HCM 440 Final Project Guidelines and Rubric
Overview
Healthcare administrators, managers, and executives are responsible for planning, directing, and coordinating health services at various levels for the
populations they serve. Interpreting research is integral to the role of a healthcare professional, especially when conducting a needs assessment for program
planning.
In this course, you will choose a clinical area of interest related to healthcare administration and create an annotated bibliography. For your final assessment,
you will compose an integrated review. In this review, you will discuss the criteria necessary for inclusion or exclusion in the research study, critique the quality
of each study, and present a synthesis of the results.
This integrated review will address the following course outcomes:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Critique ethical issues in healthcare research for their influence on compliance with rules and regulations
Evaluate basic research strategies applicable to healthcare settings for informing research proposals
Assess the appropriateness of utilizing secondary databases in healthcare research as an alternative to conducting original research
Justify the selection of specific data analysis methodology in published healthcare research for informing healthcare research methodology
Select healthcare administration issues to research in validating the need for program evaluation
Prompt
Using the six peer-reviewed literature articles from your annotated bibliography, compose an integrated review that focuses on a clinical issue of interest.
Ensure that the topic of this integrated review is viewed from the perspective of a healthcare professional who is looking to validate the need for program
evaluation at your hospital, even if your annotated bibliography was not this focused.
Specifically, your integrated review should focus on the following critical elements:
I.
Abstract
Craft a well-drafted abstract. Be sure to adhere to the guidelines from the latest edition of the American Psychological Association’s style guide. Consider
the appropriate length for your audience.
II.
Introduction
a) State the purpose, aims, or objectives of the integrated review. What do you wish to achieve through the drafting of this review? Be explicit in
your answer.
b) Introduce the topic of interest. Why is this topic the focus of the review?
c) What is the research question you are going to focus on? If you were to prepare a research proposal, what would your hypothesis be? Why?
d) What variables are of interest to you? How will these variables help you throughout this integrated review? Be sure to label the types of
variables each of these are.
e) Discuss the background and significance of the problem to healthcare administration.
III.
Literature Search
a) What keywords and combinations were used in the initial search? Which were the most effective? Explain why these keywords and
combinations provided the most useful results.
b) Which databases were searched? Why were these the chosen databases? Assess the characteristics that make these databases the most
reliable.
c) Evaluate the inclusion and exclusion criteria for the sample. How did you decide to narrow the search and focus the review? How was the final
sample determined? Be sure to include your process.
IV.
Methodology Analysis
a) What methodology was used in this research? Was it effective for the research question and hypothesis? Why or why not? Consider including
improvements for the methodology.
b) What statistical data analyses were employed in these articles? Were they appropriate for the research question and methodology? Why or
why not?
c) Evaluate the literature for any gaps that exist. Why do you think these gaps exist? Consider factors such as the location of the research, time the
research was conducted, and so on.
d) Evaluate the literature for inconsistencies that exist across the studies. Why do you think these inconsistencies exist? Consider factors such as
the location of the research, time the research was conducted, and so on.
V.
Synthesis and Interpretation
a) Create an evidence table of your results. Be sure to include the following criteria for each study:
1. Report citation
2. Design
3. Method
4. Sample
5. Data collection
6. Data analysis
7. Validity and reliability
b) Compare and contrast the study findings. Be sure to include pertinent conclusions and statistical findings only.
c) Evaluate the research strategies used in the articles, as applicable to healthcare programs. Was the research design appropriate for the study
conducted? Was the statistical analysis employed the best choice for the research questions posed?
d) What ethical issues are pertinent specifically to healthcare research? How can these issues influence the research strategies chosen to
investigate clinical topics? Evaluate these research articles and consider how ethical concerns may have limited these clinical investigations.
e) What patterns and trends exist in the research? What generalizations can you draw from the research?
f) If secondary data was utilized, was the source biased or objective? Why? If original research was conducted, do you think the researchers were
biased or objective? Why? Be sure to support your answer.
g) Synthesize the main findings of the research articles. What were the hypotheses of the research studies? Did the research add any new scholarly
information to the existing body of knowledge?
h) Assess whether utilizing secondary data as an alternative to the researchers’ original research would have been a feasible option. If it had been
an option, what resource(s) would be the most appropriate to use? What would be some of the strengths and limitations of using secondary
data?
i) Assess the literature for any ethical concerns that may be present. Consider things such as conflicts of interest between the researcher and the
study sponsors, or the lack of an IRB approval for the study.
