Reference no: EM133602796

Foundations of Outdoor Leadership

Research Methods in Health - Quantitative Research Appraisal

Assignment task

You are asked to evaluate the reporting quality of the supplied article by comparing the article to criteria from theofficial quantitative guide to reporting quality. For each section of the journal article as displayed in the assignmenttemplate, select from the drop-down list a rating for the reporting quality of that section: Good, Fair orPoor. Then, for each section of the article add a typed prose justification of your rating-scale answer, evaluatingthe reporting quality of the article section by addressing as many criteria as you can from the official guide for thatsection within the limited word count. Higher scoring text answers will match a plausible rating-scale answer andinclude correct evaluation of reporting quality, and state the evidence-based practice implications of that reportingquality.Assignments will be marked only against the criteria from the official guide and not directly from any other reporting quality checklists even where those guides or checklists match the official guide. No additional research or literatureis needed. No citations or references additional to the supplied article are expected. Evaluations based on criteriafrom reporting-quality guides and checklists where those criteria do not appear in the official quantitative guide willcontribute zero to the score for that section. See the Module 3 tutorial for detailed definitions of "Good", "Fair" and "Poor" reporting quality for the rating-scale answers, complementing the reporting quality guide for quantitative research. For a high score, your rating scale answer must logically match your text evaluation. State what the authors have reported properly, noting also what the authors have omitted to report or reported inadequately.

Therefore, for each section of the article, try to identify:

Relevant and important criteria that the authors have satisfied in their report. In this way, you identify whereand how the authors have achieved a high standard of reporting. These comments support a "Good" rating.

Relevant and important criteria that the authors have missed. The authors could have overlooked importantcriteria or inadequately addressed them in the article. In this way, you are identifying where and how the authorshave not achieved a high standard of reporting. These comments support a "Fair" or "Poor" rating.

Evidence-based practice implications of the reporting quality for that section, identified through a brief commentin your answer. Convincing argument about evidence-based practice implications is essential for a Distinction or High Distinction score for that section. Assignment marks are awarded according to these main assessment criteria:

Distinction or High Distinction = competent descriptive summary of relevant and important article content plus further evaluation in the text answer matching the drop-down answer plus evidence-based practice implications. "Relevant and important" mean there are implications for evidence-based practice for that part of the article (i.e.,what the article is saying) and its reporting quality (i.e., how the article presents that information). You will score higher if you persuasively say what those implications are, as per Point 3 above. Relevance takes priority over importance. Reporting quality is important only if it's relevant to evidence-based practice. If it's not relevant, it's not important. Among the aspects of reporting quality that are relevant to evidence-based practice or policy, concentrateon the most important aspects. See the marking rubric in the learning guide for Credit, Pass and Fail marking criteria.

You will have to exercise judgement when selecting what to write about. That judgement is assessable. There is no need for a literature review. The reporting quality guide and the supplied journal article are the only sources required. Use additional sources sparingly, if at all, and only where these extra sources build your argumentand justify your conclusions, and not to replace your own thinking. Better is to use no additional sources. Where ideas from another source are used, that source must be cited and referenced. It is expected that the supplied article will be formally cited at least once, along with a properly formatted reference list entry. Both a properly presented citation and reference entry are essential for at least a Pass score on the Presentation marking criterion for thisassessment.

The so-called hourglass structure for essays, comprising an introduction, main text and conclusions should not beused. Follow the structure of the supplied template exactly. Do not add to or delete sections of the assignmenttemplate. Text outside of the sections on the supplied template will score no marks but will nevertheless contributeto the word count. Quality of written expression and presentation are assessable. Quality of expression includes clarity, coherence,conciseness, originality, spelling, punctuation, grammar and conformity with APA 7 writing style.

Your assignment is about reporting quality of the article, not the scientific quality of the research. Your evaluation should concentrate on how well the authors have reported their research rather than how well scientifically the researchwas done. Avoid direct evaluation of the research question, background information, study design, ethics, measurement, sampling, procedure, analysis and interpretation, although you should critique how well these are reportedbased on criteria from the quantitative reporting quality guide. Where reporting quality has direct implications for scientific quality, that can be mentioned with priority given to reporting quality. Raise scientific quality only wherereporting quality enables or makes it harder for readers to evaluate critically the study's rationale, its methods, the internal and external validity of the results, the authors' interpretation of the results and their implications, and the generalisability and applicability of the results for clinical practice or public health policy.

Content format

• Title
• Abstract
• Introduction
• Methods
• Results
• Discussion
• References