The clinical issue or problem and PICOT statement are thoroughly described.

The clinical issue or problem and PICOT statement are adequately described.

The clinical issue or problem and PICOT statement are presented. Some aspects are vague. There are minor inaccuracies.

The clinical issue or problem and PICOT statement are incomplete or incorrect.

The clinical issue or problem and PICOT statement are omitted.

The search strategy and criteria used in choosing and searching for articles is thoroughly described.

The search strategy and criteria used in choosing and searching for articles are described. Some detail is needed for clarity or accuracy.

The search strategy and criteria used in choosing and searching for articles are summarized. More information is needed.

The search strategy and criteria used in choosing and searching for articles are only partially described.

The search strategy and criteria used in choosing and searching for articles are omitted.

A well-developed paragraph for each article is presented. The main components (subjects, methods, key findings) are thoroughly discussed, and substantial rationale for how each article supports the PICOT is clearly provided.

A paragraph for each article is presented. The main components (subjects, methods, key findings) are adequately discussed, and rationale for how each article supports the PICOT is provided. Some detail is needed for clarity or accuracy.

A summary for each article is presented. The main components (subjects, methods, key findings) are generally discussed. General rationale for how each article supports the PICOT is provided. More information is needed.

All articles are presented, but the synthesis of literature is incomplete.

A paragraph for one or more article is missing.

A detailed comparison of the similarities, differences, themes, methods, conclusions, limitations, and controversies among the articles is thoroughly presented.

A comparison of the similarities, differences, themes, methods, conclusions, limitations, and controversies among the articles is adequately presented. Some detail is needed for clarity or accuracy.

A general comparison of the similarities, differences, themes, methods, conclusions, limitations, and controversies among the articles is presented. Some aspects are unclear. More information is needed.

All articles are presented, but the comparison is incomplete.

One or more article is missing in the comparison.

Identified gaps and areas requiring further research are thoroughly discussed and clearly based on the analysis of the literature. The narrative is insightful and demonstrates an understanding of research analysis necessary for future study.

Identified gaps and areas requiring further research are adequately discussed. The narrative is based on the analysis of the literature. Some detail is needed for clarity or accuracy.

Some identified gaps and areas requiring further research are generally discussed. The narrative is generally based on the analysis of the literature. More information is needed.

Identified gaps and areas requiring further research are only partially presented.

Identified gaps and areas requiring further research are omitted.

The conclusion is well-developed and presents a clear and accurate summary statement of what was found in the literature.

The conclusion presents an adequate summary statement of what was found in the literature.

The conclusion presents a vague summary statement of was found in the literature. There are inaccuracies.

A conclusion is presented but fails to present a summary statement of what was found in the literature.

The conclusion is omitted.

The literature review presented demonstrates a strong ability to analyze appropriate research from databases and other information sources to improve health care practices and processes.

The literature review presented demonstrates an adequate ability to analyze appropriate research from databases and other information sources to improve health care practices and processes.

The literature review presented demonstrates a general ability to analyze appropriate research from databases and other information sources to improve health care practices and processes.

The literature review presented does not consistently demonstrate an ability to analyze appropriate research from databases and other information sources to improve health care practices and processes.

The literature review presented does not demonstrate an ability to analyze appropriate research from databases and other information sources to improve health care practices and processes.

The APA Writing Checklist is attached in the appendix. It is clearly evident by the quality of the paper that the APA Writing Checklist was used in development.

The APA Writing Checklist is attached in the appendix. It is apparent that the APA Writing Checklist was used in development of the

The APA Writing Checklist is attached and in the appendix. The APA Writing Checklist was generally used in development of the paper, but some aspects are inconsistent with the paper format or quality.

The APA Writing Checklist is attached, but an appendix has not been created. The paper does not reflect the use of the APA Writing Checklist during development

The appendix and required resources are omitted.

Number of required resources is met. Sources are current and appropriate for the assignment criteria and nursing content.

Number of required sources is met. Sources are current, but not all sources are appropriate for the assignment criteria and nursing content.

Number of required sources is met, but sources are outdated or inappropriate.

Number of required sources is only partially met.

Sources are not included.

Thesis is comprehensive and contains the essence of the paper. Thesis statement makes the purpose of the paper clear.

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 apparent and appropriate to purpose.

Thesis is insufficiently developed or vague. Purpose is not clear.

Paper lacks any discernible overall purpose or organizing claim.

Clear and convincing argument that presents a persuasive claim in a distinctive and compelling manner. All sources are authoritative.

Argument shows logical progressions. Techniques of argumentation are evident. There is a smooth progression of claims from introduction to conclusion. Most sources are authoritative.

Argument is orderly but may have a few inconsistencies. The argument presents minimal justification of claims. Argument logically, but not thoroughly, supports the purpose. Sources used are credible. Introduction and conclusion bracket the thesis.

Sufficient justification of claims is lacking. Argument lacks consistent unity. There are obvious flaws in the logic. Some sources have questionable credibility.

Statement of purpose is not justified by the conclusion. The conclusion does not support the claim made. Argument is incoherent and uses noncredible sources.

Writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English.

Prose is largely free of mechanical errors, although a few may be present. The writer uses a variety of effective sentence structures and figures of speech.

Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but they are not overly distracting to the reader. Correct and varied sentence structure and audience-appropriate language are employed.

Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistencies in language choice (register) or word choice are present. Sentence structure is correct but not varied

Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice or sentence construction is used.

All format elements are correct.

Template is fully used; There are virtually no errors in formatting style for

Template is used, and formatting is correct, although some minor errors may be present.

Template is used, but some elements are missing or mistaken; lack of control with formatting is apparent.

Template is not used appropriately or documentation format is rarely followed correctly.

Sources are completely and correctly documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is free of error.

Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is mostly correct.

Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, although some formatting errors may be present.

Documentation of sources is inconsistent or incorrect, as appropriate to assignment and style, with numerous formatting errors.

Sources are not documented.