Evidence-Based Project, Part 1: Identifying Research Methodologies((( four page , fine references)))
Is there a difference between “common practice” and “best practice”?
When you first went to work for your current organization, experienced colleagues may have shared with you details about processes and procedures. Perhaps you even attended an orientation session to brief you on these matters. As a “rookie,” you likely kept the nature of your questions to those with answers that would best help you perform your new role.
Over time and with experience, perhaps you recognized aspects of these processes and procedures that you wanted to question further. This is the realm of clinical inquiry.
Clinical inquiry is the practice of asking questions about clinical practice. To continuously improve patient care, all nurses should consistently use clinical inquiry to question why they are doing something the way they are doing it. Do they know why it is done this way, or is it just because we have always done it this way? Is it a common practice or a best practice?
In this Assignment, you will identify clinical areas of interest and inquiry and practice searching for research in support of maintaining or changing these practices. You will also analyze this research to compare research methodologies employed.
To Prepare:

• Review the Resources and identify a clinical issue of interest that can form the basis of a clinical inquiry. Keep in mind that the clinical issue you identify for your research will stay the same for the entire course.
• Based on the clinical issue of interest and using keywords related to the clinical issue of interest, search at least four different databases in the Walden Library to identify at least four relevant peer-reviewed articles related to your clinical issue of interest. You should not be using systematic reviews for this assignment, select original research articles.
• Review the results of your peer-reviewed research and reflect on the process of using an unfiltered database to search for peer-reviewed research.
• Reflect on the types of research methodologies contained in the four relevant peer-reviewed articles you selected.

Part 1: Identifying Research Methodologies
After reading each of the four peer-reviewed articles you selected, use the Matrix Worksheet template to analyze the methodologies applied in each of the four peer-reviewed articles. Your analysis should include the following:

• The full citation of each peer-reviewed article in APA format.
• A brief (1-paragraph) statement explaining why you chose this peer-reviewed article and/or how it relates to your clinical issue of interest, including a brief explanation of the ethics of research related to your clinical issue of interest.
• A brief (1-2 paragraph) description of the aims of the research of each peer-reviewed article.
• A brief (1-2 paragraph) description of the research methodology used. Be sure to identify if the methodology used was qualitative, quantitative, or a mixed-methods approach. Be specific.
• A brief (1- to 2-paragraph) description of the strengths of each of the research methodologies used, including reliability and validity of how the methodology was applied in each of the peer-reviewed articles you selected.

