Appendix C EBP Poster Rubric

Criterion

Excellent – 15

Average – 10

Fair – 5

Poor – 3

Not Met – 0

Template Adherence

  • Keeps title, authors, faculty mentor, and university logo in heading.
  • Keeps to 3-column design (may move headings as needed). Did not change UT logo or placement.
  • Replaces header information within brackets: Title, authors (including instructor), faculty mentor.
  • Removes temporary brackets.
  • Does not add graphics to header.

 

 

 

 

 

Criterion

Excellent – 40

Average – 30

Fair – 20

Poor – 10

Not Met – 0

Introduction
 

  • Provides a brief and interesting background of the existing clinical problem.
  • Places evidence in the context of the existing literature as a basis for clinical problem.
  • Makes clear what underlying clinical problem is.
  • Does not pre-state what literature found to answer clinical question.
  • Uses bullets for brevity.
  • Utilizes in-text citations.
  • Presents clinical question.

 

 

 

 

 

Criterion

Excellent – 20

Average – 15

Fair – 10

Poor – 5

Not Met – 0

Clinical Question based on PICO

  • Clinical question posed in a question format with proper punctuation.
  • Format of clinical question based on intervention PICO followed and all format elements clearly stated.
  • Clinical question contains an intervention that an RN can do independently, within scope of practice, and without physician’s order.

 

 

 

 

 

Criterion

Excellent – 40

Average – 30

Fair – 20

Poor – 10

Not Met – 0

Answering Clinical Question

  • Specifically answers clinical question.
  • Shows no bias in answering clinical question.
  • Does not venture into topics unrelated to answering the clinical question.
  • If there is minimal evidence discovered, clearly discusses the impact in answering clinical question.
  • Presents evidence that supports answering clinical question, whether positive or negative

 

 

 

 

 

Criterion

Excellent – 40

Average – 30

Fair – 20

Poor – 10

Not Met – 0

Overview/Poster Content

  • Clearly shows development of evidence to EBP connection.
  • Material appears to accurately support purpose of the project.
  • Does not state “prove”.
  • Does not refer to poster project as “research”.
  • The poster provides logical discussion with substantial details supporting the overall purpose
  • The data contained within poster promotes answers clinical question, either significant amount of evidence or not.
  • The content does not contain a hypothesis or student-led biased result.
  • Uses only 3
    rd
     person

 

 

 

 

 

Criterion

Excellent – 30

Average – 25

Fair – 20

Poor – 15

Not Met -0

Methodology (Search Strategy)

  • Clearly describes comprehensive search strategy.
  • Lists the specific individual databases used (EBSCO Host is not a database, as it’s a host site).
  • Lists year limiters.
  • Lists any additional limiters utilized.
  • Lists keywords, phrases, Boolean operators with specificity as to how utilized (shows exact search formats of parentheses, quotes, etc.,).
  • Lists specific inclusion/exclusion criteria (population, language, age range, alternative phrases or words, primary articles, US-only or global) to find evidence.
  • Very specific as to exact phrases and words, if used quotation marks in search, and exact linked phrases with Boolean operators.
  • Lists exact search strategies so as to enable anyone to replicate exact same search with same results.

 

 

 

 

 

Criterion

Excellent – 50

Average – 35

Fair – 25

Poor – 10

Not Met – 0

Results Section

  • Results displayed in a manner interpretable by the general audience.
  • Purely objective
  • Includes population samples, limitations that researchers listed, methodology of articles (retrospective, quasi-experimental, etc.).
  • Analysis of validity and reliability of the studies
  • Utilizes in-text citations.
  • Discusses probability (p – value, if available) and/or statistical significance.

 

 

 

 

 

Criterion

Excellent – 50

Average – 35

Fair – 25

Poor – 10

Not Met – 0

Critical Appraisal

  • Utilizes critical appraisal elements in choosing articles including, but not limited to:
  • Ethics/protection of human subjects
  • Hypothesis
  • Research question
  • Research design’s appropriateness for study
  • Conceptual/theoretical framework
  • Population and sample
  • Data collection and measurement
  • Bias
  • Type I and II errors
  • Credibility

 

 

 

 

 

Criterion

Excellent – 50

Average – 35

Fair – 25

Poor – 10

Not Met – 0

Evidence Synthesis/Discussion

  • Discusses how the major results relate to current clinical practice.
  • Discusses implications to clinical practice.
  • Discusses potential future work, if applicable.
  • Uses subjectiveness in this section.
  • Does not make declarative predictive statements such as “will”, “should”, “must”, etc… Uses potentiality, such as “may”, “might”, “would be reasonable to…”, etc.
  • Summarizes any trends seen.
  • Discusses strengths of results.
  • Discusses weaknesses of results.
  • Discusses statistical significance (or lack thereof) found in the studies as well as potential clinical significance.
  • Avoids first and second person to remain retain some objectiveness within scholarly subjectivity (avoids “I”, “we”, “us”, “they”, etc.)

 

 

 

 

 

Criterion

Excellent – 10

Average – 7

Fair – 5

Poor – 3

Not Met – 0

APA Formatting

  • In-text citations in proper APA format.
  • References in APA format (doi/URL not required)
  • Consistent font style throughout (not necessary to keep font size consistent)

 

 

 

 

 

Criterion

Excellent – 10

Average – 7

Fair – 5

Poor – 3

Not Met – 0

Punctuation and Sentence Structure

  • Proper capitalization, comma use, and periods at end of complete sentences
  • No periods at end of incomplete, bulleted sentences
  • Proper grammar utilized

 

 

 

 

 

Criterion

Excellent – 20

Average – 15

Fair – 10

Poor – 5

Not Met – 0

Article Selection

  • The top 8 of the total synthesized references used to answer clinical question are listed (can choose whichever seems most appropriate)
  • No more than one secondary research article utilized
  • 7 of the sources are primary sources
  • All sources are peer-reviewed research articles
  • No informative articles, news articles, dissertations, quality improvement projects, or pilot studies are utilized

 

 

 

 

 

 

TOTAL POINTS POSSIBLE:

375

 

 

 

 

License

Share This Book