Hi, I have attached the assignment below and this is linked with the order no. is 88765 NSG2NMR subject.Thank you
NSG2NMR Assessment Rubric School of Nursing & Midwifery NSG2NMR Assessment 1 Part B : Individual 1,750 Word Literature Review MARKING SCALE Excellent (>80%) Very good (80%) Moderately good (70%) Fair (60-50%) Poor (<50%) max marks literature review review / synthesis of evidence • key concepts/themes from the evidence have been clearly identified and described • the content is clearly structured around key concepts/themes emerging from the literature • a synthesis of the findings from the articles/studies obtained for the review is clearly demonstrated throughout • key concepts/themes from the evidence have been identified and described • the content is structured around key concepts/themes emerging from the literature • a synthesis of the findings from the articles/studies obtained for the review is demonstrated throughout • some key concepts/themes from the evidence have been identified but lack description and/or clarity • the content is somewhat structured around key concepts/themes emerging from the literature • a synthesis of the findings from the articles/studies obtained for the review is demonstrated but lack consistency • there is limited identification and description of key concepts/themes from the evidence • there is limited structure of the content around key concepts/themes emerging from the literature • a synthesis of the findings from the articles/studies obtained for the review is demonstrated but is limited for quality and consistency • there is inadequate identification and description of key concepts/themes from the evidence • there is inadequate structure of the content around key concepts/themes emerging from the literature • there is inadequate synthesis of the findings from the articles/studies obtained for the review /35 evidence relevance / credibility of evidence • presents literature relevant to the clinical issue and research question • content is very well supported with appropriate material from credible sources • content is very well supported with sufficient references • presents literature mostly relevant to the clinical issue and research question • content is well supported with appropriate material from credible sources • content is well supported with sufficient references • presents literature somewhat relevant to the clinical issue and research question • content is somewhat supported with sufficient and appropriate material from credible sources • content is supported with sufficient references • presented literature is not clearly relevant to the clinical issue and research question • content is poorly supported with references and/or uses non- authoritarian sources • content is somewhat supported with sufficient references • content is somewhat supported with sufficient references • presented literature is not sufficiently related to address the clinical issue or research questions • content uses non-authoritarian sources • content is not supported with a sufficient number of references /20 implications for practice • provides an excellent commentary of how well the literature addresses the research question • identifies and describes the implication of this evidence for nursing/ midwifery practice • provides a good commentary of how well the literature addresses the research question • identifies and provide some description of the implications of this evidence for nursing/ midwifery practice • provides comment of how well the literature addresses the research question • identifies but does not describe the implications of this evidence for nursing/ midwifery practice • provides limited comment on how well the literature addresses the research question • there is limited identification and description of the implications of this evidence for nursing/ midwifery practice • a summary of how well the literature addresses the research question is omitted or lacks clarity • identification and description of the implications of this evidence for nursing/ midwifery practice is omitted or lacks clarity /15 structure & organisation • well structured, with coherent and logical development of key ideas in appropriate sections/paragraphs • within the prescribed word count • well structured, with mostly coherent and logical development of key ideas in appropriate sections/paragraphs • within the prescribed word count • structure is coherent, with logical development of key ideas some of the time • may be inappropriately weighted within the prescribed word count • structure may not be coherent, with logical development of key ideas • may not be within the prescribed