Assessment aim, purpose and SILOs The aim of Assessment 2 is to provide you with

Assessment aim, purpose and SILOs
The aim of Assessment 2 is to provide you with an opportunity to systematically and comprehensively identify, select and critically reflect on established research.
The purpose of assessment 2 is to:
• Enhance your database search strategy skills to identify the current evidence available to address a specific research question;
• Develop your knowledge on how to select the “best” evidence that most closely answers a specific research question;
• Progress your skills in selecting the most appropriate critiquing tool and appraising the quality and research evidence of identified research.
Assessment 2 aligns to Subject Intended Learning Outcomes (SILOs):
• Critically analyse and evaluate research independently
• Critically reflect on established research and formulate clinical research questions
Assessment 4 Word count Value Due Date*
Individual written assignment ~2000 words (excluding tables, reference list and appendices)
General Instructions
Overview of the main tasks
This assignment is to be completed and submitted individually in 2000 words (± 10% leeway), using the template included below. There are some tasks that will require coordinating with your group members.
In teams of 3 people, you will select one research question from the ones identified in assessment 1. Each team member will systematically search one relevant database. Following the database search, as a team, you will identify the current best evidence available to address your specific research question. The “best” evidence will be a collation of your teams search results and it will represent the highest level or best quality research papers that most closely answers your question (i.e. no more than 8-10 papers). Your final selection of evidence can be three studies (i.e. one per group member) with different design (e.g. 2 systematic reviews and 1 RCT; 3 qualitative papers with different philosophical approaches i.e. phenomenology, ethnography, PAR, etc).
You will then select one paper, summarize it, and appraise its quality using the most appropriate appraisal tool for the study design of the paper (e.g. PEDro scale for Randomized Controlled Studies, McMaster Appraisal tool for qualitative research, NIH / NHLBI toolkit for quantitative research, CASP tool suite, etc).
What is included in the word count?
The word count includes all text that is written by you and all in-text citations. Any in-text citations (and the associated reference list) need to be completed in APA-7 style (click on this link to access how to use APA-7 style). The word count excludes all text that is part of the template, the reference list (of cited sources), and words added to tables 1–3.
About marking
You will be marked against an assessment rubric (see Assessment 3 folder in the LMS), which clearly outlines how you will be assessed for each section of the template. You should scrutinise the assessment rubric before commencing the task.
Please refer to the table below for a summary of all marked items pertaining to this assessment:
Task item Points allocated
(50 points total;
~2000 total words)
1. Explaining/justifying your search strategy 6 points
(~250 words)
2. Presenting your search findings 8 points
(~250 words)
3. Categorising the levels of evidence found 5 points
(~100 words)
4. Justifying selection of the ‘best’ evidence 5 points
(~150 words)
5. Providing a summary of your article of choice 8 points
(~300-350 words)
6. Summary of your article appraisal (presented in the same order as the appraisal tool you used) 15 points
(~700-900 words)
7. Overall presentation of your work 3 points
Before submitting
• Delete/remove all instructions and prompts from this template (leave just the title page and main headers).
• Please make sure that your work is presented in Calibri or Times New Roman, black 12-point font. Use 1.5 (or double) line spacing.
• All outputs (except for your appendices and appraised article) should be created using this template.
• When you are ready to submit your work, make sure to submit it in THREE PARTS:
1. Part 1: your main assessment (required)
2. Part 2: article appraised (in pdf format)
3. Part 3: appendices (i.e. search results and completed appraisal tool)
 
[Beginning of Assessment 2 Template]
Please use this template to complete your assessment. Note that all items in light blue colour are prompts to help you provide the information you need in each specific section.
1. Explaining your search strategy (~250 words; 6 points)
Searchable question
State your searchable question established in assessment 1.
Data bases searched
Brainstorm all the databases you know (also use the La Trobe library list of databases). Identify databases that are likely to help you locate evidence. Provide a database name and rationale for selecting your specific database. Also provide a rationale for any limits imposed in the database search.
Search Terms
Present a list of the synonyms, spelling variants and search terms for each concept as a table. Ensure you identify both keyword terms and index terms (see the La Trobe Library Guides for guidance on how to complete a search in different databases). Explain how you included index terms and keywords/synonyms in your search. Explain if and how you used Booleans, wildcards, and truncations. Use ONE of the following formats as applicable to your research question:
• the PICOR Grid (also known as PICO Grid), the PIER or SPIDER Grid, or a Concept Grid (see the La Trobe Guideline to Search Grids for examples and below template).
Depending on the research question to be answered (e.g. quantitative, qualitative, both) you will be using a PICOR/PICO, PIER, or SPIDER grid. Some columns may not always be required, depending on your question.
EITHER
Table 1. PICOR / PICO Grid
Population Intervention or Exposure Comparison
Outcome Research Design

[add extra lines as required]
OR
Table 1. SPIDER Grid
Sample Phenomenon of interest Design Evaluation Research Design

[add extra lines as required]
OR
Table 1. Concept Grid
Concept 1 Concept 1 Concept 1 Concept 1 Concept 1

[add extra lines as required]
2. Presenting your search findings (~250 words; 8 points)
In this section you need to report the number of articles retrieved from each of the databases searched. Identify the duplicates. Identify the number of articles that are directly relevant to the question by creating inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Inclusion & Exclusion Criteria: Identify inclusion / exclusion criteria for selection of relevant studies. Present these as a table.
Table 2. Inclusion / Exclusion Criteria [Original Search Question]
Inclusion Criteria
Exclusion Criteria

