SOLUTION AT Academic Writers Bay
COH 606: Epidemiology Independent Project Rubric Find two peer reviewed journal articles that examine the same hypothesis, using different study designs. The project should total approximately 5 pages. Citations in the text and references must be in APA format. MHA PLOs: Solve complex problems in a healthcare environment by employing analytical skills; Utilize administrative and clinical information technology and decision-support tools in process and performance improvement; MPH PLOs: Analyze and interpret health data; Describe the distribution and determinants of disease, disabilities and death in human populations. Course Learning Outcomes: Upon completion of this course the student will be able to: • Appropriately use and understand epidemiological terminology. • Determine appropriate epidemiological study designs • Identify sources of bias in public health research. • Discuss the steps of an disease outbreak investigation • Critically review the public health literature. Article Outstanding Achievement 10% Student identifies two peer-reviewed article that use epidemiologic methods to examine a health-related issue. No metaanalysis Commendable Achievement 7.5% The student found two peerreviewed primary research articles but they were outdated. Marginal Achievement 5% The student used peerreviewed articles, but these articles did not contain primary research. Unsatisfactory Achievement Failing 2.5% The articles were outdated and not primary research. 0% Missing Objectives 10% Student clearly identifies and states the study’s objectives and hypotheses 10% 7.5% The hypothesis was found and the objectives were somewhat identified, but the student had difficulty putting them in their own words. 7.5% 5% The hypothesis and objectives were outlined, but not explained in detail. 2.5% The objectives and/or goals of the studies were not clearly communicated. 0% Missing 5% 2.5% 0% Missing Student correctly identifies the types of study (Example: cohort, casecontrol, crosssectional, clinical trial….) Student correctly answers the 4 questions Student correctly identifies the types of study (Example: cohort, casecontrol, crosssectional, clinical trial….) Student correctly answers the 3 questions Student correctly identifies the types of study (Example: cohort, case-control, cross-sectional, clinical trial….) Student correctly answers the 2 questions Types of Studies Study sample: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Sample size (did they perform power or sample size calculations?) Recruiting strategies Inclusion criteria Exclusion criteria Randomization (if applicable) If there was a control group, was it comparable to the case (or intervention) group on demographic variables? Student correctly identifies the types of study (Example: cohort, casecontrol, crosssectional, clinical trial….) Student correctly answers the 5 questions. Statistical Analyses Results 10% 7.5% 5% 2.5% Student accurately identifies the statistical analyses Statistical analyses are defined, but no explanation of what they meant or justification in their use. Confounders were not explained in sufficient detail or just recited what the textbook stated on the topic. Descriptives were discussed, but the deeper more robust tests were not addressed. 7.5% 5% 2.5% Conclusion was brief, but it touched on the key points of the compare and contrast between the two articles. Summaries of each article were provided with zero critical reflection regarding how they compare Unacceptable conclusion. It was one paragraph and didn’t not follow the guidance found here: http://writingcenter.unc.edu/handouts/conclusions/ Student includes report of univariate (without controlling for confounders) and multivariate (controlling for potential confounders). Conclusions: 10% Student clearly states the authors’ conclusions and gives an informed critique. Student addresses whether or not the conclusions are generalizable to the overall population. 0% Missing 0% Missing Limitations Comparison of Two studies 10% Student correctly describes types of biases, confounding, study’s strengths and limitations 20% Student compares conclusions of the two studies and explains any discrepancies. Student critiques the methodology of both studies. Student evaluates the credibility of each study. Student offers a proposal for an ideal study design. 7.5% There was a solid attempt to use text book information and the authors own cited limitations to address these problems, but details were missing. 15% The studies were summarized in terms of their findings. However, the advantages and disadvantages to each study type were not sufficiently addressed. Credibility of each study design was assessed fully based on publication history and funding source. 5% The limitations and biases were provided, but discussed in little detail. 2.5% The section was insufficient. 10% The studies were summarized, but the advantage of each type of study design and what it permits a research to state was not fully described. 5% The studies were insufficiently discussed in the following criteria: 0% Missing Student compares conclusions of the two studies and explains any discrepancies. Student critiques the methodology of both studies. Student evaluates the credibility of each study. Student offers a proposal for an ideal study design. 0% Missing Reference style Writing Mechanics and Style 5% Student correctly uses in-text citations and correctly lists references at the end of the paper. 15% Student writes clear, concise and accurate sentences, cohesive paragraphs and a wellorganized paper. 4% References are listed at the end of the paper and in-text with some format errors. 3% References are correctly listed at the end of the paper, yet not in the text. 2% References are listed at the end of the paper in a nonstandard format. 0% There is no evidence of referencing. 10% Writing is accurate, however there are some style issues that could be improved. 7.5% Writing contains some grammatical errors; however, reader can determine the meaning of the paper. 5% Writing contains numerous grammatical errors. 0% Writing contains numerous grammatical errors that detract from the reader’s ability to render meaning from the work.