word count • structure lacks logical development of key ideas • not within the prescribed word count /10 written expression & referencing • writing was fluent and there were minimal spelling, typing or grammatical errors • key ideas from the literature were effectively paraphrased and cited • correct style for citations and reference list 80%+ of the time • writing was mostly fluent and there were few spelling, typing or grammatical errors • key ideas from the literature were effectively paraphrased and cited • correct style for citations and reference list most (70%+) of the time • writing was not always fluent and there were some spelling, typing or grammatical errors • key ideas from the literature were not always effectively paraphrased or cited • correct style for citations and reference list most (60%+) of the time • writing may not be fluent and there were several spelling, typing or grammatical errors • key ideas from the literature were not always effectively paraphrased or cited • correct style for citations and reference list 50%+ of the time • writing was not fluent and there were many spelling, typing or grammatical errors • key ideas from the literature were not effectively paraphrased or cited • incorrect style for citations and reference list /20 reviewer’s name: reviewer’s signature: total mark: /100 nsg2nmr assessment 1 part b faqs v1.0 page 1 of 5 nsg2nmr 2021 assessment 1 part b faqs q. does the word count include references? • the word count includes in-text citations (e.g., miller et al., 2018). • the word count does not include the list of references at the end of your document where the full reference is provided. q. can i use the research question i stated in assessment 1 part a for this subject? yes – absolutely. in fact, it is expected that you do use this question. the question itself does not need to be changed at all – this won’t be considered self-plagiarism for the purpose of this task. however, you are able to revise it if incorporating suggested revisions from the feedback you received from the first assessment. this may include undertaking a more substantial refinement of the question if that was recommended. you do need to focus on the same topic or area. q. i am repeating this subject. can i use the same question and literature review i did previously? no. you cannot use the same question or literature review. the focus needs to be changed substantially to avoid you self-plagiarising. q. do i need to state my research question? yes – please re-state the question you are addressing in your literature review. the question can be embedded in the essay. q. do i need to state my pico or search plan? no – these do not need to be restated. q. do i have to use the articles referenced in assessment 1 part a? no – you don’t have to use any of the 4 references identified in part a. if you find other references that would align better with the task and rubric then please use those references. alternatively, you can use some of those references or all of those references. your decision should be guided by what resources would help you complete the task and the rubric as best as possible. q. do the references have to come from the medline or cinahl search? no. we are hoping that in part a of this task you were able to implement an effective search that helped you identify relevant and credible resources for this review. however, you are encouraged to search for and include other sources of credible evidence such as systematic reviews (i.e., from the nsg2nmr assessment 1 part b faqs v1.0 page 2 of 5 cochrane library or jbi website), guidelines from authoritative sources (i.e., the nhmrc clinical guideline portal or clinical associations), or reports from authoritative sources (i.e., aihw or abs). q. do i have to include search histories again in this assessment? no. feel free to revise your searches based on feedback received from your part a assessment but you do not need to provide evidence of the searches again. q. what is meant by synthesising the literature? this is a crucial point and absolutely critical to presenting the literature to get the best marks in this assessment. when you synthesise the literature your focus is on the theme or concept and not what each study found in turn. you need to do the hard work for the reader. you’ve read the articles – describe what were the key concepts or themes emerging from the collective literature. don’t just present summary after summary of each study (also called an annotated bibliography) – if you do this then the reader needs to also do the hard work and decide what the key messages were. i’ve presented an example below from my own phd