considering how it might be applied
to this patient population.

Scholarly Writing (including grammar, spelling, sentence structure, tone, tense, and
formatting).
4.5 (5.625%)
Excellent 5(6.25%)points
Good 4.5(5.625%)points
Fair 3.5(4.375%)points
Poor 1(1.25%)points
Feedback:
There were a few spelling/syntax errors and a few capitalization errors - the outcome measures
should be capitalized. I know they were not written like that in the article you referenced, but they're

https://blackboard.cmich.edu/webapps/rubric/do/course/gradeRubric?mode=grid&isPopup=true&rubricCount=1&prefix=_46412304_1&course_id=_234059_1&max… 2/3
5/7/24, 1:39 PM Rubric Detail – PTH662 Manual Therapy II 22443943 (...

proper names/nouns for the measure.

AMA Formatting: Title Page, Headings, References/Citations (Reference/Bibliography Page is

Attached, Citations Present Within paper) Refer to 11th edition of AMA Manual of Style
8.5 (10.625%)
Excellent 10(12.50%)points
Good 8.5(10.625%)points
Fair 7.5(9.375%)points
Poor 1(1.25%)points
Feedback:
A few errors with journal abbreviations.

Raw Total: 76.50 (of 80)

Name:PTH 662 Literature Review Paper

Exit

https://blackboard.cmich.edu/webapps/rubric/do/course/gradeRubric?mode=grid&isPopup=true&rubricCount=1&prefix=_46412304_1&course_id=_234059_1&max… 3/3