EBP107_Assessment Brief 3_Journal Evaluation Page 1 of 7
A SSESSMENT 3 BRIEF
Subject Code and Title EBP107 Evidence-Based Practice
Assessment Assessment 3: Journal Article Evaluation: Using a critical
appraisal tool
Individual/Group Individual
Length 1,500 words (+/- 10%)
Learning Outcomes This assessment addresses the Subject Learning Outcomes
outlined at the bottom of this document.
Submission By 11:55pm AEST/AEDT Sunday of Module 5.2 (week 10)
Weighting 45%
Total Marks 100 marks

Context:

This assessment enables students to demonstrate their ability to evaluate and appraise evidence in
healthcare research, an essential component of evidence-based practice and the exercise of clinical
judgement in the delivery of quality healthcare.
Students will use a critical appraisal tool and other supporting references to appraise and interpret
the sections and methodological quality of a research article including how well the evidence may be
applied in evidence-based practice.

Instructions:

Students are required to conduct an evaluation of one journal article in an essay format. The article
may be the selected one used in Assessment 2 Article Summary task. Alternatively, you may choose
to select an article of your choice from the range of research articles supplied for the previous
Assessment 2 assignment.

EBP107_Assessment Brief 3_Journal Evaluation Page 2 of 7

This task requires using one of the critical appraisal tools supplied from a link below. Choose an
appraisal tool that fits the chosen article to evaluation.

• CASP. (n.d.). CASP Checklists. https://casp-uk.net/casp-tools-checklists/
• Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (CEBM). (2014). Critical Appraisal Tools.
https://www.cebm.net/2014/06/critical-appraisal/
• Equator Network.(n.d.). Reporting guidelines for main study types. http://www.equator-
network.org/
• Joanna Briggs Institute (n.d). Critical appraisal tools. https://jbi.global/critical-appraisal-tools


Essay Format:
The article evaluation must be presented in an essay format, with an introduction, body and
conclusion.

Introduction:
The introduction must introduce the article, including proper referencing of the article, and a
discussion about why you chose that article to evaluate.

Body:
In the body of your essay you must:

1. Use the critical appraisal tool you have chosen to evaluate all the sections of the
research study, including the title, abstract and declarations.

2. Throughout the body of your essay you are to refer to the chosen critical appraisal
tool and use additional references to support your evaluation. Subheadings may be used.

3.. Provide a referenced definition of Evidence Based Practice (EBP), and a recommendation
as to how well the findings from this study may be incorporated into EBP. Give reasons and
offer evidence to support your evaluation.

Conclusion:
A brief discussion of the overall quality of the study with reference to the strengths and weaknesses
as outlined in the body of the essay.

Referencing: It is essential that you use appropriate APA style for citing and
referencing research. Please see more information on referencing here:
https://library.torrens.edu.au/academicskills/apa/tool

Word count: Please include the word count - excluding the reference list at the end of the
assessment. Please adhere to the word count, if you exceed 1,500 words (+10%), the excess may not
be graded.


Appendix: Include a copy of the completed critical appraisal tool as an appendix.


EBP107_Assessment Brief 3_Journal Evaluation Page 3 of 7


Submission Instructions:

Submit via the Assessment 3: Journal Article Evaluation link in the main navigation menu in EBP107
Evidence-Based Practice. The Learning Facilitator will provide feedback via the Grade Centre in the
LMS portal. Feedback can be viewed in My Grades.
EBP107_Assessment Brief 3_Journal Evaluation Page 4 of 7


Learning Rubric: Assessment 3 Journal Article Evaluation: using a critical appraisal tool


Assessment Attributes
Fail (Unacceptable) 0-
49%
Pass
(Functional) 50-
64%
Credit
(Proficient) 65-
74%
Distinction
(Advanced)
75 -84%
High Distinction
(Exceptional)
85-100%
Knowledge and
understanding

Review and
introduction provided
for a chosen article.
Percentage for this
criterion: 20%
The chosen article being
reviewed has not been
clearly identified,
information is
disjointed or irrelevant
comments are present.
The article being
reviewed has been
identified, however,
appropriate referencing is
not included and
introduction provided is
limited.
The article being reviewed
is identified, referenced
and clear introduction is
provided.
The article being
reviewed is identified,
referenced and a succinct
introduction is provided.
The article being
reviewed is identified,
referenced and thorough
and succinct introduction
is provided.
Application of new
knowledge.

