USA: +1(669)289-8683 
Sign in
The final capstone project is a culmination of the written research-based assignments completed throughout the course. Each written assignment contributes to the final Evidenced-Based Proposal paper. This is the first written assignment.
Think about what you have learned with regard to the five critical steps of evidence-based practice. In a formal paper of 500-750 words, address the following:
Part 1: Defining the Problem
- Identify and describe one topic that may resolve a patient-care-quality problem or issue.
- Draft a possible problem statement.
- Describe a problem. Explain why it is a problem, and why it is significant to your discipline. Use the literature you gathered as support for why this is a problem in relation to your practice. The problem should focus on the resolution of an issue significant to improving patient care.
- Draft a purpose statement in relation to your problem statement that states what you hope to accomplish if you implemented this project.
Part 2: Defining a Searchable, Answerable Question
From what you wrote about your problem and purpose, develop searchable questions using the PICOT format that will be the basis for your implementation plan. Word count is not relative in this section. Include evidence-based resources.
General Requirements:
Prepare this assignment according to the guidelines found in the APA Style Guide, located in the Student Success Center. An abstract is not required.
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 Turnitin. Please refer to the directions in the Student Success Center.
Top
of Form
reviewing
the Liter
a
tu
re
and
Theory
1
Unsatisfactory
0.00%
2
Less than
Satisfactory
6
5
.00%
3
Satisfactory
75.00%
4
Good
85.00%
5
Excellent
100.00%
70.0 %Content
20.0 %Literature
Review and
Supporting
Argument
References are
not
categorized
in an
appropriat
ely
logical
manner. Little
or no
information
is
given
regarding the
value of the
references
in
validating the
problem,
purpose, and
proposed
solution of the
project.
Presentation
does an
incomplete job
of cate
gorizing
project
references.
Review does a
superficial or
incomplete job
of describing
the value of
references in
validating
the problem,
purpose, and proposed solution of
the project.
Presentation
categorizes
information
from project
references
appropriately
and
incorporates
the
supporting
evidence into
an argument
that validates
the problem, purpose, and proposed solution of the project.
Presentation
clearly
categorizes and incorporates
applicable
information from project references
and applies
the basic
research well
towards
validating the problem, purpose, and proposed solution of the
project.
Collection of
references
covers
mo
st
aspects of the
project in
adequate
depth.
Presentation
utilizes the
categorized information
from the
references in a
clear and
comprehensive
manner to
clearly
validate and
support the
problem, purpose, and proposed solution of the
project;
Collection of
references is
comprehensive
and supports
all aspects of
the project.
20.0 %Critical
Analysis of
Supporting Data
Argument
is
mo
re of a
literature
review than a
supporting,
critical
analysis of the
reference
contributions
to the project.
Argument does
not utilize
reference information
adequately to
provide
support for
why the
problem, purpose, and proposed solution of the
project a
re
valid.
Argument is
somewhat vague or incomplete.
Argument uses
relevant
findings from
supporting
references to
present a basic
position as to
why the problem, purpose, and proposed solution of the
project are
valid. Minimal
acceptable details are provided and are mostly applicable to the subject.
Argument
uses reference
material in an
appropriate
manner to
convince the
reader that the
problem, purpose, and
possible
solution are
clearly valid.
Subject
knowledge
appears to be good.
Argument is
convincing
a
nd clearly
articulated
with adequate
supporting references to
validate the
problem, purpose, and solution of
the project.
Argument
demonstrates
thorough subject knowledge and understanding.
20.0 %Incorporation of a Valid Theory to Support the Project
A valid theory to be incorporated in support of the project is not identified or explained, or a theory is improperly stated. Subject knowledge is not demonstrated or is poorly demonstrated.
Identification and explanation of a valid theory to incorporate in support of the project is somewhat vague or incomplete.
A valid theory is identified and a basic explanation is provided of how the theory is incorporated in support of the project. Minimal acceptable details are provided and are mostly applicable to the subject.
A detailed presentation of the chosen theory is provided. How this theory will be incorporated in support of the project is clearly explained.
