The assignment is to write a 1500 word critical Appraisal on a article (attached below)
As part of another assignment I have already completed a 500 word summary so please use this in the assignment.
I have attached the general info and marking rubric below.
Kind Regards
Individual 1,500-word essay This will be assessed by your Workshop Facilitator (or appropriate nominee appointed by the Subject Coordinator). Topic Length Value Due date Return date Submission Critical appraisal of the article chosen for the 500-word summary assignment 1,500 words 25% of the total marks for HLT1RAE 9am Monday 23rd September 2019 (week 9) Refer to the LMS forum for information on extensions and late submission (and associated penalties). Within 2-3 weeks of submission via Turnitin To Turnitin via the LMS site for HLT1RAE. The document you submit to Turnitin should be a complete submission. NO HARD COPIES of this piece will be accepted and no hard copies will be returned – this mechanism will be fully electronic. Please note: NO COVER SHEET IS TO BE SUBMITTED TO TURNITIN. DO NOT SUBMIT THE RUBRIC TO TURNITIN WITH YOUR SUBMISSION (this increases the similarity index unnecessarily). For further clarification of the grading criteria and final mark allocation, refer to the grading and feedback criteria on LMS under “Assessments”. Referencing Throughout this subject (and your Core First year subjects more generally), you must use the APA 6th referencing system. The library reference tool may assist you, and can be located here: http://www.lib.latrobe.edu.au/referencing-tool/. Given the nature of this assessment it is not anticipated that you will use additional references beyond your chosen article. You are being marked on your ability to summarise information from your chosen article. You do not need to repeatedly reference your chosen article as your marker will be aware that the information has come from this source. Take careful note of the information below related to academic integrity, however, as this also applies to plagiarism. Originality This assessment should be a piece of individual and original work. Naturally, you will discuss this task with other students and your Workshop Facilitator whilst you are in the process of developing an understanding of how you will undertake the activity, but each student is expected to submit an individual essay. Refer to the University webpage on academic integrity: http://www.latrobe.edu.au/students/learning/academic-integrity Turnitin The University uses text matching software, Turnitin, to analyse similarity between published material and student assignments. The software also matches to other student assignments. All students are required to submit their individual essay to Turnitin, by the due date, to enable analysis; this piece will not be graded until the Turnitin report is available to Facilitators. Advice on the procedure for Turnitin submission will be provided on the HLT1RAE LMS site. You will have an opportunity to submit drafts to Turnitin to check the similarity index for issues with paraphrasing and citation, and make amendments if required, before finalizing the due date. Workshop Facilitators will provide guidance on this process. Your work must be submitted to Turnitin via the LMS site for HLT1RAE and under your own access code (otherwise it will be attributed to the person who logged onto the LMS site). You can submit several drafts prior to the due date and time. The report on your first submission will be available http://www.lib.latrobe.edu.au/referencing-tool/ http://www.latrobe.edu.au/students/learning/academic-integrity almost immediately, but reports on subsequent submissions can take 24 – 48 hours to process. You will be able to check for inappropriate ‘matches’ and then correct these and re-submit your work. The Turnitin report will also enable your Workshop Facilitator to assess the level of originality of your work and provide feedback as appropriate. HLT1RAE RESEARCH & EVIDENCE IN PRACTICE 1500 WORD CRITICAL APPRAISAL ASSESSMENT (25% OF THE SUBJECT MARK) GRADING AND FEEDBACK 2019 Criteria Unsatisfactory 0 – 4.5 marks Good 5 – 7.5 marks Excellent 8 – 10 marks Mark TOPIC CONTENT Using the feedback provided by the marker of your 500-word summary of this article to assist you, briefly summarise the following: • aims and/or hypotheses of the study • sample and recruitment • main findings and consideration of the findings in light of the aims/hypotheses Does not provide a satisfactory summary of the required aspects of the study. A good summary of the required aspects of the study is provided. However, there are some gaps in the understanding of these areas, or these components are not covered in sufficient detail. A comprehensive and accurate summary of the required aspects of the study is provided. Each of the required aspects is accurately summarised in sufficient detail. /10 X2 = /20 Using the feedback provided by the marker of your 500-word summary, provide a summary of the measurement in the study. Report on the appropriateness of the measurement, considering relevant aspects of validity and reliability. The summary of the measurement in the study and the reporting of the appropriateness of the measurement, considering relevant aspects of validity and reliability, is unsatisfactory. The summary of the measurement in the study and the reporting of the appropriateness of the measurement, considering