to help discuss. in this example, for an area where there is lots of research evidence, i’ve talked about the issue (negative effects from being a carer) and not each study individually. i’ve read those papers and now i’ve synthesised them into the key messages for max="" marks="" literature="" review="" review="" synthesis="" of="" evidence="" •="" key="" concepts/themes="" from="" the="" evidence="" have="" been="" clearly="" identified="" and="" described="" •="" the="" content="" is="" clearly="" structured="" around="" key="" concepts/themes="" emerging="" from="" the="" literature="" •="" a="" synthesis="" of="" the="" findings="" from="" the="" articles/studies="" obtained="" for="" the="" review="" is="" clearly="" demonstrated="" throughout="" •="" key="" concepts/themes="" from="" the="" evidence="" have="" been="" identified="" and="" described="" •="" the="" content="" is="" structured="" around="" key="" concepts/themes="" emerging="" from="" the="" literature="" •="" a="" synthesis="" of="" the="" findings="" from="" the="" articles/studies="" obtained="" for="" the="" review="" is="" demonstrated="" throughout="" •="" some="" key="" concepts/themes="" from="" the="" evidence="" have="" been="" identified="" but="" lack="" description="" and/or="" clarity="" •="" the="" content="" is="" somewhat="" structured="" around="" key="" concepts/themes="" emerging="" from="" the="" literature="" •="" a="" synthesis="" of="" the="" findings="" from="" the="" articles/studies="" obtained="" for="" the="" review="" is="" demonstrated="" but="" lack="" consistency="" •="" there="" is="" limited="" identification="" and="" description="" of="" key="" concepts/themes="" from="" the="" evidence="" •="" there="" is="" limited="" structure="" of="" the="" content="" around="" key="" concepts/themes="" emerging="" from="" the="" literature="" •="" a="" synthesis="" of="" the="" findings="" from="" the="" articles/studies="" obtained="" for="" the="" review="" is="" demonstrated="" but="" is="" limited="" for="" quality="" and="" consistency="" •="" there="" is="" inadequate="" identification="" and="" description="" of="" key="" concepts/themes="" from="" the="" evidence="" •="" there="" is="" inadequate="" structure="" of="" the="" content="" around="" key="" concepts/themes="" emerging="" from="" the="" literature="" •="" there="" is="" inadequate="" synthesis="" of="" the="" findings="" from="" the="" articles/studies="" obtained="" for="" the="" review="" 35="" evidence="" relevance="" credibility="" of="" evidence="" •="" presents="" literature="" relevant="" to="" the="" clinical="" issue="" and="" research="" question="" •="" content="" is="" very="" well="" supported="" with="" appropriate="" material="" from="" credible="" sources="" •="" content="" is="" very="" well="" supported="" with="" sufficient="" references="" •="" presents="" literature="" mostly="" relevant="" to="" the="" clinical="" issue="" and="" research="" question="" •="" content="" is="" well="" supported="" with="" appropriate="" material="" from="" credible="" sources="" •="" content="" is="" well="" supported="" with="" sufficient="" references="" •="" presents="" literature="" somewhat="" relevant="" to="" the="" clinical="" issue="" and="" research="" question="" •="" content="" is="" somewhat="" supported="" with="" sufficient="" and="" appropriate="" material="" from="" credible="" sources="" •="" content="" is="" supported="" with="" sufficient="" references="" •="" presented="" literature="" is="" not="" clearly="" relevant="" to="" the="" clinical="" issue="" and="" research="" question="" •="" content="" is="" poorly="" supported="" with="" references="" and/or="" uses="" non-="" authoritarian="" sources="" •="" content="" is="" somewhat="" supported="" with="" sufficient="" references="" •="" content="" is="" somewhat="" supported="" with="" sufficient="" references="" •="" presented="" literature="" is="" not="" sufficiently="" related="" to="" address="" the="" clinical="" issue="" or="" research="" questions="" •="" content="" uses="" non-authoritarian="" sources="" •="" content="" is="" not="" supported="" with="" a="" sufficient="" number="" of="" references="" 