F Nonresearch Evidence

Appraisal Tool

C o p y r i g h t 2 0 1 8 . S i g m a T h e t a T a u I n t e r n a t i o n a l .

A l l r i g h t s r e s e r v e d . M a y n o t b e r e p r o d u c e d i n a n y f o r m w i t h o u t p e r m i s s i o n f r o m t h e p u b l i s h e r , e x c e p t f a i r u s e s p e r m i t t e d u n d e r U . S . o r a p p l i c a b l e c o p y r i g h t l a w .

EBSCO Publishing : eBook Collection (EBSCOhost) – printed on 1/8/2023 11:52 PM via WESTERN GOVERNORS UNIVERSITY AN: 1625431 ; Debora Dang, Sandra L. Dearholt.; Johns Hopkins Nursing Evidence-Based Practice Third Edition: Model and Guidelines Account: ns017578.main.eds

Johns Hopkins Nursing Evidence-Based Practice Nonresearch Evidence Appraisal Tool292

Evidence level and quality rating: ____________

Article title: Number:

Author(s): Publication date:

Journal:

Setting: Sample

(composition and size):

Does this evidence address my EBP question?

❑ Yes ❑ No Do not proceed with appraisal of this evidence.

❑ Clinical Practice Guidelines LEVEL IV Systematically developed recommendations from nationally recognized experts based on research evidence or expert consensus panel

❑ Consensus or Position Statement LEVEL IV Systematically developed recommendations, based on research and nationally recognized expert opinion, that guide members of a professional organization in decision-making for an issue of concern

■■ Are the types of evidence included identified? ❑ Yes ❑ No

■■ Were appropriate stakeholders involved in the development of recommendations?

❑ Yes ❑ No

■■ Are groups to which recommendations apply and do not apply clearly stated?

❑ Yes ❑ No

■■ Have potential biases been eliminated? ❑ Yes ❑ No

■■ Does each recommendation have an identified level of evidence stated?

❑ Yes ❑ No

■■ Are recommendations clear? ❑ Yes ❑ No

Complete the corresponding quality rating section.

EBSCOhost – printed on 1/8/2023 11:52 PM via WESTERN GOVERNORS UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

F Nonresearch Evidence Appraisal Tool 293

❑ Literature review LEVEL V Summary of selected published literature including scientific and nonscientific such as reports of organizational experience and opinions of experts

❑ Integrative review LEVEL V Summary of research evidence and theoretical literature; analyzes, compares themes, notes gaps in the selected literature

■■ Is subject matter to be reviewed clearly stated? ❑ Yes ❑ No

■■ Is literature relevant and up-to-date (most sources are within the past five years or classic)?

❑ Yes ❑ No

■■ Of the literature reviewed, is there a meaningful analysis of the conclusions across the articles included in the review?

❑ Yes ❑ No

■■ Are gaps in the literature identified? ❑ Yes ❑ No

■■ Are recommendations made for future practice or study? ❑ Yes ❑ No

Complete the corresponding quality rating.

❑ Expert opinion LEVEL V Opinion of one or more individuals based on clinical expertise

■■ Has the individual published or presented on the topic? ❑ Yes ❑ No

■■ Is the author’s opinion based on scientific evidence? ❑ Yes ❑ No

■■ Is the author’s opinion clearly stated? ❑ Yes ❑ No

■■ Are potential biases acknowledged? ❑ Yes ❑ No

Complete the corresponding quality rating.

Organizational Experience

❑ Quality improvement LEVEL V Cyclical method to examine workflows, processes, or systems with a specific organization

❑ Financial evaluation LEVEL V Economic evaluation that applies analytic techniques to identify, measure, and compare the cost and outcomes of two or more alternative programs or interventions

❑ Program evaluation LEVEL V Systematic assessment of the processes and/or outcomes of a program; can involve both quaNtitative and quaLitative methods

EBSCOhost – printed on 1/8/2023 11:52 PM via WESTERN GOVERNORS UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

Johns Hopkins Nursing Evidence-Based Practice Nonresearch Evidence Appraisal Tool294

Setting Sample Composition/Size

■■ Was the aim of the project clearly stated? ❑ Yes ❑ No

■■ Was the method fully described? ❑ Yes ❑ No

■■ Were process or outcome measures identified? ❑ Yes ❑ No

■■ Were results fully described? ❑ Yes ❑ No

■■ Was interpretation clear and appropriate? ❑ Yes ❑ No

■■ Are components of cost/benefit or cost effectiveness analysis described?

❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ N/A

Complete the corresponding quality rating.

