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