VI.
Conclusion
a) What are the studies’ strengths? Are there patterns in the articles that you chose regarding their strengths?
b) What are the studies’ limitations? Are there patterns in the articles that you chose regarding their limitations?
c) Were the findings and conclusions reliable and valid? Why or why not? Logically support your answers.
d) What are the implications of this research? How will it influence your topic in the overall large picture of healthcare research?
Milestones
Annotated Bibliography
This milestone is due in Module Four. Submit a summary and analysis of six research articles relevant to the research problem that you have chosen. This
milestone is graded with the Annotated Bibliography Rubric.
Integrated Review
The final project is due in Module Eight. Using the six peer-reviewed literature articles from your annotated bibliography, compose an integrated review that
focuses on a clinical issue of interest. Ensure that the topic of this integrated review is viewed from the perspective of a healthcare professional who is looking to
validate the need for program evaluation at your hospital. Remember to use APA format. This final project is graded with the Final Project Rubric.
Final Project Rubric
Guidelines for Submission: Submit the integrated review as one complete document, including the title page, abstract, written components, references, and any
necessary appendices. The written components of the review (excluding the title page, abstract, references, and appendices) should not exceed 12 pages,
double-spaced, with one-inch margins. Be sure to adhere to formatting guidelines from the latest edition of the American Psychological Association (APA)
reference manual.
Critical Elements
Abstract
Exemplary (100%)
Meets “Proficient” criteria, and
abstract is appropriate in length
for reader’s audience
Proficient (85%)
Crafts well-drafted abstract,
adhering to guidelines from the
latest edition of the APA style
guide
Introduction:
Purpose
Meets “Proficient” criteria, and
purpose, aims, or objectives
demonstrate a keen
understanding of the integrated
review process
Meets “Proficient” criteria, and
explanation is explicitly clear
Explicitly states the purpose,
aims, or objectives of the
integrated review
Introduction: Topic
Introduction:
Research Question
Introduction:
Variables
Introduction:
Background
Explains why the topic is the
focus of the review
Needs Improvement (55%)
Crafts abstract, but abstract is
not well drafted or does not
adhere to guidelines from the
latest edition of the APA style
guide
States the purpose, aims, or
objectives of the integrated
review, but is not explicit in
doing so
Explains why the topic is the
focus of the review, but
explanation is cursory or weak
Meets “Proficient” criteria, and Introduces the research question Introduces the research question
research question demonstrates and hypothesis, including
and hypothesis, including
depth of understanding of
explanation behind hypothesis
explanation behind hypothesis,
chosen topic
but explanation is illogical,
cursory, or weak
Meets “Proficient” criteria, and Explains labeled variables of
Explains variables of interest, but
chosen variables of interest
interest, including how these
variables are not labeled and
reflect true understanding of
variables will be of help
explanation of how variables will
chosen topic of interest
throughout the integrated
help throughout integrated
review
review is illogical or weak
Meets “Proficient” criteria, and Discusses the background of the Discusses the background of the
discussion logically links research problem and significance of the problem and discusses
question to healthcare
problem to healthcare
significance of the problem, but
administration
administration
discussion is not thorough or
does not relate significance to
healthcare administration
Not Evident (0%)
Does not craft abstract
Value
2.5
Does not state the purpose,
aims, or objectives of the
integrated review
3.8
Does not explain why the topic is
the focus of the review
3.8
Does not introduce the research
question and hypothesis
3.8
Does not explain variables of
interest
3.8
Does not discuss the background
of the problem and significance
of the problem to healthcare
administration
3.8
Literature Search:
Keywords and
Combinations
Meets “Proficient” criteria, and
explanation for most useful
keywords and combinations
demonstrates a nuanced
understanding of research
databases
Literature Search:
Databases
Meets “Proficient” criteria, and
assessment of characteristics
shows keen insight into reliability
of research databases
Literature Search:
Inclusion and
Exclusion
Meets “Proficient” criteria, and
process of determining inclusion
or exclusion demonstrates ability
to logically evaluate research
Meets “Proficient” criteria and
includes improvements for
methodology
Methodology