A detailed explanation of why the selected theory is the most applicable is provided. Clear plans are provided with supporting examples for incorporating the theory in support of the project.
10.0 %Research Sources (Sources are appropriate, relevant, etc. Also, sources meet assignment quantity and type specifications, including evidence-based resources.)
Sources are not used or cited as required in the assignment instructions. Noncredible sources are used.
Source relevance is vague and/or inconsistent. References from appropriate sources (e.g., evidenced-based resources) are not used. Literature review does not meet required minimum references: 15.
Source relevance is mostly applicable and appropriate. References from appropriate sources (e.g., evidenced-based resources) are used. Literature review meets required minimum references: 15.
Source relevance is applicable and appropriate in all instances. References from appropriate sources (e.g., evidenced-based resources) are used. Literature review meets required minimum references: 15.
Source relevance is applicable and appropriate in all instances as well as sparking interest in the reader to pursue further investigation. References from appropriate sources (e.g., evidenced-based resources) are used. Literature review meets required minimum references: 15.
20.0 %Organization and Effectiveness
7.0 %Thesis Development and Purpose
Paper lacks any discernible overall purpose or organizing claim.
Thesis is insufficiently developed or vague. Purpose is not clear.
Thesis is apparent and appropriate to purpose.
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 comprehensive and contains the essence of the paper. Thesis statement makes the purpose of the paper clear.
8.0 %Argument Logic and Construction
Statement of purpose is not justified by the conclusion. The conclusion does not support the claim made. Argument is incoherent.
Sufficient justification of claims is lacking. Argument lacks consistent unity. There are obvious flaws in the logic.
Argument is orderly, but may have a few inconsistencies. The argument presents minimal justification of claims. Argument logically, but not thoroughly, supports the purpose. Introduction and conclusion bracket the thesis.
Argument shows logical progressions. Techniques of argumentation are evident. There is a smooth progression of claims from introduction to conclusion.
Clear and convincing argument presents a persuasive claim in a distinctive and compelling manner.
5.0 %Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use)
Does not meet minimum assigned length; numerous errors in spelling, punctuation, and grammar; Inappropriate in three or more of the following: appearance of document (font size or style, use of white space, use of headings), tone, word choice, or sentence structure (incomplete sentences; run-on sentences; incorrect subject-verb agreement, etc.).
Does not meet minimum assigned length; repeated specific types of errors in spelling, punctuation or grammar (e.g., paper consistently has subject-verb disagreement); Inappropriate in two of the following: appearance of document (font size or style, use of white space, use of headings), tone, word choice, or sentence structure.
Meets assigned length criteria; Occasional errors in spelling, punctuation, and grammar; Inappropriate in one of the following: appearance of document (font size or style, use of white space, use of headings), tone, word choice, or sentence structure.
Meets assigned length criteria; few errors in spelling, punctuation, and grammar; appropriate in all of the following: appearance of document (font size or style, use of white space, use of headings), tone, word choice, or sentence structure.
Meets assigned length criteria; no major errors in spelling, punctuation, and grammar; professional appearance of document (font size or style, use of white space, use of headings), professional tone, word choice, and sentence structure; Uses headings to organize paper.
10.0 %Format
5.0 %Paper Format (use of appropriate style for the major and assignment)
Template is not used appropriately, or documentation format is rarely followed correctly.
Appropriate template is used, but some elements are missing or mistaken. A lack of control with formatting is apparent.
Appropriate template is used. Formatting is correct, although some minor errors may be present.
Appropriate template is fully used. There are virtually no errors in formatting style.
All format elements are correct.
5.0 %Documentation of Sources (citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc., as appropriate to assignment and style)
Sources are not documented.
Documentation of sources is inconsistent or incorrect, as appropriate to assignment and style, with numerous formatting errors.
Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, although some formatting errors may be present.
Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is mostly correct.
Sources are completely and correctly documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is free of error.
