Get a 10 % discount on an order above $ 100!
Assessment 1 – Evaluating Scientific Merit
Assessment 1 – Evaluating Scientific Merit
This week, you were introduced to literature mapping as part of the preparation for a literature review. As you collect articles, the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) Tool [PDF] can be used to evaluate their scientific merit.
ORDER ORIGINAL, PLAGIARISM-FREE ESSAY PAPERS HERE
This assignment consists of a research matrix. This matrix includes research concepts that can be found and connected to preselected published scholarly research. Five research articles related to the topic of first-generation college students and resilience at a four-year university have been chosen for you. Some of the content areas have been filled in; you will need to complete the rest.
Fill out this provided Research Matrix [DOCX] with research concepts that can be found and connected to these five articles related to the topic of first-generation college students and resilience at a four-year university. The first article has been completed for you as an example. Assessment 1 – Evaluating Scientific Merit
- Garriott, P. O., Hudyma, A., Keene, C., & Santiago, D. (2015). Social cognitive predictors of first and non-first-generation college students’ academic and life satisfaction. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 62(2), 253–263.
- Johnson, S. R., & Stage, F. K. (2018). Academic engagement and student success: Do high-impact practices mean higher graduation rates? Journal of Higher Education, 89(5), 753-781.
- Olive, T. (2014). Desire for higher education in first-generation Hispanic college students enrolled in a graduate counseling program. Journal of Phenomenological Psychology, 45(1), 72–91.
- Schelbe, L., Swanbrow Becker, M., Spinelli, C., & McCray, D. (2019). First generation college students perceptions of an academic retention program. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 19(5), 61–76.
- Smith, K. J., Emerson, D. J., Haight, T. D., Mauldin, S., & Wood, B. G. (2019). An examination of the psychometric properties of the Connor-Davidson resilience scale – 10 (CD-RISC10) among accounting and business students. Journal of Accounting Education, 47, 48–62.
Refer to the assignment scoring guide to make sure you meet the requirements of this assessment.
By successfully completing this assignment, you will demonstrate your proficiency in the following course competencies and assignment criteria:
- Competency 1: Analyze the methodology used in scientific research.
- Identify the study sample in the chosen research.
- Identify the methodology used in the chosen research.
- Competency 2: Evaluate the characteristics, purposes, benefits, strengths, and weaknesses of research methods.
- Identify the main themes in the chosen research.
- Identify the research question or questions in the chosen research.
- Describe the theoretical framework of the chosen research study.
- Describe the findings in the chosen research.
- Competency 3: Evaluate ethical issues in research studies.
- Describe the ethical considerations in the chosen research.ï»¿
- Competency 6: Communicate in a manner that is scholarly, professional, and consistent with the expectations for members in the identified field of study.
- Communicate in a manner that is scholarly, professional, and consistent with the expectations for members of an identified field of study, using APA style and formatting.
7860 Week 2 Assignment
Please note that the first row of data is meant as an example.
CASP Checklist: 10 questions to help you make sense of a Systematic Review
How to use this appraisal tool: Three broad issues need to be considered when appraising a systematic review study:
Are the results of the study valid? (Section A) What are the results? (Section B) Will the results help locally? (Section C)
The 10 questions on the following pages are designed to help you think about these issues systematically. The first two questions are screening questions and can be answered quickly. If the answer to both is “yes”, it is worth proceeding with the remaining questions. There is some degree of overlap between the questions, you are asked to record a “yes”, “no” or “can’t tell” to most of the questions. A number of italicised prompts are given after each question. These are designed to remind you why the question is important. Record your reasons for your answers in the spaces provided.
About: These checklists were designed to be used as educational pedagogic tools, as part of a workshop setting, therefore we do not suggest a scoring system. The core CASP checklists (randomised controlled trial & systematic review) were based on JAMA ‘Users’ guides to the medical literature 1994 (adapted from Guyatt GH, Sackett DL, and Cook DJ), and piloted with health care practitioners.
For each new checklist, a group of experts were assembled to develop and pilot the checklist and the workshop format with which it would be used. Over the years overall adjustments have been made to the format, but a recent survey of checklist users reiterated that the basic format continues to be useful and appropriate.
Referencing: we recommend using the Harvard style citation, i.e.: Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (2018). CASP (insert name of checklist i.e. Systematic Review) Checklist. [online] Available at: URL. Accessed: Date Accessed. Assessment 1 – Evaluating Scientific Merit
©CASP this work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution – Non-Commercial- Share A like. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc- sa/3.0/ www.casp-uk.net
Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) part of Oxford Centre for Triple Value Healthcare Ltd www.casp-uk.net
Section A: Are the results of the review valid?
1. Did the review address a clearly focused question?
Yes HINT: An issue can be ‘focused’ In terms of • the population studied • the intervention given
• the outcome considered
2. Did the authors look for the right type of papers?
Yes HINT: ‘The best sort of studies’ would
• address the review’s question • have an appropriate study design (usually RCTs for papers evaluating
Is it worth continuing?
3. Do you think all the important, relevant studies were included?
Yes HINT: Look for • which bibliographic databases were
used • follow up from reference lists • personal contact with experts
• unpublished as well as published studies • non-English language studies
Paper for appraisal and reference:……………………………………………………………………………………………
4. Did the review’s authors do enough to assess quality of the included studies?
Yes HINT: The authors need to consider the rigour of the studies they have identified.
Lack of rigour may affect the studies’ results (“All that glisters is not gold” Merchant of Venice – Act II Scene 7)
5. If the results of the review have been combined, was it reasonable to do so?
Yes HINT: Consider whether • results were similar from study to study • results of all the included studies are
clearly displayed • results of different studies are similar
• reasons for any variations in results are discussed
Section B: What are the results?
6. What are the overall results of the review? HINT: Consider • If you are clear about the review’s
‘bottom line’ results • what these are (numerically if
appropriate) • how were the results expressed (NNT,
odds ratio etc.)
7. How precise are the results?
HINT: Look at the confidence intervals, if given
Section C: Will the results help locally? 8. Can the results be applied to
the local population? Yes
HINT: Consider whether
• the patients covered by the review could be sufficiently different to your
population to cause concern • your local setting is likely to differ much
from that of the review
9. Were all important outcomes
HINT: Consider whether
• there is other information you would like to have seen Can’t Tell
Comments: 10. Are the benefits worth the
harms and costs? Yes
• even if this is not addressed by the review, what do you think? Can’t Tell