 
A

Name: NURS_6052_Module02_Week03_Assignment_Rubric

	Excellent	Good	Fair	Poor
Part 1: Identifying Research Methodologies After reading each of the four peer-reviewed articles you selected, use the Matrix Worksheet template to analyze the methodologies applied in each of the four peer-reviewed articles. Your analysis should include the following: <br *The full citation of each peer-reviewed article in APA format. <br *A brief statement explaining why you chose this peer-reviewed article and/or how it relates to your clinical issue of interest, including a brief explanation of the ethics of research related to your clinical issue of interest. <br *A brief description of the aims of the research of each peer-reviewed article. <br *A brief description of the research methodology used. Be sure to identify if the methodology used was qualitative, quantitative, or a mixed-methods approach. Be specific.</br </br </br </br	81 (81%) – 90 (90%) The response accurately and clearly provides a full citation of each article in APA format. The responses accurately and thoroughly explain the selection of these articles and/or how they relate to a clinical issue of interest, including a detailed explanation of the ethics of research. The responses accurately and clearly describe the aims of the research. The responses accurately and clearly describe the research methodology used, and clearly identify the type of methodology used with specific and relevant examples. The responses accurately and clearly describe the strengths of each of the research methodologies used, including a detailed explanation of the reliability and validity of how the methodology was applied in each of the articles selected. The responses provide a complete, detailed, and specific synthesis of two outside resources related to the selection of articles and two or three course-specific resources.	72 (72%) – 80 (80%) The response accurately provides a citation of each peer-reviewed article in APA format. The responses accurately explain the selection of these peer-reviewed articles and/or how they relate to a clinical issue of interest, including an accurate explanation of ethics. The responses accurately describe the aims of the research of each peer-reviewed article. The responses accurately describe the research methodology used and type of methodology used with some examples. The responses accurately describe the strengths of each of the research methodologies used, including an explanation of the reliability and validity of how the methodology was applied in each of the peer-reviewed articles selected. The responses provide an accurate synthesis of at least one outside resource related to the selection of the peer-reviewed articles. The response integrates at least one outside resource and two or three course-specific resources.	63 (63%) – 71 (71%) The response inaccurately or vaguely provides a citation of each peer-reviewed article in APA format. The responses inaccurately or vaguely explain the selection of these articles and/or how they relate to a clinical issue of interest, including the explanation of the ethics. The responses inaccurately or vaguely describe the aims of the research of each article. The responses inaccurately or vaguely describe the research methodology used and the type of methodology used, with only some examples. The responses inaccurately or vaguely describe the strengths of each of the research methodologies used, including the explanation of the reliability and validity of how the methodology was applied in each of the articles selected. The responses provided vaguely or inaccurately synthesize outside resources related to the selection of the articles. The response minimally integrates resources that may support the responses provided.	0 (0%) – 62 (62%) The response inaccurately and vaguely provides a citation of each peer-reviewed article in APA format or is missing. The responses inaccurately & vaguely explain the selection of these articles and/or how they relate to a clinical issue, including the explanation of ethics of research, or they are missing. The responses inaccurately and vaguely describe the aims of the research, or they are missing. The responses inaccurately and vaguely describe the research methodology used, the type of methodology used with no examples present, or they are missing. The responses inaccurately and vaguely describe the strengths of each of the methodologies used, including the explanation of the reliability and validity of the methodology, or they are missing. The responses provide a vague and inaccurate synthesis of outside resources related to the selection of the articles and fail to integrate any resources to support the responses provided, or is missing.
Written Expression and Formatting—Paragraph Development and Organization: Paragraphs make clear points that support well-developed ideas, flow logically, and demonstrate continuity of ideas. Sentences are carefully focused—neither long and rambling nor short and lacking substance. A clear and comprehensive purpose statement and introduction is provided, which delineates all required criteria.	5 (5%) – 5 (5%) Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity. A clear and comprehensive purpose statement, introduction, and conclusion are provided, which delineates all required criteria.	4 (4%) – 4 (4%) Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity 80% of the time. Purpose, introduction, and conclusion of the assignment are stated but are brief and not descriptive.	3.5 (3.5%) – 3.5 (3.5%) Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity 60–79% of the time. Purpose, introduction, and conclusion of the assignment is vague or off topic.	0 (0%) – 3 (3%) Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity less than 60% of the time. No purpose statement, introduction, or conclusion is provided.
Written Expression and Formatting—English Writing Standards: Correct grammar, mechanics, and proper punctuation.	5 (5%) – 5 (5%) Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity. A clear and comprehensive purpose statement, introduction, and conclusion are provided, which delineates all required criteria.

 

My class;

.
NURS 5052/NURS 6052/NURS 6052N/NRSE 6052C/NURS 6052C/NURS 5052C/NURS 6052A/NRSE 6052A: Essentials of Evidence-Based Practice

For:

I live in Miami , Florida, working as psychiatric nurse for 12 years and doing on Walden University Nurse Partitional on Psych.’I want all my jobs are based in this information provided for me please’’.

SOURCES FROM SCHOOL;

Melnyk, B. M., & Fineout-Overholt, E. (2018). Evidence-based practice in nursing & healthcare: A guide to best practice (4th ed.). Philadelphia, PA: Wolters Kluwer.

• Chapter 2, “Asking Compelling Clinical Questions” (pp. 33–54)
• Chapter 21, “Generating Evidence Through Quantitative and Qualitative Research” (pp. 607–653)

• Grant, M. J., & Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information and Libraries Journal, 26, 91–108. doi:10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x
• Note: You will access this article from the Walden Library databases.