❑ Case report LEVEL V In-depth look at a person or group or another social unit

■■ Is the purpose of the case report clearly stated? ❑ Yes ❑ No

■■ Is the case report clearly presented? ❑ Yes ❑ No

■■ Are the findings of the case report supported by relevant theory or research?

❑ Yes ❑ No

■■ Are the recommendations clearly stated and linked to the findings?

❑ Yes ❑ No

Complete the corresponding quality rating.

Community standard, clinician experience, or consumer preference LEVEL V

❑ Community standard: Current practice for comparable settings in the community

❑ Clinician experience: Knowledge gained through practice experience

❑ Consumer preference: Knowledge gained through life experience

Information Source(s) Number of Sources

■■ Source of information has credible experience. ❑ Yes ❑ No

■■ Opinions are clearly stated. ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ N/A

■■ Evidence obtained is consistent. ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ N/A

Findings That Help You Answer the EBP Question

EBSCOhost – printed on 1/8/2023 11:52 PM via WESTERN GOVERNORS UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

F Nonresearch Evidence Appraisal Tool 295

Quality Rating for Clinical Practice Guidelines, Consensus, or Position Statements (Level IV)

A. High quality Material officially sponsored by a professional, public, or private organization or a government agency; documentation of a systematic literature search strategy; consistent results with sufficient numbers of well-designed studies; criteria-based evaluation of overall scientific strength and quality of included studies and definitive conclusions; national expertise clearly evident; developed or revised within the past five years.

B. Good quality Material officially sponsored by a professional, public, or private organization or a government agency; reasonably thorough and appropriate systematic literature search strategy; reasonably consistent results, sufficient numbers of well-designed studies; evaluation of strengths and limitations of included studies with fairly definitive conclusions; national expertise clearly evident; developed or revised within the past five years.

C. Low quality or major flaw Material not sponsored by an official organization or agency; undefined, poorly defined, or limited literature search strategy; no evaluation of strengths and limitations of included studies; insufficient evidence with inconsistent results; conclusions cannot be drawn; not revised within the past five years.

Quality Rating for Organizational Experience (Level V)

A. High quality Clear aims and objectives; consistent results across multiple settings; formal quality improvement or financial evaluation methods used; definitive conclusions; consistent recommendations with thorough reference to scientific evidence.

B. Good quality Clear aims and objectives; formal quality improvement or financial evaluation methods used; consistent results in a single setting; reasonably consistent recommendations with some reference to scientific evidence.

C. Low quality or major flaws Unclear or missing aims and objectives; inconsistent results; poorly defined quality; improvement/financial analysis method; recommendations cannot be made.

Quality Rating for Case Report, Integrative Review, Literature Review, Expert Opinion, Community Standard, Clinician Experience, Consumer Preference (Level V)

A. High quality Expertise is clearly evident, draws definitive conclusions, and provides scientific rationale; thought leader in the field.

B. Good quality Expertise appears to be credible, draws fairly definitive conclusions, and provides logical argument for opinions.

C. Low quality or major flaws Expertise is not discernable or is dubious; conclusions cannot be drawn.

EBSCOhost – printed on 1/8/2023 11:52 PM via WESTERN GOVERNORS UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

EBSCOhost – printed on 1/8/2023 11:52 PM via WESTERN GOVERNORS UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

E Research Evidence

Appraisal Tool

C o p y r i g h t 2 0 1 8 . S i g m a T h e t a T a u I n t e r n a t i o n a l .

A l l r i g h t s r e s e r v e d . M a y n o t b e r e p r o d u c e d i n a n y f o r m w i t h o u t p e r m i s s i o n f r o m t h e p u b l i s h e r , e x c e p t f a i r u s e s p e r m i t t e d u n d e r U . S . o r a p p l i c a b l e c o p y r i g h t l a w .

EBSCO Publishing : eBook Collection (EBSCOhost) – printed on 1/8/2023 11:45 PM via WESTERN GOVERNORS UNIVERSITY AN: 1625431 ; Debora Dang, Sandra L. Dearholt.; Johns Hopkins Nursing Evidence-Based Practice Third Edition: Model and Guidelines Account: ns017578.main.eds

Johns Hopkins Nursing Evidence-Based Practice Research Evidence Appraisal Tool282

Evidence level and quality rating: _________________

Article title: Number:

Author(s): Publication date:

Journal:

Setting: Sample

(composition and size):

Does this evidence address my EBP question?

❑ Yes ❑ No Do not proceed with appraisal of this evidence.