relevant aspects of validity and reliability, is good. However, there are some gaps in the understanding of these areas, or these components are not covered in sufficient detail. The summary of the measurement in the study and the reporting of the appropriateness of the measurement, considering relevant aspects of validity and reliability, is excellent. /10 X2 = /20 Report on the potential threats to both the internal and external validity of the research and identify the potential impact of these on the study. An unsatisfactory range of relevant potential threats to the validity in the research design is provided. A good range of relevant potential threats to the internal and external validity of the study were identified. There is also a good discussion about the potential impact of these threats to the internal and external validity of the research. However, there are some gaps in the understanding of these areas, or these components are not covered in sufficient detail. An excellent range of relevant potential threats to the internal and external validity of the study were identified. There is also an excellent discussion about the potential impact of these threats to the internal and external validity of the research. /10 X2 = /20 Suggestions are proposed as to how threats to the measurement, internal and external validity of the study could have been avoided. An unsatisfactory range of suggestions to detail how threats to validity could have been avoided is provided. A good range of suggestions of how threats to validity could have been avoided is provided and discussed. However, there are some gaps in the understanding of these areas, or these components are not covered in sufficient detail. An excellent range of suggestions of how threats to validity could have been avoided is provided. There is discussion about these with an excellent level of detail. /10 X2 = /20 PARAPHRASING Paraphrasing and effective summarizing of material from the chosen article, with no direct quotes from the article. Substantial use of direct quotations. Heavy reliance on wording of selected article. Turnitin identifies significant level of similarity with published literature. Students may be referred to their Academic Integrity Advisor in accordance with the University’s policy on plagiarism. Paraphrasing and summarising is mostly effective, but with over reliance on original wording which affects the coherence and originality of the student’s writing. Excellent integration of material from the selected article though effective paraphrasing and summarising. /10 ACADEMIC WRITING Criteria Unsatisfactory 0 – 4.5 marks Good 5 – 7.5 marks Excellent 8 – 10 marks Mark • Sentence structure • Grammar, punctuation, spelling • Clarity of expression Writing lacks clarity of expression, structure or purpose: • Sentences are poorly structured, with inappropriate vocabulary and frequent grammatical and punctuation errors. • Paragraphs do not assist in presenting a flow of ideas. • The written piece contains frequent spelling or proofreading errors. • The language used does little to convey meaning Written expression is clear, well-structured and understandable: • Sentences are mostly well structured, with good use of vocabulary, and contain few grammatical and punctuation errors. • Paragraphs are mostly well structured and assist in presenting a flow of ideas. • Writing contains a moderate level of spelling or proofreading errors. • Writing style is mostly suited to the purpose of the task and conveys the intended meaning and required level of detail of knowledge. Writing demonstrates clarity of intention, purpose, and approach to the topic • Sentences are well structured, with good use of vocabulary, with minimal or no grammatical and punctuation errors. • Paragraphs are structured to present a flow of ideas. • Writing contains minimal or no spelling or proofreading errors. • Writing style is suited to the purpose of the task and conveys the intended meaning and required level of detail of knowledge. /10 TOTAL SCORE /100 • Penalties for late submission without approved extension will apply (5 marks/day) • Penalties for breaches of word limit will apply above 1650 words (+10%) (5 marks per 50 words or part thereof above the word count) Samantha Cooke 18936737 Stasinopoulos, D. (2004). Comparison of three preventive methods in order to reduce the incidence of ankle inversion sprains among female volleyball players. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 38(2), 182-185. The article by Stasinopoulos (2004) highlights the importance of preventative methods to be introduced for female volleyball players to deflate the frequency of ankle inversion (ankle sprains). Studies have found that ankle sprains accounts for the majority of injuries in volleyball, indicating the amount of ankle sprains to be 0.9 per 1000 hours of play. Ankle sprains are common as to a result players landing on opponent’s or teammate’s foot causing inversion as a result. In Stasinopoulos’s study he aims to investigate which type of preventative program would produce the least amount of reoccurring ankle sprains among female volleyball players. The three preventative programs involved were technical training, proprioceptive training and thirdly, sport-stirrup orthosis. The sample population in the study consisted of division two players in the Women’s Greek National League in 1998-1999, only