Analysis:
Methodology
Methodology:
Statistical Data
Analyses
Meets “Proficient” criteria, and
explanations for appropriateness
of data analyses demonstrate a
nuanced understanding of
statistical techniques
Methodology: Gaps Meets “Proficient” criteria and
possible explanations for gaps in
literature take into consideration
factors such as location and time
Methodology:
Inconsistencies
Meets “Proficient” criteria, and
possible explanations for
inconsistencies that exist across
the studies take into
consideration factors such as
location and time
Evaluates which keywords and
combinations used in the initial
search provided the most useful
results, including an explanation
for why this is true
Evaluates which keywords and
combinations provided the most
useful results, including an
explanation for why this is true,
but evaluation is not limited to
initial search, or explanation for
why this is true is illogical, weak,
or cursory
Assesses which databases were Assesses which databases were
chosen and what characteristics chosen and what characteristics
make them the most reliable
make them the most reliable,
but assessment is illogical, weak,
or not comprehensive
Comprehensively evaluates the Evaluates the inclusion and
inclusion and exclusion criteria
exclusion criteria for the sample,
for the sample
but evaluation is not
comprehensive
Logically evaluates the efficacy of Evaluates the efficacy of
methodology used in the
methodology used in the
research articles
research, but evaluation is
illogical
Logically evaluates the
Evaluates the appropriateness of
appropriateness of the statistical the statistical data analyses used
data analyses used in the
in the research articles but the
research articles
evaluation is not logically sound
Does not evaluate which
keywords and combinations used
in the initial search provided the
most useful results
3.8
Does not assess which databases
were chosen and what
characteristics make them the
most reliable
3.8
Does not evaluate the inclusion
and exclusion criteria for the
sample
3.8
Does not evaluate the efficacy of
methodology used in the
research
3.8
Does not evaluate the
appropriateness of the statistical
data analyses used in the
research articles
3.8
Comprehensively evaluates the
literature for any gaps that exist,
including possible explanations
for those gaps
Does not evaluate the literature
for any gaps that exist
3.8
Does not evaluate the literature
for any inconsistencies that exist
across the studies
3.8
Evaluates the literature for any
gaps that exist, including possible
explanations for those gaps, but
evaluation is not comprehensive
or explanations are illogical or
weak
Comprehensively evaluates the Evaluates the literature for any
literature for any inconsistencies inconsistencies that exist across
that exist across the studies,
the studies, including possible
including possible explanations
explanations for those
for those inconsistencies
inconsistencies, but evaluation is
not comprehensive or
explanations are illogical or weak
Synthesis and
Interpretation:
Evidence Table
Synthesis and
Interpretation:
Compare and
Contrast
Meets “Proficient” criteria, and
evidence table of results is
organized and visually appealing
Meets “Proficient” criteria, and
comparisons and contrasts of
study findings include only
significant conclusions and
statistically significant findings
Synthesis and
Meets “Proficient” criteria, and
Interpretation:
evaluation is focused on the
Research Strategies appropriateness of the research
strategies within healthcare
programs
Synthesis and
Meets “Proficient” criteria, and
Interpretation:
evaluation considers how ethical
Ethical Issues
concerns may have limited
clinical investigations specifically
in the chosen clinical topic
Synthesis and
Meets “Proficient” criteria, and
Interpretation:
analysis demonstrates nuanced
Patterns and Trends ability to interpret research
findings
Synthesis and
Interpretation:
Secondary Data
Synthesis and
Interpretation:
Synthesize
Creates a comprehensive
evidence table of results
Compares and contrasts the
study findings, including
pertinent conclusions and
statistical findings only
Comprehensively evaluates
research strategies used in the
articles as applicable to a
healthcare program
Creates an evidence table of
results, but does not include all
required components
Compares and contrasts the
study findings, but includes
superfluous information
Evaluates research strategies
used in the articles, but research
strategies do not apply to
healthcare programs or
evaluation is not comprehensive
Evaluates research articles for
Evaluates research articles for
how possible ethical concerns
how possible ethical concerns
may have limited clinical
may have limited clinical
investigations
investigations, but evaluation is
limited, illogical, or weak