Is this study:

■■ QuaNtitative (collection, analysis, and reporting of numerical data)

Measurable data (how many; how much; or how often) used to formulate facts, uncover patterns in research, and generalize results from a larger sample population; provides observed effects of a program, problem, or condition, measured precisely, rather than through researcher interpretation of data. Common methods are surveys, face-to-face structured interviews, observations, and reviews of records or documents. Statistical tests are used in data analysis.

Go to Section I: QuaNtitative

■■ QuaLitative (collection, analysis, and reporting of narrative data)

Rich narrative documents are used for uncovering themes; describes a problem or condition from the point of view of those experiencing it. Common methods are focus groups, individual interviews (unstructured or semistructured), and participation/observations. Sample sizes are small and are determined when data saturation is achieved. Data saturation is reached when the researcher identifies that no new themes emerge and redundancy is occurring. Synthesis is used in data analysis. Often a starting point for studies when little research exists; may use results to design empirical studies. The researcher describes, analyzes, and interprets reports, descriptions, and observations from participants.

Go to Section II: QuaLitative

■■ Mixed methods (results reported both numerically and narratively)

Both quaNtitative and quaLitative methods are used in the study design. Using both approaches, in combination, provides a better understanding of research problems than using either approach alone. Sample sizes vary based on methods used. Data collection involves collecting and analyzing both quaNtitative and quaLitative data in a single study or series of studies. Interpretation is continual and can influence stages in the research process.

Go to Section I for QuaNtitative components and Section II for QuaLitative components

EBSCOhost – printed on 1/8/2023 11:45 PM via WESTERN GOVERNORS UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

E Research Evidence Appraisal Tool 283

Section I: QuaNtitative

Level of Evidence (Study Design)

A. Is this a report of a single research study? ■ ❑ Yes

■ ❑ No

Go to B.

1. Was there manipulation of an independent variable? ❑ Yes ❑ No

2. Was there a control group? ❑ Yes ❑ No

3. Were study participants randomly assigned to the intervention and control groups? ❑ Yes ❑ No

If Yes to questions 1, 2, and 3, this is a randomized controlled trial (RCT) or experimental study.

If Yes to questions 1 and 2 and No to question 3, or Yes to question 1 and No to questions 2 and 3, this is quasi-experimental (some degree of investigator control, some manipulation of an independent variable, lacks random assignment to groups, and may have a control group).

If No to questions 1, 2, and 3, this is nonexperimental (no manipulation of independent variable; can be descriptive, comparative, or correlational; often uses secondary data).

❑ LEVEL I

❑ LEVEL II

❑ LEVEL III

Study Findings That Help Answer the EBP Question

Complete the Appraisal of QuaNtitative Research Studies section.

EBSCOhost – printed on 1/8/2023 11:45 PM via WESTERN GOVERNORS UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

Johns Hopkins Nursing Evidence-Based Practice Research Evidence Appraisal Tool284

B. Is this a summary of multiple sources of research evidence?

❑ Yes

Continue

❑ No

Go to Appendix F

1. Does it employ a comprehensive search strategy and rigorous appraisal method?

If this study includes research, nonresearch, and experiential evidence, it is an integrative review. See Appendix F.

❑ Yes ❑ No

Go to Appendix F

2. For systematic reviews and systematic reviews with meta-analysis (see descriptions below):

a. Are all studies included RCTs?

b. Are the studies a combination of RCTs and quasi-experimental, or quasi-experimental only?

c. Are the studies a combination of RCTs, quasi-experimental, and nonexperimental, or non- experimental only?

A systematic review employs a search strategy and a rigorous appraisal method, but does not generate an effect size.

A meta-analysis, or systematic review with meta-analysis, combines and analyzes results from studies to generate a new statistic: the effect size.

❑ Level I

❑■Level II

❑■Level III

Study Findings That Help Answer the EBP Question

Complete the Appraisal of Systematic Review (With or Without a Meta-Analysis) section.

EBSCOhost – printed on 1/8/2023 11:45 PM via WESTERN GOVERNORS UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

E Research Evidence Appraisal Tool 285

Appraisal of QuaNtitative Research Studies

Does the researcher identify what is known and not known about the problem and how the study will address any gaps in knowledge?

❑ Yes ❑ No

Was the purpose of the study clearly presented? ❑ Yes ❑ No

Was the literature review current (most sources within the past five years or a seminal study)?

❑ Yes ❑ No

Was sample size sufficient based on study design and rationale? ❑ Yes ❑ No

If there is a control group:

■■ Were the characteristics and/or demographics similar in both the control and intervention groups?

❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ N/A

■■ If multiple settings were used, were the settings similar? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ N/A

■■ Were all groups equally treated except for the intervention group(s)?

❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ N/A

Are data collection methods described clearly? ❑ Yes ❑ No

Were the instruments reliable (Cronbach’s α [alpha] > 0.70)? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ N/A

Was instrument validity discussed? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ N/A

If surveys or questionnaires were used, was the response rate > 25%? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ N/A

Were the results presented clearly? ❑ Yes ❑ No

If tables were presented, was the narrative consistent with the table content?

❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ N/A

Were study limitations identified and addressed? ❑ Yes ❑ No

Were conclusions based on results? ❑ Yes ❑ No

Go to Quality Rating for QuaNtitative Studies section

Appraisal of Systematic Review (With or Without Meta-Analysis)

Were the variables of interest clearly identified? ❑ Yes ❑ No

Was the search comprehensive and reproducible?

■■ Key search terms stated ❑ Yes ❑ No

■■ Multiple databases searched and identified ❑ Yes ❑ No

■■ Inclusion and exclusion criteria stated ❑ Yes ❑ No

Was there a flow diagram that included the number of studies eliminated at each level of review?

❑ Yes ❑ No

EBSCOhost – printed on 1/8/2023 11:45 PM via WESTERN GOVERNORS UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

Johns Hopkins Nursing Evidence-Based Practice Research Evidence Appraisal Tool286

Were details of included studies presented (design, sample, methods, results, outcomes, strengths, and limitations?

❑ Yes ❑ No

Were methods for appraising the strength of evidence (level and quality) described?

❑ Yes ❑ No

Were conclusions based on results? ❑ Yes ❑ No

■■ Results were interpreted. ❑ Yes ❑ No

■■ Conclusions flowed logically from the interpretation and systematic review question.

❑ Yes ❑ No

Did the systematic review include a section addressing limitations and how they were addressed?

❑ Yes ❑ No

Quality Rating for QuaNtitative Studies

Complete quality rating for quaNtitative studies section.

Circle the appropriate quality rating below

A High quality: Consistent, generalizable results; sufficient sample size for the study design; adequate control; definitive conclusions; consistent recommendations based on comprehensive literature review that includes thorough reference to scientific evidence.

B Good quality: Reasonably consistent results; sufficient sample size for the study design; some control, and fairly definitive conclusions; reasonably consistent recommendations based on fairly comprehensive literature review that includes some reference to scientific evidence.

C Low quality or major flaws: Little evidence with inconsistent results; insufficient sample size for the study design; conclusions cannot be drawn.

Section II: QuaLitative

Level of Evidence (Study Design)

A. Is this a report of a single quaLitative research study? ❑ Yes

Level III

❑ No

Go to Section II. B

Study Findings That Help Answer the EBP Question

Complete the Appraisal of Single QuaLitative Research Study section.

EBSCOhost – printed on 1/8/2023 11:45 PM via WESTERN GOVERNORS UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

E Research Evidence Appraisal Tool 287

Appraisal of a Single QuaLitative Research Study

Was there a clearly identifiable and articulated:

■■ Purpose? ❑ Yes ❑ No

■■ Research question? ❑ Yes ❑ No

■■ Justification for method(s) used? ❑ Yes ❑ No

■■ Phenomenon that is the focus of the research? ❑ Yes ❑ No

Were study sample participants representative? ❑ Yes ❑ No

Did they have knowledge of or experience with the research area? ❑ Yes ❑ No

Were participant characteristics described? ❑ Yes ❑ No

Was sampling adequate, as evidenced by achieving saturation of data? ❑ Yes ❑ No

Data analysis:

■■ Was a verification process used in every step by checking and confirming with participants the trustworthiness of analysis and interpretation?

❑ Yes ❑ No

■■ Was there a description of how data were analyzed (i.e., method), by computer or manually?

❑ Yes ❑ No

Do findings support the narrative data (quotes)? ❑ Yes ❑ No

Do findings flow from research question to data collected to analysis undertaken?

❑ Yes ❑ No

Are conclusions clearly explained? ❑ Yes ❑ No

Go to Quality Rating for QuaLitative Studies section.

B. For summaries of multiple quaLitative research studies (meta-synthesis), was a comprehensive search strategy and rigorous appraisal method used?

❑ Yes

Level III

❑ No Go to Appendix F.

Study Findings That Help Answer the EBP Question

Complete the Appraisal of Meta-Synthesis Studies section.

EBSCOhost – printed on 1/8/2023 11:45 PM via WESTERN GOVERNORS UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

Johns Hopkins Nursing Evidence-Based Practice Research Evidence Appraisal Tool288

Appraisal of Meta-Synthesis Studies

Were the search strategy and criteria for selecting primary studies clearly defined?

