Waiting for answer This question has not been answered yet. You can hire a professional tutor to get the answer.
FOR SURAYA ONLY
Citation
Type of Study
Design Type
Framework/Theory
Setting
Key Concepts/Variables
Findings
Hierarchy of Evidence Level
Type of Study:
Design Type:
Framework/Theory:
Concepts:
Independent Variable:
Dependent Variable:
Controlled Variable:
Type of Study:
Design Type:
Framework/Theory:
Concepts:
Independent Variable:
Dependent Variable:
Controlled Variable:
Citation
Study
Design Type
Framework/Theory
Setting
Key Concepts/Variables
Findings
Hierarchy of Evidence Level
Type of Study:
Design Type:
Framework/Theory:
Concepts:
Independent Variable:
Dependent Variable:
Controlled Variable:
Type of Study:
Design Type:
Framework/Theory:
Concepts:
Independent Variable:
Dependent Variable:
Controlled Variable:
Type of Study:
Design Type:
Framework/Theory:
Concepts:
Independent
Citation
Type of Study
Design Type
Framework/Theory
Setting
Key Concepts/Variables
Findings
Hierarchy of Evidence Level
Type of Study:
Design Type:
Framework/Theory:
Concepts:
Independent Variable:
Dependent Variable:
Controlled Variable:
Type of Study:
Design Type:
Framework/Theory:
Concepts:
Independent Variable:
Dependent Variable:
Controlled Variable:
Citation
Study
Design Type
Framework/Theory
Setting
Key Concepts/Variables
Findings
Hierarchy of Evidence Level
Type of Study:
Design Type:
Framework/Theory:
Concepts:
Independent Variable:
Dependent Variable:
Controlled Variable:
Type of Study:
Design Type:
Framework/Theory:
Concepts:
Independent Variable:
Dependent Variable:
Controlled Variable:
Type of Study:
Design Type:
Framework/Theory:
Concepts:
Independent Variable:
Dependent Variable:
Controlled Variable:
Variable:
Dependent Variable:
Controlled Variable:
30 (30%) - 30 (30%)-Main posting addresses all criteria with 75% of post exceptional depth and breadth supported by credible references
27 (27%) - 29 (29%)
-Main posting addresses all criteria with 75% of post exceptional depth and breadth supported by credible references
24 (24%) - 26 (26%)
Main posting meets expectations. All criteria are addressed with 50% containing good breadth and depth.
21 (21%) - 23 (23%)
Main posting addresses most of the criteria. One to two criterion are not addressed or superficially addressed.
0 (0%) - 20 (20%)
Main posting does not address all of criteria, superficially addresses criteria. Two or more criteria are not addressed.
Course Requirements and Attendance20 (20%) - 20 (20%)
-Responds to two colleagues’ with posts that are reflective, are justified with credible sources, and ask questions that extend the discussion.
18 (18%) - 19 (19%)
-Responds to two colleagues’ with posts that are reflective, are justified with credible sources, and ask questions that extend the discussion.
16 (16%) - 17 (17%)
Responds to a minimum of two colleagues’ posts, are reflective, and ask questions that extend the discussion. One post is justified by a credible source.
14 (14%) - 15 (15%)
Responds to less than two colleagues’ posts. Posts are on topic, may have some depth, or questions. May extend the discussion. No credible sources are cited
0 (0%) - 13 (13%)
Responds to less than two colleagues’ posts. Posts may not be on topic, lack depth, do not pose questions that extend the discussion
Scholarly Writing Quality30 (30%) - 30 (30%)
-The main posting clearly addresses the discussion criteria and is written concisely. The main posting is cited with more than two credible references that adhere to the correct format per the APA Manual 6th Edition. No spelling or grammatical errors. ***The use of scholarly sources or real life experiences needs to be included to deepen the discussion and earn points in reply to fellow students.
27 (27%) - 29 (29%)
-The main posting clearly addresses the discussion criteria and is written concisely. The main posting is cited with more than two credible references that adhere to the correct format per the APA Manual 6th Edition. No spelling or grammatical errors.
24 (24%) - 26 (26%)
-The main posting clearly addresses the discussion criteria and is written concisely. The main posting is cited with a minimum of two current credible references that adhere to the correct format per the APA Manual 6th Edition. Contains one to two spelling or grammatical errors.
21 (21%) - 23 (23%)
-The main posting is not clearly addressing the discussion criteria and is not written concisely. The main posting is cited with less than two credible references that may lack credibility and/or do not adhere to the correct format per the APA Manual 6th Edition. Contains more than two spelling or grammatical errors.
0 (0%) - 20 (20%)
-The main posting is disorganized and has one reference that may lack credibility and does not adhere to the correct format per the APA Manual 6th Edition or has zero credible references. Contains more than two spelling or grammatical errors.