Analyzes patterns and trends in Analyzes patterns and trends in
the research, drawing
the research and draws
generalizations from these
generalizations from these
patterns and trends
patterns and trends, but analysis
is cursory or generalizations are
illogical
Meets “Proficient” criteria, and Evaluates if sources or
Evaluates if sources or
support for evaluation includes
researchers were biased or
researchers were biased or
specific examples
objective, with support for
objective and supports answer,
answer
but evaluation is not complete or
support is illogical or weak
Meets “Proficient” criteria, and Comprehensively synthesizes the Synthesizes the main findings of
synthesis of articles
main findings of the research
the research articles, but
demonstrates nuanced ability to articles
synthesis is not comprehensive
blend multiple articles to support
research question
Does not create an evidence
table of results
3.8
Does not compare and contrast
the study findings
3.8
Does not evaluate research
strategies used in the articles
3.8
Does not evaluate research
articles for how possible ethical
concerns may have limited
clinical investigations
3.8
Does not analyze patterns and
trends in the research
3.8
Does not evaluate if sources or
researchers were biased or
objective
3.8
Does not synthesize the main
findings of the research articles
3.8
Synthesis and
Interpretation:
Utilizing
Meets “Proficient” criteria, and
identification of strengths and
limitations to using secondary
data considers clinical topics in
healthcare administration
Synthesis and
Interpretation:
Ethical Concerns
Meets “Proficient” criteria, and
assessment includes scenarios
such as conflicts of interest
between the researcher and
study sponsor or the lack of an
IRB approval for the study
Conclusion: Strengths Meets “Proficient” criteria, and
evaluation of studies’ strengths
demonstrates keen ability to
read beyond superficial results of
research articles
Conclusion:
Meets “Proficient” criteria, and
Limitations
evaluation of studies’ limitations
demonstrates keen ability to
read beyond superficial results of
research articles
Conclusion: Findings Meets “Proficient” criteria, and
assessment demonstrates
nuanced understanding of
statistical principles
Conclusion:
Implications
Meets “Proficient” criteria, and
analysis of implications
demonstrates a keen
understanding of research topic
overall
Assesses whether utilizing
secondary data is a feasible
alternative to the researchers’
original research, including what
resources would be most
appropriate to use and the
strengths and limitations to using
secondary data
Comprehensively assesses the
literature for ethical concerns
Assesses whether utilizing
secondary data is a feasible
alternative to the researchers’
original research, but assessment
is not comprehensive
Does not assess whether utilizing
secondary data is a feasible
alternative to the researchers’
original research
3.8
Assesses the literature for ethical Does not assess the literature for
concerns, but assessment is not ethical concerns
comprehensive
3.8
Thoroughly evaluates the studies Evaluates the studies for
for patterns in strengths
patterns in strengths, but
evaluation is not thorough
Does not evaluate the studies for
patterns in strengths
3.8
Thoroughly evaluates the studies Evaluates the studies for
for patterns in limitations
patterns in limitations, but
evaluation is not thorough
Does not evaluate the studies for
patterns in limitations
3.8
Assesses the findings and
conclusions for reliability and
validity, logically supporting
answers
Does not assess the findings and
conclusions for reliability and
validity
3.8
Does not analyze the
implications of the research topic
3.8
Thoroughly analyzes the
implications of the research,
including how the research will
influence the clinical topic in the
overall picture of healthcare
research
Assesses the findings and
conclusions for reliability and
validity and supports answers,
but assessment is illogical or
support is weak or illogical
Analyzes the implications of the
research topic, including how the
research topic will influence the
clinic topic, but analysis is
cursory or weak or does not
consider how research fits into
the overall picture of healthcare
research
Articulation of
Response
Submission is free of errors
Submission has no major errors
related to citations, grammar,
related to citations, grammar,
spelling, syntax, and organization spelling, syntax, or organization
and is presented in a
professional and easy-to-read
format
Submission has major errors
related to citations, grammar,
spelling, syntax, or organization
that negatively impact
readability and articulation of
main ideas
Submission has critical errors
related to citations, grammar,
spelling, syntax, or organization
that prevent understanding of
ideas
Earned Total
2.5
100%

Purchase answer to see full
attachment