Two articles are presented. Both articles are based on quantitative research.

N/A

N/A

Two articles are presented. Of the articles presented, only one article is based on quantitative research.

Only one article is presented. Neither of the articles presented use quantitative research.

Background of study, including problem, significance to nursing, purpose, objective, and research questions, is thorough with substantial relevant details and extensive explanation.

Background of study, including problem, significance to nursing, purpose, objective, and research questions, is complete and includes relevant details and explanation.

Background of study, including problem, significance to nursing, purpose, objective, and research questions, is partially complete and includes some relevant details and explanation.

Background of study, including problem, significance to nursing, purpose, objective, and research questions, is included but lacks relevant details and explanation.

Background of study, including problem, significance to nursing, purpose, objective, and research questions, is incomplete.

A clear discussion on how articles support the PICOT question is presented. The articles demonstrate strong support in answering the proposed PICOT question. The interventions and comparison groups in the articles strongly compare to those identified in the PICOT question.

A discussion on how articles support the PICOT question is presented. The articles demonstrate support in answering the proposed PICOT question. The interventions and comparison groups in the articles compare to those identified in the PICOT question. Minor detail or rational is needed for clarity or support.

A general discussion on how articles support the PICOT question is presented. The articles demonstrate general support in answering the proposed PICOT question. It is unclear how the interventions and comparison groups in the articles compare to those identified in the PICOT question. Some rational or information is needed.

A summary of how articles support the PICOT question is presented. It is unclear how the articles can be used to answer the proposed PICOT question. Significant information and detail is required.

Discussion on how articles support the PICOT question is incomplete.

A thorough discussion on the method of study for each article is presented. The comparison of study methods is described in detail. A benefit and a limitation of each method are presented. The discussion demonstrates a solid understanding of research methods.

A discussion on the method of study for each article is presented. The comparison of study methods is generally described. A benefit and a limitation of each method are presented. There minor are inaccuracies. Some detail is required for accuracy or clarity.

A general discussion on the method of study for each article is presented. The comparison of study methods is summarized. A benefit and a limitation of each method are summarized. There some inaccuracies or partial omissions. More information is needed.

A partial summary of the method of study for each article is presented. The comparison of study methods is incomplete. A benefit and a limitation of each method are omitted or incomplete. There are significant inaccuracies.

Discussion on the method of study for each article is omitted. The comparison of study methods is omitted or incomplete.

Discussion of study results, including findings and implications for nursing practice, is thorough with substantial relevant details and extensive explanation.

Discussion of study results, including findings and implications for nursing practice, is complete and includes relevant details and explanation.

Discussion of study results, including findings and implications for nursing practice, is generally presented. Overall, the discussion includes some relevant details and explanation.

A summary of the study results includes findings and implications for nursing practice but lacks relevant details and explanation. There are some omissions or inaccuracies.

Discussion of study results, including findings and implications for nursing practice, is incomplete.

Anticipated outcomes for the PICOT are thoroughly discussed. A detailed comparison of research article outcomes to the anticipated outcomes of the PICOT is presented. An explanation of how the anticipated outcomes of the PICOT and those of the current research mentioned compare is presented in detail.

Anticipated outcomes for the PICOT are discussed. A comparison of research article outcomes to anticipated outcomes of the PICOT is presented. An explanation of how the anticipated outcomes of the PICOT and those of the current research mentioned compare is presented. Some detail is needed for clarity.

Anticipated outcomes for the PICOT are summarized. Comparison of research article outcomes to anticipated outcomes is generally presented. More information is needed to fully establish how the anticipated outcomes of the PICOT and those of the current research mentioned compare.

Anticipated outcomes for the PICOT are partially summarized. Comparison of research article outcomes to anticipated outcomes contains omissions of key information. It is unclear how the anticipated outcomes of the PICOT and those of the current research mentioned compare.

Anticipated outcomes for the PICOT are omitted or are unrealistic. Comparison of research article outcomes to anticipated outcomes is incomplete.

Thesis is comprehensive and contains the essence of the paper. Thesis statement makes the purpose of the paper clear.

Thesis is clear and forecasts the development of the paper. Thesis is descriptive and reflective of the arguments and appropriate to the purpose.

Thesis is apparent and appropriate to purpose.

Thesis is insufficiently developed or vague. Purpose is not clear.

Paper lacks any discernible overall purpose or organizing claim.

Argument is clear and convincing and presents a persuasive claim in a distinctive and compelling manner. All sources are authoritative.

Argument shows logical progressions. Techniques of argumentation are evident. There is a smooth progression of claims from introduction to conclusion. Most sources are authoritative.

Argument is orderly, but may have a few inconsistencies. The argument presents minimal justification of claims. Argument logically, but not thoroughly, supports the purpose. Sources used are credible. Introduction and conclusion bracket the thesis.

Sufficient justification of claims is lacking. Argument lacks consistent unity. There are obvious flaws in the logic. Some sources have questionable credibility.

Statement of purpose is not justified by the conclusion. The conclusion does not support the claim made. Argument is incoherent and uses noncredible sources.

Writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English.

Prose is largely free of mechanical errors, although a few may be present. A variety of sentence structures and effective figures of speech are used.

Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but they are not overly distracting to the reader. Correct sentence structure and audience-appropriate language are used.

Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistencies in language choice (register), sentence structure, or word choice are present.

Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice or sentence construction is used.

All format elements are correct.

Template is fully used; There are virtually no errors in formatting style.

Template is used, and formatting is correct, although some minor errors may be present.

Template is used, but some elements are missing or mistaken; lack of control with formatting is apparent.

Template is not used appropriately or documentation format is rarely followed correctly.