Evaluation of journal
article and adherence
to the critical appraisal
tool.

Percentage for this
criterion: 30%
Lack of application of
new knowledge is
evident. No reference to
the critical appraisal
tool.
Demonstrated
application of new
knowledge in evaluating a
chosen journal article.
Lacks reference to the
critical appraisal tool.
Well-developed application
of new knowledge and
evaluation of chosen
article with reference to
the critical appraisal tool.
Thoroughly developed
evaluation of chosen
article with clear
reference to the critical
appraisal tool.
Highly sophisticated and
creative evaluation of
chosen article with
thorough application of
the critical appraisal tool.
Excellent description and
critique of each section.
EBP107_Assessment Brief 3_Journal Evaluation Page 5 of 7

Reasoning and
presentation of
argument and/or
position.
Limited understanding
of key concepts
required to support
discussion.
Resembles a recall or
summary of key ideas.

Often conflates/confuses
assertion of personal
opinion with information
Supports personal opinion
and information
substantiated by evidence
from the research/course
materials.
Discriminates between
assertion of personal
opinion and information
substantiated by robust
evidence from the
research/course
Clearly discriminates
between assertion of
personal opinion and
Information that is
substantiated by robust
evidence from the


Key concepts of
discussion presented.
Discriminates between
personal opinion and
substantiated
information.

Percentage for this
criterion: 25%
Confuses logic and
emotion. Information
taken from reliable
sources but without
comments to support.
substantiated by
evidence from the
research/course
materials.
Demonstrates a capacity to
explain and apply relevant
concepts, with a good
description of the overall
quality of research. Clear
definition of Evidence
Based Practice provided.
materials and extended
reading.

Well demonstrated
capacity to explain and
apply relevant concepts,
with a very good
description and critique
of the overall quality of
research. Relevant and
thorough definition of
Evidence Based Practice.
research/course
materials and extended
reading.

Information is taken from
sources with a high level
of
interpretation/evaluatio
n to develop a
comprehensive analysis
or synthesis.
An excellent description
of overall quality of
research, including
succinct and thorough
definition of Evidence
Based Practice provided.
EBP107_Assessment Brief 3_Journal Evaluation Page 6 of 7

Structure and writing
style.

Clarity of expression,
planning and flow of
work

15%
No evidence of
planning. Inappropriate
writing style. Needs
work on structure, flow
and order.

Report missing
structure of
introduction, body and
conclusion.
Adequate academic
writing style. Basic
structure, some areas
may lack flow or order.

Some aspects of report
structure missing, lacking
complete introduction,
body and conclusion.
Good academic writing
style. Logical sequence
with clear structure.

Report structure includes
flow of introduction, body
and conclusion.
Well-developed
academic writing style.
Clear expression with
logical sequencing, flow
and structure.

Report structure includes
clear presentation of
introduction, body and
conclusion.
Highly developed
academic writing style.
Clear and concise.
Structure and
sequencing effectively
supports discussion,
drawing concepts
together.

Report structure includes
succinct presentation of
introduction, body and
conclusion.

Correct citation of key
resources and
evidence
Demonstrates
inconsistent use of good
quality, credible and
relevant resources to
support and develop
ideas.
Demonstrates use of
credible and relevant
resources to support and
develop ideas, but these
are not always explicit or
well developed.
Demonstrates use of
credible resources to
support and develop ideas.
Demonstrates use of
good quality, credible and
relevant resources to
support and develop
arguments and position
statements.
Demonstrates use of
high-quality, credible and
relevant resources to
support and develop
arguments and position
statements.
10%
Shows evidence of wide
scope within the
organisation for sourcing
evidence.

Show evidence of wide
scope within and without
the organisation for
sourcing evidence.
The following Subject Learning Outcomes are addressed in this assessment
SLO a) Describe the different forms of knowledge acquisition and the sources of evidence in health.
EBP107_Assessment Brief 3_Journal Evaluation Page 7 of 7


SLO b)
Explain the rationale and purpose of scientific research, evaluation and the evidence-based approach and ethical considerations in the
context of healthcare.
SLO c) Describe and interpret the hierarchy of evidence.
SLO d) Retrieve and evaluate health information from databases, internet and library sources in order to inform and improve healthcare practice.
SLO e) Identify and appraise the quality of the key components of an evidence- based, health science research article
SLO f) Describe quantitative, qualitative and mixed research methodologies, research processes, data management and analysis.