DNP 801 Week 7 Annotated Bibliography GCU
In the previous assignment, learners identified primary quantitative research for their PICOT-D question and intervention. The purpose of this assignment is to create an annotated bibliography to inform on the relevance of the selected articles and to present the final primary quantitative research for your future DPI Project (based on the PICOT-D question).
• Refer to the “Literature Evaluation Table” completed in your Topic 4 assignment.
• Refer to “Preparing Annotated Bibliographies” resource, located in the Student Success Center for assistance in completing this assignment. This resource provides criteria for other types of scholarly writing, so make sure you follow the APA style criteria.
• A minimum of five primary quantitative research articles, published within 5 years of your anticipated graduation date, are required to complete this assignment.
• Doctoral learners are required to use APA style for their writing assignments. The APA Style Guide is located in the Student Success Center.
• This assignment uses a rubric. Please review the rubric prior to beginning the assignment to become familiar with the expectations for successful completion.
• You are required to submit this assignment to LopesWrite. A link to the LopesWrite Technical Support Articles is located in Class Resources if you need assistance.
• Learners will submit this assignment using the assignment dropbox in the digital classroom. In addition, learners must upload this deliverable to the Learner Dissertation Page (LDP) in the DNP PI Workspace for later use.
For this assignment, create an annotated bibliography (APA 7th) to inform the reader on the six primary quantitative research articles identified on your “Literature Evaluation Table.” Include the following:
1. If any of the five original articles submitted on your “Literature Evaluation Table” fail to meet the required criteria, or if you have been instructed to replace or revise the articles, make these changes prior to beginning this assignment. Two of the five articles must provide direct support for your proposed intervention.
2. For each annotation, concisely discuss your evaluation of the article’s quality, accuracy, and relevance to your PICOT-D. When discussing relevance, explain how the research directly supports the PICOT-D question or intervention.
3. Attach the updated “Literature Evaluation Table” to an appendix in your paper.
4. Annotated Bibliography – Rubric
5. Collapse All Annotated Bibliography – RubricCollapse All
6. Annotation for Each Article
7. 55 points
8. Criteria Description
9. Concise; discusses evaluation of the quality, accuracy and relevance of each article to PICOT-D; explanation for how research directly supports PICOT-D or intervention.
10. 5. Target
11. 55 points
12. Each annotation is concise and well-organized. The evaluation of the quality, accuracy, and relevance of each article to the PICOT-D is accurate and informative. A clear explanation for how research from each article directly supports the PICOT-D or intervention is presented. At least two articles provide strong support for the intervention.
13. 4. Acceptable
14. 50.6 points
15. Overall, the annotations are concise. The evaluation of the quality, accuracy, and relevance of each article to the PICOT-D is informative. An explanation for how research from each article directly supports the PICOT-D or intervention is presented. At least two articles provide support for the intervention.
16. 3. Approaching
17. 48.4 points
18. Some of the annotations are wordy. The evaluations of the quality, accuracy, and relevance of the articles to the PICOT-D are generally informative. How research from each article supports the PICOT-D or intervention is outlined. At least two articles relate to the intervention. There are some inaccuracies.
19. 2. Insufficient
20. 44 points
21. The annotations are presented, but do not concisely or accurately inform on the quality, accuracy, and relevance of the articles to the PICOT-D. It is unclear how the research from articles supports the PICOT-D or intervention.
22. 1. Unsatisfactory
23. 0 points
24. Fewer than five articles are annotated. The annotations presented are incomplete or do not inform on how the articles relate to the PICOT-D or intervention.
25. Primary Quantitative Research
26. 16.5 points
27. Criteria Description
28. Meets criteria for primary quantitative research; published within 5 years of anticipated graduation date; working links are provided for each article.
29. 5. Target
30. 16.5 points
31. Five primary quantitative research articles, published within 5 years of the anticipated graduation date, are presented. All five articles meet the criteria for primary research on the Levels of Evidence chart.
32. 4. Acceptable
33. 15.18 points
34. Five primary quantitative research articles, published within 5 years of the anticipated graduation date, meet the criteria for primary research on the Levels of Evidence chart.
35. 3. Approaching
36. 14.52 points
37. Four primary quantitative research articles, published within 5 years of the anticipated graduation date, meet the criteria for primary research on the Levels of Evidence chart.
38. 2. Insufficient
39. 13.2 points
40. Three primary quantitative research articles, published within 5 years of the anticipated graduation date, are presented and meet the criteria for primary research on the Levels of Evidence chart.
41. 1. Unsatisfactory
42. 0 points
43. Fewer than three articles meet the specified criteria.
44. Literature Evaluation Table
45. 5.5 points
46. Criteria Description
47. Includes an evaluation of the selected articles for the annotated bibliography; attached as an appendix to the paper.
48. 5. Target
49. 5.5 points
50. The Literature Evaluation Table includes the selected articles for the annotated bibliography. The document is attached as an appendix to the paper.
51. 4. Acceptable
52. 5.06 points
54. 3. Approaching
55. 4.84 points
57. 2. Insufficient
58. 4.4 points
59. The Literature Evaluation Table does not include the selected articles for the annotated bibliography. The document is attached but not as an appendix to the paper.
60. 1. Unsatisfactory
61. 0 points
62. The Literature Evaluation Table is omitted.
63. Paper Format
64. 11 points
65. Criteria Description
66. Includes the use of appropriate style for the major and assignment.
67. 5. Target
68. 11 points
69. All format elements are correct.
70. 4. Acceptable
71. 10.12 points
72. Template is fully used; there are virtually no errors in formatting style.
73. 3. Approaching
74. 9.68 points
75. Template is used and formatting is correct, although some minor errors may be present.
76. 2. Insufficient
77. 8.8 points
78. Template is used, but some elements are missing or mistaken; lack of control with formatting is apparent.
79. 1. Unsatisfactory
80. 0 points
81. Template is not used appropriately, or documentation format is rarely followed correctly.
82. Mechanics of Writing
83. 11 points
84. Criteria Description
85. Includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, and language use.
86. 5. Target
87. 11 points
88. The writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English.
89. 4. Acceptable
90. 10.12 points
91. Prose is largely free of mechanical errors, although a few may be present. The writer uses a variety of effective sentence structures and figures of speech.
92. 3. Approaching
93. 9.68 points
94. Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but they are not overly distracting to the reader. Correct and varied sentence structure and audience-appropriate language are employed.
95. 2. Insufficient
96. 8.8 points
97. Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistencies in language choice (register) or word choice are present. Sentence structure is correct, but not varied.
98. 1. Unsatisfactory
99. 0 points
100. Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice or sentence construction is employed.
101. Documentation of Sources
102. 11 points
103. Criteria Description
104. Includes citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc., as appropriate to assignment and style.
105. 5. Target
106. 11 points
107. Sources are completely and correctly documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is free of errors.
108. 4. Acceptable
109. 10.12 points
110. Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is mostly correct.
111. 3. Approaching
112. 9.68 points
113. Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, although some formatting errors may be present.
114. 2. Insufficient
115. 8.8 points
116. Documentation of sources is inconsistent or incorrect, as appropriate to assignment and style, with numerous formatting errors.
117. 1. Unsatisfactory
118. 0 points
119. Sources are not documented.
120. Total 110 points