❑ Yes ❑ No

Were findings appropriate and convincing? ❑ Yes ❑ No

Was a description of methods used to:

■■ Compare findings from each study? ❑ Yes ❑ No ■■ Interpret data? ❑ Yes ❑ No

Did synthesis reflect:

■■ New insights? ❑ Yes ❑ No ■■ Discovery of essential features of phenomena? ❑ Yes ❑ No ■■ A fuller understanding of the phenomena? ❑ Yes ❑ No

Was sufficient data presented to support the interpretations? ❑ Yes ❑ No

Complete Quality Rating for QuaLtitative Studies section.

Quality Rating for QuaLitative Studies

Circle the appropriate quality rating below

No commonly agreed-on principles exist for judging the quality of quaLitative studies. It is a subjective process based on the extent to which study data contributes to synthesis and how much information is known about the researchers’ efforts to meet the appraisal criteria.

For meta-synthesis, there is preliminary agreement that quality assessments should be made before synthesis to screen out poor-quality studies1.

A/B High/Good quality is used for single studies and meta-syntheses)2.

The report discusses efforts to enhance or evaluate the quality of the data and the overall inquiry in sufficient detail; and it describes the specific techniques used to enhance the quality of the inquiry. Evidence of some or all of the following is found in the report:

■■ Transparency: Describes how information was documented to justify decisions, how data were reviewed by others, and how themes and categories were formulated.

■■ Diligence: Reads and rereads data to check interpretations; seeks opportunity to find multiple sources to corroborate evidence.

■■ Verification: The process of checking, confirming, and ensuring methodologic coherence.

■■ Self-reflection and self-scrutiny: Being continuously aware of how a researcher’s experiences, background, or prejudices might shape and bias analysis and interpretations.

■■ Participant-driven inquiry: Participants shape the scope and breadth of questions; analysis and interpretation give voice to those who participated.

■■ Insightful interpretation: Data and knowledge are linked in meaningful ways to relevant literature.

C Lower-quality studies contribute little to the overall review of findings and have few, if any, of the features listed for High/Good quality.

EBSCOhost – printed on 1/8/2023 11:45 PM via WESTERN GOVERNORS UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

E Research Evidence Appraisal Tool 289

Section III: Mixed Methods

Level of Evidence (Study Design)

You will need to appraise both the quaNtitative and quaLitative parts of the study independently, before appraising the study in its entirety.

1. Evaluate the quaNtitative portion of the study using Section I. Insert here the level of evidence and overall quality for this part:

2. Evaluate the quaLitative part of the study using Section II. Insert here the level of evidence and overall quality for this part:

3. To determine the level of evidence, circle the appropriate study design:

(a) Explanatory sequential designs collect quaNtitative data first, followed by the quaLitative data; and their purpose is to explain quaNtitative results using quaLitative findings. The level is determined based on the level of the quaNtitative part.

(b) Exploratory sequential designs collect quaLitative data first, followed by the quaNtitative data; and their purpose is to explain quaLitative findings using the quaNtitative re

Our website has a team of professional writers who can help you write any of your homework. They will write your papers from scratch. We also have a team of editors just to make sure all papers are of HIGH QUALITY & PLAGIARISM FREE. To make an Order you only need to click Ask A Question and we will direct you to our Order Page at WriteDemy. Then fill Our Order Form with all your assignment instructions. Select your deadline and pay for your paper. You will get it few hours before your set deadline.

Fill in all the assignment paper details that are required in the order form with the standard information being the page count, deadline, academic level and type of paper. It is advisable to have this information at hand so that you can quickly fill in the necessary information needed in the form for the essay writer to be immediately assigned to your writing project. Make payment for the custom essay order to enable us to assign a suitable writer to your order. Payments are made through Paypal on a secured billing page. Finally, sit back and relax.

Do you need an answer to this or any other questions?

Order Plagiarism Free Answer Here

About Wridemy

We are a professional paper writing website. If you have searched a question and bumped into our website just know you are in the right place to get help in your coursework. We offer HIGH QUALITY & PLAGIARISM FREE Papers.

How It Works

To make an Order you only need to click on “Order Now” and we will direct you to our Order Page. Fill Our Order Form with all your assignment instructions. Select your deadline and pay for your paper. You will get it few hours before your set deadline.

Are there Discounts?

All new clients are eligible for 20% off in their first Order. Our payment method is safe and secure.

Hire a tutor today CLICK HERE to make your first order

Related Tags

Academic APA Writing College Course Discussion Management English Finance General Graduate History Information Justify Literature MLA