I need to answers several questions based on a critique worksheet analyzing  a Nursing research study.

MSN5250: Statistics for Advanced Nursing Practice Team:____________
Critique Worksheet for Group Project Part A

Elements of Critique Discussion
State the practice problem/issue that is the focus of the
study.

How does this practice problem/issue affect your
nursing practice?

In your own words, state the purpose of the study.

Is the research question clearly stated?

What is the research question?

Does it match the purpose of the study?

Is the research hypothesis clearly stated?

What is the research hypothesis?

Does the hypothesis reflect the purpose of the study?

Formulate a null hypothesis for this study.

Who is identified as the target population?

How were the subjects chosen (e.g., randomly,
conveniently)?

Who is included (e.g., males, females, children,
adults)?

Who is excluded (e.g., elderly, pregnant women,
minorities)?

How large is the sample?

How was sample size determined?

List the research variables.

How are the variables described?

What instruments or tools were used to collect data?

Are the instruments sufficient for measuring the study
variables? How is this assessed?

Are the instruments valid and reliable?

Are the instruments adequately described for you to
understand what the score means?

State the data collection procedures.

How often was data collected and for how long?

Were data analysis procedures clearly described?

Were data logically organized/presented in tables,
graphs and/or charts? Describe.

What statistical tests were used to analyze data?

What assumptions in the data must be met for the type
of statistical tests used? Were these assumptions met?

What were the levels of measurement for each variable
in the study?

Were statistical tests suitable to the types of data
collected/levels of measurement?

What was the alpha for each variable?

Describe how statistical significance was demonstrated
(or not) for each variable.

Discuss study results. What were the findings?

Is the research question/hypothesis answered?

Were study limitations described?

Can generalizations be made?

Were there any unexpected findings?

Discuss study recommendations.

Is there an identified need for further research?

Do study findings have clinical significance?

Who will benefit from results of the study?

Discuss implications of the study for nursing practice.

What changes could you make in your practice based
on the resul

A retrospective study of nursing diagnoses, outcomes, and
interventions for patients with mental disorders

Paula Escalada-Hernández, PhD, MSc a,⁎, Paula Muñoz-Hermoso, BSc b, Eduardo González–Fraile, Msc, BSc c,
Borja Santos, Msc, BSc d, José Alonso González-Vargas, PMH CNS, BSc e, Isabel Feria-Raposo, PMH CNS, BSc f,
José Luis Girón-García, PMH CNS, BSc g, Manuel García-Manso, BSc h THE CUISAM GROUP 1

a Public University of Navarre, Pamplona, Spain
b Clínica Psiquiátrica Padre Menni, Pamplona, Spain
c Instituto de Investigaciones Psiquiátricas, Bilbao, Spain
d Universidad del País Vasco, Bilbao, Spain
e Complejo Asistencial Hermanas Hospitalarias, Málaga, Spain
f Benito Menni CASM, Sant Boi, Spain
g Centro Neuropsiquiátrico Nuestra Sra. Del Carmen, Garrapinillos, Spain
h Complejo Hospitalario San Luis, Palencia, Spain

a b s t r a c ta r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:
Received 15 August 2013
Revised 24 March 2014
Accepted 28 May 2014

Keywords:
NANDA-I nursing diagnoses
NIC interventions
NOC outcomes
Psychiatric diagnoses
Mental disorders

Aim: The aim of this study is to describe the most frequent NANDA-I nursing diagnoses, NOC outcomes, and
NIC interventions used in nursing care plans in relation to psychiatric diagnosis. Background: Although
numerous studies have described the most prevalent NANDA-I, NIC and NOC labels in association with
medical diagnosis in different specialties, only few connect these with psychiatric diagnoses. Methods: This
multicentric cross-sectional study was developed in Spain. Data were collected retrospectively from the
electronic records of 690 psychiatric or psychogeriatric patients in long and medium-term units and,
psychogeriatric day-care centres. Results: The most common nursing diagnoses, interventions and outcomes
were identified for patients with schizophrenia, organic mental disorders, mental retardation, affective
disorders, disorders of adult personality and behavior, mental and behavioural disorders due to psychoactive
substance use and neurotic, stress-related and somatoform disorders. Conclusion: Results suggest that
NANDA-I, NIC and NOC labels combined with psychiatric diagnosis offer a complete description of the
patients’ actual condition.

© 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Background

Over the last decades, in the context of mental health care, important
reforms have taken place to promote the deinstitutionalization of
patients in many occidental countries (WHO & Wonca, 2008). In this
line, in Spain numerous changes have been undertaken to adopt a
community-based model of mental health care (Ministry of Health,
Equality Social Services, 2012). The Mental Health Strategy of the
Spanish National Health System 2009–2013 is the current guidance
document that, based on the evaluation of the present situation, outlines
the main lines of strategy and objectives for the improve

MSN5250 Group Project Part A
Critique Scoring Rubric

Group Name:

Adapted from: Oral Presentation Rubric – ReadWriteThink. (n.d.). Homepage – ReadWriteThink.

Retrieved June 11, 2018 from http://www.readwritethink.org/classroom-resources/printouts/oral-

presentation-rubric-30700.html

CATEGORY 4 3 2 1 Points

Content
(x5)

Demonstrates full
knowledge of the
critique process.
Provides clear
explanations of all
critique elements;
supports
conclusions/ideas
with evidence from
the study.
Provides both
positive and
negative critique.

Demonstrates
good
understanding of
the critique
process. Provides
explanations of
majority of critique
elements; partially
supports
conclusions/ideas
with evidence from
the study.
Provides some
positive mixed
with mostly
negative critique.

Demonstrates
limited
understanding of
the critique
process. Provides
explanations of
some of critique
elements; limited
support of
conclusions/ideas
with evidence from
the study.
Provides mostly
negative critique.

Demonstrates little
to no
understanding of
the critique
process. Does not
provide
explanations of
critique elements;
does not support
conclusions/ideas
with evidence from
the study.
Provides only
negative critique.

Organization

Information is well-
organized.
Presentation flows
nicely.

Information is
organized.
Presentation flows
fairly well.

Information is
fairly organized.
Presentation does
not flow well.

Information
appears to be
disorganized.
Presentation is
difficult to
understand.

Critical
Analysis

Analyses and
conclusions are
accurate, detailed,
insightful, valid,
and consistent
with data.

Analyses and
conclusions are
consistent with
data.

Analyses and
conclusions are
mostly correct.

Analyses and
conclusions are
unclear or
inaccurate.

Comprehension

Able to accurately
answer almost all
questions posed
by colleagues
about the topic.

Able to accurately
answer most
questions posed
by colleagues
about the topic.

Able to accurately
answer a few
questions posed
by colleagues
about the topic.

Unable to
accurately answer
questions posed
by colleagues
about the topic.

Preparedness

Completely
prepared and has
obviously
rehearsed.

Well- prepared
and rehearsed.

Somewhat
prepared but it is
clear that
rehearsal was
lacking.

Does not seem at
all prepared to
present.

Timing

Presentation is
18-20 minutes
long.

Presentation is 15-
17 minutes long.

Presentation is 12-
14 minutes long.

Presentation is
less than 12
minutes or greater
than 20 minutes.