NSG2NMR Assessment Ru
ic
School of Nursing & Midwifery XXXXXXXXXXNSG2NMR Assessment 1 Part B : Individual 1,750 Word Literature Review
MARKING
SCALE Excellent (>80%) Very good (80%) Moderately good (70%) Fair (60-50%) Poor (<50%)
Max
Marks
LITERATURE
REVIEW
Review /
synthesis of
evidence
• Key concepts/themes from the
evidence have been clearly
identified and described
• The content is clearly structured
around key concepts/themes
emerging from the literature
• A synthesis of the findings from the
articles/studies obtained for the
eview is clearly demonstrated
throughout
• Key concepts/themes from the
evidence have been identified and
described
• The content is structured around
key concepts/themes emerging
from the literature
• A synthesis of the findings from
the articles/studies obtained for
the review is demonstrated
throughout
• Some key concepts/themes from
the evidence have been
identified but lack description
and/or clarity
• The content is somewhat
structured around key
concepts/themes emerging from
the literature
• A synthesis of the findings from
the articles/studies obtained for
the review is demonstrated but
lack consistency
• There is limited identification and
description of key
concepts/themes from the
evidence
• There is limited structure of the
content around key
concepts/themes emerging from
the literature
• A synthesis of the findings from
the articles/studies obtained for
the review is demonstrated but
is limited for quality and
consistency
• There is inadequate identification
and description of key
concepts/themes from the
evidence
• There is inadequate structure of
the content around key
concepts/themes emerging from
the literature
• There is inadequate synthesis of
the findings from the
articles/studies obtained for the
eview
35
EVIDENCE
Relevance /
credibility of
evidence
• Presents literature relevant to the
clinical issue and research question
• Content is very well supported with
appropriate material from credible
sources
• Content is very well supported with
sufficient references
• Presents literature mostly relevant
to the clinical issue and research
question
• Content is well supported with
appropriate material from credible
sources
• Content is well supported with
sufficient references
• Presents literature somewhat
elevant to the clinical issue and
esearch question
• Content is somewhat supported
with sufficient and appropriate
material from credible sources
• Content is supported with
sufficient references
• Presented literature is not
clearly relevant to the clinical
issue and research question
• Content is poorly supported with
eferences and/or uses non-
authoritarian sources
• Content is somewhat supported
with sufficient references
• Content is somewhat supported
with sufficient references
• Presented literature is not
sufficiently related to address the
clinical issue or research
questions
• Content uses non-authoritarian
sources
• Content is not supported with a
sufficient number of references
20
IMPLICATIONS
FOR PRACTICE
• Provides an excellent commentary
of how well the literature addresses
the research question
• Identifies and describes the
implication of this evidence for
nursing/ midwifery practice
• Provides a good commentary of
how well the literature addresses
the research question
• Identifies and provide some
description of the implications of
this evidence for nursing/
midwifery practice
• Provides comment of how well
the literature addresses the
esearch question
• Identifies but does not describe
the implications of this evidence
for nursing/ midwifery practice
• Provides limited comment on
how well the literature
addresses the research
question
• There is limited identification
and description of the
implications of this evidence for
nursing/ midwifery practice
• A summary of how well the
literature addresses the research
question is omitted or lacks clarity
• Identification and description of
the implications of this evidence
for nursing/ midwifery practice is
omitted or lacks clarity
15
STRUCTURE &
ORGANISATION
• Well structured, with coherent and
logical development of key ideas in
appropriate sections/paragraphs
• Within the prescribed word count
• Well structured, with mostly
coherent and logical development
of key ideas in appropriate
sections/paragraphs
• Within the prescribed word count
• Structure is coherent, with
logical development of key ideas
some of the time
• May be inappropriately weighted
within the prescribed word count
• Structure may not be coherent,
with logical development of key
ideas
• May not be within the prescribed
word count
• Structure lacks logical
development of key ideas
• Not within the prescribed word
count
10
WRITTEN
EXPRESSION &
REFERENCING
• Writing was fluent and there were
minimal spelling, typing or