20="" implications="" for="" practice="" •="" provides="" an="" excellent="" commentary="" of="" how="" well="" the="" literature="" addresses="" the="" research="" question="" •="" identifies="" and="" describes="" the="" implication="" of="" this="" evidence="" for="" nursing/="" midwifery="" practice="" •="" provides="" a="" good="" commentary="" of="" how="" well="" the="" literature="" addresses="" the="" research="" question="" •="" identifies="" and="" provide="" some="" description="" of="" the="" implications="" of="" this="" evidence="" for="" nursing/="" midwifery="" practice="" •="" provides="" comment="" of="" how="" well="" the="" literature="" addresses="" the="" research="" question="" •="" identifies="" but="" does="" not="" describe="" the="" implications="" of="" this="" evidence="" for="" nursing/="" midwifery="" practice="" •="" provides="" limited="" comment="" on="" how="" well="" the="" literature="" addresses="" the="" research="" question="" •="" there="" is="" limited="" identification="" and="" description="" of="" the="" implications="" of="" this="" evidence="" for="" nursing/="" midwifery="" practice="" •="" a="" summary="" of="" how="" well="" the="" literature="" addresses="" the="" research="" question="" is="" omitted="" or="" lacks="" clarity="" •="" identification="" and="" description="" of="" the="" implications="" of="" this="" evidence="" for="" nursing/="" midwifery="" practice="" is="" omitted="" or="" lacks="" clarity="" 15="" structure="" &="" organisation="" •="" well="" structured,="" with="" coherent="" and="" logical="" development="" of="" key="" ideas="" in="" appropriate="" sections/paragraphs="" •="" within="" the="" prescribed="" word="" count="" •="" well="" structured,="" with="" mostly="" coherent="" and="" logical="" development="" of="" key="" ideas="" in="" appropriate="" sections/paragraphs="" •="" within="" the="" prescribed="" word="" count="" •="" structure="" is="" coherent,="" with="" logical="" development="" of="" key="" ideas="" some="" of="" the="" time="" •="" may="" be="" inappropriately="" weighted="" within="" the="" prescribed="" word="" count="" •="" structure="" may="" not="" be="" coherent,="" with="" logical="" development="" of="" key="" ideas="" •="" may="" not="" be="" within="" the="" prescribed="" word="" count="" •="" structure="" lacks="" logical="" development="" of="" key="" ideas="" •="" not="" within="" the="" prescribed="" word="" count="" 10="" written="" expression="" &="" referencing="" •="" writing="" was="" fluent="" and="" there="" were="" minimal="" spelling,="" typing="" or="" grammatical="" errors="" •="" key="" ideas="" from="" the="" literature="" were="" effectively="" paraphrased="" and="" cited="" •="" correct="" style="" for="" citations="" and="" reference="" list="" 80%+="" of="" the="" time="" •="" writing="" was="" mostly="" fluent="" and="" there="" were="" few="" spelling,="" typing="" or="" grammatical="" errors="" •="" key="" ideas="" from="" the="" literature="" were="" effectively="" paraphrased="" and="" cited="" •="" correct="" style="" for="" citations="" and="" reference="" list="" most="" (70%+)="" of="" the="" time="" •="" writing="" was="" not="" always="" fluent="" and="" there="" were="" some="" spelling,="" typing="" or="" grammatical="" errors="" •="" key="" ideas="" from="" the="" literature="" were="" not="" always="" effectively="" paraphrased="" or="" cited="" •="" correct="" style="" for="" citations="" and="" reference="" list="" most="" (60%+)="" of="" the="" time="" •="" writing="" may="" not="" be="" fluent="" and="" there="" were="" several="" spelling,="" typing="" or="" grammatical="" errors="" •="" key="" ideas="" from="" the="" literature="" were="" not="" always="" effectively="" paraphrased="" or="" cited="" •="" correct="" style="" for="" citations="" and="" reference="" list="" 50%+="" of="" the="" time="" •="" writing="" was="" not="" fluent="" and="" there="" were="" many="" spelling,="" typing="" or="" grammatical="" errors="" •="" key="" ideas="" from="" the="" literature="" were="" not="" effectively="" paraphrased="" or="" cited="" •="" incorrect="" style="" for="" citations="" and="" reference="" list="" 20="" reviewer’s="" name:="" reviewer’s="" signature:="" total="" mark:="" 100="" nsg2nmr="" assessment="" 1="" part="" b="" faqs="" v1.0="" page="" 1="" of="" 5="" nsg2nmr="" 2021="" assessment="" 1="" part="" b="" faqs="" q.="" does="" the="" word="" count="" include="" references?="" •="" the="" word="" count="" includes="" in-text="" citations="" (e.g.,="" miller="" et="" al.,="" 2018).="" •="" the="" word="" count="" does="" not="" include="" the="" list="" of="" references="" at="" the="" end="" of="" your="" document="" where="" the="" full="" reference="" is="" provided.="" q.="" can="" i="" use="" the="" research="" question="" i="" stated="" in="" assessment="" 1="" part="" a="" for="" this="" subject?="" yes="" –="" absolutely.="" in="" fact,="" it="" is="" expected="" that="" you="" do="" use="" this="" question.