Chat with us, powered by LiveChat NU560-8D discussion WEEK3 Discussion2 | Abc Paper
+1(978)310-4246 credencewriters@gmail.com
  

Discussion Question/Prompt [Due Friday]
Adhering to ethical principles and protection of human subjects are important considerations in all forms of research. After exploring your course resources, answer the following questions:

How stringent or similar should ethical principles be to the standards placed on the conduction of clinical and/or educational research?
Offer examples where controversy exists regarding application of ethical principles in evidence-based practice projects, best practices in education versus clinical research.
Be sure to address HIPAA and FERPA depending on your focus – clinical practice vs academic education.

Responses need to address all components of the question, demonstrate critical thinking and analysis, and include peer reviewed journal evidence to support the student’s position.
Please be sure to validate your opinions and ideas with citations and references in APA format.
Please review the rubric to ensure that your response meets the criteria.
 REQUIRED RESSOURCES

Gray, J. R., Grove, S. K. & Sutherland, S.  (2017). Burns and Grove’s the practice of nursing research: Appraisal, synthesis, and generation of evidence (8th ed.) . St. Louis, MO: Elsevier Saunders. ISBN 978-0-323-37758-4

Chapter : 9

Department of Bioethics and Humanities (2019). Ethics in medicine (Links to an external site.). University of Washington. [Website]. Retrieved from https://depts.washington.edu/bhdept/ethics-medicine. 
University of Waterloo (2019). Evolution of protections of human participants in research (Links to an external site.). [Digital article]. Retrieved from https://uwaterloo.ca/research/office-research-ethics/research-human-participants/frequently-asked-questions/evolution-protections-human-participants-research. 
Office for Human Research Protections (2019). The Belmont report (Links to an external site.). HHS.gov. [Digital article]. Retrieved from https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/belmont-report/
8

NU560 Discussion 3.2 Rubric

NU560 Discussion 3.2 Rubric

Criteria

Ratings

Pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeContent
NU560-CO1; NU560-CO2

6 pts

100%

Initial post addresses all of the required prompt elements in the discussion and demonstrates an exemplary understanding of course content and topic.

5.5 pts

92%

Initial post addresses all of the required prompt elements in the discussion and demonstrates a comprehensive understanding of course content and topic.

5 pts

83%

Initial post is missing one important prompt element and/or demonstrates a basic understanding of course content and topic.

4.5 pts

75%

Initial post is missing more than one important prompt element and/or demonstrates a limited understanding of course content and topic.

4 pts

67%

Initial post does not address discussion prompt elements, and/or does not demonstrate understanding of course content and topic and/or initial post is poorly paraphrased even if accompanied by in-text citations.

0 pts

0 %

Initial post was not submitted and/or not submitted on time and/or initial post demonstrates copying and pasting with or without proper use of quotations or supporting in-text citations.

6 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeAnalysis
NU560-CO1; NU560-CO2

6 pts

100%

The analysis of the topic includes breadth and depth, is aligned to the unit topic, relates to the course content and personal analysis is supported by exemplary references and examples.

5.5 pts

92%

The analysis of the topic is justified, and aligned to the unit topic, and personal analysis is supported by comprehensive references and/or examples.

5 pts

83%

There is a basic analysis of the topic and personal analysis is supported by basic references and/or examples.

4.5 pts

75%

There is minimal evidence of analysis of the topic and/or personal analysis is supported by limited references and/or examples.

4 pts

67%

There is no evidence of analysis of the topic and/or personal analysis is not supported by references and/or examples.

0 pts

0%

Initial post was not submitted and/or not submitted on time and/or analysis had no relationship to the topic and/or initial post demonstrates copying and pasting with or without proper use of quotations or supporting in-text citations.

6 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCollaboration
PRICE-E

6 pts

100%

Collaborates with fellow learners at an exemplary level relating the discussion to relevant course concepts and extending the conversation with substantive content.

5.5 pts

92%

Collaborates with fellow learners at a comprehensive level relating the discussion to relevant course concepts and extending the conversation with substantive content.

5 pts

83%

Collaborates with fellow learners at a basic level relating the discussion to some course concepts and extending the conversation with basic content and/or postings are not submitted on a minimum of 3 separate days.

4.5 pts

75%

Limited collaboration with fellow learners and makes little connection to course content and/or does not extend the conversation.

4 pts

67%

Collaborates with fellow learners but only one response post was submitted and/or response post(s) are poorly paraphrased even if accompanied by in-text citations.

0 pts

0%

No response posts were submitted and/or not submitted on time and/or there is no relationship between the response posts and the discussion prompts and/or one or more response posts demonstrate copying and pasting with or without proper use of quotations or supporting in-text citations.

6 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWriting

1 pts

100%

Posts in this discussion are well written and well organized demonstrating exemplary scholarly writing. Mechanics (spelling and punctuation) and grammar are excellent.

0.9 pts

92%

Posts in this discussion are well written and well organized demonstrating comprehensive scholarly writing and/or have 1-2 errors in mechanics and/or grammar.

0.8 pts

83%

Posts in this discussion are basic examples of scholarly writing and/or have 3 errors in mechanics and/or grammar.

0.7 pts

75%

Posts in this discussion are not clear and/or lack organization and/or have 4 or more errors in mechanics and/or grammar.

0.6 pts

67%

Posts in this discussion lack evidence of clear, organized scholarly writing. Errors interfere with reading and/or understanding of content.

0 pts

0%

Posts were not submitted and/or one or more posts demonstrate copying and pasting with or without proper use of quotations or supporting in-text citations.

1 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeAPA
PRICE-I

1 pts

100%

Posts in this discussion demonstrate in-text citations of sources and references in proper APA style and formatting.

0.9 pts

92%

Posts in this discussion demonstrate in-text citations of sources and references but have 1-2 minor APA errors.

0.8 pts

83%

Posts in this discussion demonstrate in-text citations of sources and references but have 3-4 APA errors.

0.7 pts

75%

Posts in this discussion demonstrate in-text citations of sources and references but have 5-6 APA errors.

0.6 pts

67%

Posts in this discussion do not provide sufficient in-text citations and/or references and/or have 7 or more APA errors.

0 pts

0%

Posts were not submitted and/or one or more posts demonstrate copying and pasting with or without proper use of quotations or supporting in-text citations.

1 pts

Total Points: 20

error: Content is protected !!