grammatical e
ors
• Key ideas from the literature were
effectively paraphrased and cited
• Co
ect style for citations and
eference list 80%+ of the time
• Writing was mostly fluent and
there were few spelling, typing or
grammatical e
ors
• Key ideas from the literature were
effectively paraphrased and cited
• Co
ect style for citations and
eference list most (70%+) of the
time
• Writing was not always fluent
and there were some spelling,
typing or grammatical e
ors
• Key ideas from the literature
were not always effectively
paraphrased or cited
• Co
ect style for citations and
eference list most (60%+) of
the time
• Writing may not be fluent and
there were several spelling,
typing or grammatical e
ors
• Key ideas from the literature
were not always effectively
paraphrased or cited
• Co
ect style for citations and
eference list 50%+ of the time
• Writing was not fluent and there
were many spelling, typing or
grammatical e
ors
• Key ideas from the literature were
not effectively paraphrased or
cited
• Inco
ect style for citations and
eference list
20
Reviewer’s name: Reviewer’s signature: XXXXXXXXXXTotal mark: /100
NSG2NMR assessment 1 Part B FAQs V XXXXXXXXXXPage 1 of 5
NSG2NMR 2021
Assessment 1 Part B
FAQs
Q. Does the word count include references?
• The word count includes in-text citations (e.g., Miller et al., 2018).
• The word count does not include the list of references at the end of your document where
the full reference is provided.
Q. Can I use the research question I stated in Assessment 1 Part A for this subject?
Yes – absolutely. In fact, it is expected that you do use this question. The question itself does not
need to be changed at all – this won’t be considered self-plagiarism for the purpose of this task.
However, you are able to revise it if incorporating suggested revisions from the feedback you
eceived from the first assessment. This may include undertaking a more substantial refinement of
the question if that was recommended. You do need to focus on the same topic or area.
Q. I am repeating this subject. Can I use the same question and literature review I did previously?
No. You cannot use the same question or literature review. The focus needs to be changed
substantially to avoid you self-plagiarising.
Q. Do I need to state my research question?
Yes – please re-state the question you are addressing in your literature review. The question can be
embedded in the essay.
Q. Do I need to state my PICO or search plan?
No – these do not need to be restated.
Q. Do I have to use the articles referenced in Assessment 1 Part A?
No – you don’t have to use any of the 4 references identified in Part A. If you find other references
that would align better with the task and ru
ic then please use those references. Alternatively, you
can use some of those references or all of those references. Your decision should be guided by what
esources would help you complete the task and the ru
ic as best as possible.
Q. Do the references have to come from the Medline or CINAHL search?
No. We are hoping that in Part A of this task you were able to implement an effective search that
helped you identify relevant and credible resources for this review. However, you are encouraged to
search for and include other sources of credible evidence such as systematic reviews (i.e., from the
NSG2NMR assessment 1 Part B FAQs V XXXXXXXXXXPage 2 of 5
Cochrane Li
ary or JBI website), guidelines from authoritative sources (i.e., the NHMRC clinical
guideline portal or clinical associations), or reports from authoritative sources (i.e., AIHW or ABS).
Q. Do I have to include search histories again in this assessment?
No. Feel free to revise your searches based on feedback received from your Part A assessment but
you do not need to provide evidence of the searches again.
Q. What is meant by synthesising the literature?
This is a crucial point and absolutely critical to presenting the literature to get the best marks in this
assessment. When you synthesise the literature your focus is on the theme or concept and not what
each study found in turn. You need to do the hard work for the reader. You’ve read the articles –
describe what were the key concepts or themes emerging from the collective literature. Don’t just
present summary after summary of each study (also called an annotated bibliography) – if you do
this then the reader needs to also do the hard work and decide what the key messages were.
I’ve presented an example below from my own PhD to help discuss.
In this example, for an area where there is lots of research evidence, I’ve talked about the issue
(negative effects from being a carer) and not each study individually. I’ve read those papers and now
I’ve synthesised them into the key messages for