Professional CommunicationEffectiveness20 (20%) - 20 (20%)
-Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues and response to faculty questions are answered if posed. Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas effectively written in Standard Edited English -Responses posted in the discussion demonstrate effective professional communication through deep reflective discussion which leads to an exchange of ideas and focus on the weekly discussion topic.
18 (18%) - 19 (19%)
-Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues. -Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas effectively written in Standard Edited English -Responses posted in the discussion demonstrate effective professional communication through deep reflective discussion which leads to an exchange of ideas and focus on the weekly discussion topic . -Responses are cited with at least one credible reference per post and a probing question that extends the discussion. Adheres to the correct format per the APA Manual 6th Edition. No spelling or grammatical errors.
16 (16%) - 17 (17%)
-Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues. Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas effectively written in Standard Edited English. -Responses posted in the discussion demonstrate effective professional communication through deep reflective discussion which leads to an exchange of ideas and focus on the weekly discussion topic. -Responses are cited with at least one credible and/or contain probing questions that extends the discussion. Adheres to the correct format per the APA Manual 6th Edition. May have one to two spelling or grammatical errors.
14 (14%) - 15 (15%)
-Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues. Provides opinions that may not be concise or ideas not effectively written in Standard Edited English. -Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication that does not extend the discussion, leads to an exchange of ideas and/or not focused on the weekly discussion topic. -Responses are not cited and/or do not contain a probing question. May not adhere to the correct format per the APA Manual 6th Edition. May have more than two spelling or grammatical errors.
0 (0%) - 13 (13%)
-Communication may lack professional tone or be disrespectful to colleagues. Provides opinions that may not be concise or ideas not effectively written in Standard Edited English -Responses posted in the discussion lack effective professional communication through discussion that does not extend the discussion, do not lead to an exchange of ideas and/or not focused on the weekly discussion topic. -Responses are not cited and do not contain a probing question. May not adhere to the correct format per the APA Manual 6th Edition. May have multiple spelling or grammatical errors.
Timely Submission0 (0%) - 0 (0%)
All criteria met: Initial post submitted on time. Response to two peer initial posts. Response on 3 separate days.
-5 (-5%) - 0 (0%)
5 points deducted for responding to less than two peers or 5 points deducted for responding less than three days
-10 (-10%) - -5 (-5%)
5 points deducted for responding to less than two peers and 5 points deducted for responding less than three days
-10 (-10%) - -10 (-10%)
10 points deducted for Initial post submitted late
-20 (-20%) - -15 (-15%)
Initial post submitted late and 5 points deducted for responding to less than two peers and/ or 5 points deducted for responding less than three days
Total Points: 100Name: NURS_5052_Weeks_1-11_Discussion_Rubric
Description: NURS 6052 Discussion Weeks 1-11 Rubric I included the rubic for this discussion as the instructor keeps saying to follow it. The discussion is to be in APA format 3 pages long 5 freferences at least 2 from Walden Library please Thank You
This graft has to be used for the project throughout the cours.
Discussion: Ethical Dimensions of Research Studies
In the best-selling book, The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks (Skloot, 2010), the author highlights the true story of an African-American woman who died in 1951 from cervical cancer. What makes her story unique is that prior to her death, cells from her tumor were removed and successfully grown in a petri dish. This was the first time scientists were able to successfully replicate cells outside the body, and it is estimated that billions of Lacks’ cells have been used in medical research. However, Henrietta Lacks was never asked for permission to take a sample and her family was never made aware of the widespread use of her cells. Although the culturing of her cells has been pivotal for advancing research, strong ethical concerns later arose about using these cells without patient or family approval.
This week’s readings describe historical examples of unethical research, such as a study of syphilis among African-American men in which treatment was withheld and a study in which live cancer cells were injected into elderly patients. Today, stricter controls that seek to protect study participants are placed on researchers, but breaches still occur. Careful attention must be given toward preventing unethical behavior. In this Discussion, you explore ethical considerations and issues in research.
To prepare:
- Select a current health-related case involving research ethics. (If none come to mind, browse the Internet to familiarize yourself with recent cases.)
- As you review the case that you have selected, reflect on the ethical principles discussed in “What Are the Major Ethical Issues in Conducting Research?” article found in this week’s Learning Resources. Which principles were breached in the case you have identified?
By Day 3
Post a description of the case that you selected and the ethical issues involved. Analyze the ethical principles that were breached by the researchers or organizations in your selected case as well as the possible cause of the breach(es). Suggest how the research might have been conducted differently to avoid or minimize the ethical problems. Discuss how research can be done on sensitive issues while still protecting the rights of the research subjects.
Read a selection of your colleagues’ responses.
By Day 6
Respond on or before Day 6 to at least two of your colleagues on two different days using one or more of the following approaches:
- Ask a probing question, substantiated with additional background information, and evidence.
- Offer and support an alternative perspective using readings from the classroom or from your own review of the literature in the Walden Library.
- Make a suggestion based on additional evidence drawn from readings or after synthesizing multiple postings.