="" the="" question="" itself="" does="" not="" need="" to="" be="" changed="" at="" all="" –="" this="" won’t="" be="" considered="" self-plagiarism="" for="" the="" purpose="" of="" this="" task.="" however,="" you="" are="" able="" to="" revise="" it="" if="" incorporating="" suggested="" revisions="" from="" the="" feedback="" you="" received="" from="" the="" first="" assessment.="" this="" may="" include="" undertaking="" a="" more="" substantial="" refinement="" of="" the="" question="" if="" that="" was="" recommended.="" you="" do="" need="" to="" focus="" on="" the="" same="" topic="" or="" area.="" q.="" i="" am="" repeating="" this="" subject.="" can="" i="" use="" the="" same="" question="" and="" literature="" review="" i="" did="" previously?="" no.="" you="" cannot="" use="" the="" same="" question="" or="" literature="" review.="" the="" focus="" needs="" to="" be="" changed="" substantially="" to="" avoid="" you="" self-plagiarising.="" q.="" do="" i="" need="" to="" state="" my="" research="" question?="" yes="" –="" please="" re-state="" the="" question="" you="" are="" addressing="" in="" your="" literature="" review.="" the="" question="" can="" be="" embedded="" in="" the="" essay.="" q.="" do="" i="" need="" to="" state="" my="" pico="" or="" search="" plan?="" no="" –="" these="" do="" not="" need="" to="" be="" restated.="" q.="" do="" i="" have="" to="" use="" the="" articles="" referenced="" in="" assessment="" 1="" part="" a?="" no="" –="" you="" don’t="" have="" to="" use="" any="" of="" the="" 4="" references="" identified="" in="" part="" a.="" if="" you="" find="" other="" references="" that="" would="" align="" better="" with="" the="" task="" and="" rubric="" then="" please="" use="" those="" references.="" alternatively,="" you="" can="" use="" some="" of="" those="" references="" or="" all="" of="" those="" references.="" your="" decision="" should="" be="" guided="" by="" what="" resources="" would="" help="" you="" complete="" the="" task="" and="" the="" rubric="" as="" best="" as="" possible.="" q.="" do="" the="" references="" have="" to="" come="" from="" the="" medline="" or="" cinahl="" search?="" no.="" we="" are="" hoping="" that="" in="" part="" a="" of="" this="" task="" you="" were="" able="" to="" implement="" an="" effective="" search="" that="" helped="" you="" identify="" relevant="" and="" credible="" resources="" for="" this="" review.="" however,="" you="" are="" encouraged="" to="" search="" for="" and="" include="" other="" sources="" of="" credible="" evidence="" such="" as="" systematic="" reviews="" (i.e.,="" from="" the="" nsg2nmr="" assessment="" 1="" part="" b="" faqs="" v1.0="" page="" 2="" of="" 5="" cochrane="" library="" or="" jbi="" website),="" guidelines="" from="" authoritative="" sources="" (i.e.,="" the="" nhmrc="" clinical="" guideline="" portal="" or="" clinical="" associations),="" or="" reports="" from="" authoritative="" sources="" (i.e.,="" aihw="" or="" abs).="" q.="" do="" i="" have="" to="" include="" search="" histories="" again="" in="" this="" assessment?="" no.="" feel="" free="" to="" revise="" your="" searches="" based="" on="" feedback="" received="" from="" your="" part="" a="" assessment="" but="" you="" do="" not="" need="" to="" provide="" evidence="" of="" the="" searches="" again.="" q.="" what="" is="" meant="" by="" synthesising="" the="" literature?="" this="" is="" a="" crucial="" point="" and="" absolutely="" critical="" to="" presenting="" the="" literature="" to="" get="" the="" best="" marks="" in="" this="" assessment.="" when="" you="" synthesise="" the="" literature="" your="" focus="" is="" on="" the="" theme="" or="" concept="" and="" not="" what="" each="" study="" found="" in="" turn.="" you="" need="" to="" do="" the="" hard="" work="" for="" the="" reader.="" you’ve="" read="" the="" articles="" –="" describe="" what="" were="" the="" key="" concepts="" or="" themes="" emerging="" from="" the="" collective="" literature.="" don’t="" just="" present="" summary="" after="" summary="" of="" each="" study="" (also="" called="" an="" annotated="" bibliography)="" –="" if="" you="" do="" this="" then="" the="" reader="" needs="" to="" also="" do="" the="" hard="" work="" and="" decide="" what="" the="" key="" messages="" were.="" i’ve="" presented="" an="" example="" below="" from="" my="" own="" phd="" to="" help="" discuss.="" in="" this="" example,="" for="" an="" area="" where="" there="" is="" lots="" of="" research="" evidence,="" i’ve="" talked="" about="" the="" issue="" (negative="" effects="" from="" being="" a="" carer)="" and="" not="" each="" study="" individually.="" i’ve="" read="" those="" papers="" and="" now="" i’ve="" synthesised="" them="" into="" the="" key="" messages="">