100 %Total Weightage
Bottom of Form
reviewing
the Literature and Theory
1
Unsatisfactory
0.00%
2
Less than
Satisfactory
65.00%
3
Satisfactory
75.00%
4
Good
85.00%
5
Excellent
100.00%
70.0 %Content
20.0 %Literature
Review and
Supporting
Argument
References are
not categorized
in an
appropriately
logical
manner. Little
or no
information is
given
regarding the
value of the
references in
validating the
problem,
purpose, and
proposed
solution of the
project.
Presentation
does an
incomplete job
of cate
gorizing
project
references.
Review does a
superficial or
incomplete job
of describing
the value of
references in
validating the
problem,
purpose, and
proposed
solution of the
project.
Presentation
categorizes
information
from project
references
appropriat
ely
and
incorporates
the supporting
evidence into
an argument
that validates
the problem,
purpose, and
proposed
solution of the
project.
Presentation
clearly
categorizes
and
incorporates
applicable
information
from project
references
and applies
the basic
research well
towards
validating the
problem,
purpose, and
proposed
solution of the
project.
Collection of
references
covers most
aspects of the
project in
adequate
depth.
Presentation
utilizes the
categorized
information
from the
references in a
clear and
comprehensive
manner to
clearly
validate and
support the
problem,
purpose, and
proposed
solution of the
project;
Collection of
references is
comprehensive
and supports
all aspects of
the project.
20.0 %Critical
Analysis of
Supporting Data
Argument is
mo
re of a
literature
review than a
supporting,
critical
analysis of the
reference
contributions
to the project.
Argument does
not utilize
reference
information
adequately to
provide
support for
why the
problem,
purpose, and
proposed
solution of the
project a
re
valid.
Argument uses
relevant
findings from
supporting
references to
present a basic
position as to
why the
problem,
purpose, and
proposed
solution of the
project are
valid. Minimal
Argument
uses reference
material in an
appropriate
manner to
convince the
reader that the
problem,
purpose, and
possible
solution are
clearly valid.
Subject
knowledge
Argument is
convincing
a
nd clearly
articulated
with adequate
supporting
references to
validate the
problem,
purpose, and
solution of the
project.
Argument
demonstrates
reviewing the Literature and Theory
1
Unsatisfactory
0.00%
2
Less than
Satisfactory
65.00%
3
Satisfactory
75.00%
4
Good
85.00%
5
Excellent
100.00%
70.0 %Content
20.0 %Literature
Review and
Supporting
Argument
References are
not categorized
in an
appropriately
logical
manner. Little
or no
information is
given
regarding the
value of the
references in
validating the
problem,
purpose, and
proposed
solution of the
project.
Presentation
does an
incomplete job
of categorizing
project
references.
Review does a
superficial or
incomplete job
of describing
the value of
references in
validating the
problem,
purpose, and
proposed
solution of the
project.
Presentation
categorizes
information
from project
references
appropriately
and
incorporates
the supporting
evidence into
an argument
that validates
the problem,
purpose, and
proposed
solution of the
project.
Presentation
clearly
categorizes
and
incorporates
applicable
information
from project
references
and applies
the basic
research well
towards
validating the
problem,
purpose, and
proposed
solution of the
project.
Collection of
references
covers most
aspects of the
project in
adequate
depth.
Presentation
utilizes the
categorized
information
from the
references in a
clear and
comprehensive
manner to
clearly
validate and
support the
problem,
purpose, and
proposed
solution of the
project;
Collection of
references is
comprehensive
and supports
all aspects of
the project.
20.0 %Critical
Analysis of
Supporting Data
Argument is
more of a
literature
review than a
supporting,
critical
analysis of the
reference
contributions
to the project.
Argument does
not utilize
reference
information
adequately to
provide
support for
why the
problem,
purpose, and
proposed
solution of the
project are
valid.
Argument uses
relevant
findings from
supporting
references to
present a basic
position as to
why the
problem,
purpose, and
proposed
solution of the
project are
valid. Minimal
Argument
uses reference
material in an
appropriate
manner to
convince the
reader that the
problem,
purpose, and
possible
solution are
clearly valid.
Subject
knowledge
Argument is
convincing
and clearly
articulated
with adequate
supporting
references to
validate the
problem,
purpose, and
solution of the
project.
Argument
demonstrates