[add extra lines as required]
It is useful at this point to categorise articles as; a) irrelevant, b) useful background material for other assessments, or c) directly relevant to the question and to be appraised using a critiquing tool. Provide a summary statement as follows:
We identified a total of [number] articles from [name your database], [number] articles from [name your database], and [number] articles from [name your database]. After removing the duplicates, [total number] articles were identified. From these, [number] articles were directly relevant to our research question; and [number] articles were irrelevant. There were also [number] articles that were used as background and support material (please refer to table 3).
3. Categorising the levels of evidence (~100 words; 5 points)
Create a ‘short list’ of papers (no more than 15) and briefly explain why you selected these as relevant to your question in no more than 100 words. Categorise the relevant identified articles according to study design and present them as a table (for example, see Table 3 below). This table should include all the studies/articles that are relevant to answering your research question. It should not include articles that only provided you with relevant background reading on the topic (keep a list of these article elsewhere for your assessment 3).
Table 3. Relevant references identified
Research Methodology Design of Articles Retrieved
Number
Located# First author & year of publication of each article Source
(the database or hand search)

Table adapted from www.otcats.com:
#Number located refers to number of articles relating to that methodology
To assist you to categorise the quantitative research designs, use the GRADE Handbook, see chapters 9 for glossary of terms and concepts (GRADE, 2013) – Week 2 Reading list on LMS ERA Reading list.
For research questions that are best answered by qualitative methodologies, construct your table so that the relevant identified studies are organised according to the specific qualitative research methodology. The following resources will help you identify the methodologies (i.e. philosophical approaches) within qualitative studies 2007 McMaster qualitative critical review guidelines; Liamputtong (2013), from page 65; and Hoffman et al (2017), from page 229 available via the Week 2 and 3 on LMS ERA Reading list.
Search histories from your databases must be included in your assignment as an appendix. These can be a screenshot of the final search results (preferred), or a copy of the search that were saved and emailed to yourself at the end of each search (less preferred).
4. Justifying selection of the best evidence (~150 words; 5 points)
Combine the “best” evidence from the result of your team members searches in the list above. Provide a detailed rationale for selecting the three ‘best’ articles. Indicate the articles that will be reviewed by you and your team members.
The papers identified as the ‘best’ evidence and selected for critical appraisal were: …
1.
2.
3.
(Provide full references for each paper)
Provide a detailed rationale for selecting the critical appraisal tool to appraise your individual study.
5. Summary of article (~ 350 words max; 8 points) ind
[insert full reference to paper here]
Aim/Objective of the Study:
Methods:
Study Design: (eg, systematic review, cohort, randomised controlled trial, qualitative study with grounded theory).

Setting: (Location such as hospital or community; rural or metropolitan, country)
Participants: (diagnosis, eligibility criteria, how recruited, type of sample eg purposive, random; key demographics such as mean age, gender, duration of illness/disease)
Intervention or Issue Investigated (provide details of intervention or explain the issue; who provided treatment, when and where, how many hours of treatment provided)
Outcome Measures/Qualitative methods (Primary outcomes only [secondary if appropriate]. When were outcomes measured, if relevant Give details of each measure, maximum score for each measure and range, administered by whom, where. If qualitative, state the methods used, how was data collected by whom, what was the form of the data e.g. interview recordings)
Main Findings:
(N enrolled, N included, N available for follow-up if relevant; provide table of mean scores/ mean differences/ treatment effect, 95% confidence intervals and p-values etc where provided – if you need to calculate these data yourself put calculations here and add interpretation later, under ‘critical appraisal’. For qualitative studies major themes that emerged, model developed or increased understanding of an issue).
Original Authors’ Conclusions/Interpretation (paraphrase as required)
6. Critical appraisal (~900 words max; 15 points)
Internal Validity/Trustworthiness (please mention the appraisal tool used in your first statement. Follow headings used in critical appraisal checklist to provide your account on internal and external validity e.g. was the question clear and pertinent, was sampling done adequately, was there selection bias, blinding, were groups in an RCT comparable at baseline on key demographic variables; number of dropouts if relevant. Comment on any missing information in original paper. For qualitative papers please report the trustworthiness/rigour of the paper appraised using the same structure of the appraisal tool you selected)
Interpretation of Findings (Favourable or unfavourable, specific outcomes of interest, size of treatment effect, statistical and clinical significance; minimal clinically important difference – some of which you may have calculated yourself. For qualitative study, rigorous descriiption of data collection and analysis, triangulation, respondent validation, findings explicit, adequately discussed and in relation to current body of knowledge)
Summary/Conclusion including generalisability/transferability to other Populations: (provide your conclusions about the quality of the article here and its applicability to your specific case scenario/stream)
Referencing
References should be presented according to American Psychological Association’s (2020), Referencing style (7th edition). We strongly recommend that you use a reference manager such as Endnote or Zotero (see next page for details).
Appendices
Please submit all appendices as a separate file on LMS (one file only containing your search results and completed appraisal tool with your notes on it)
 
Using a reference manager (e.g. Endnote, Zotero) to store your search results
We highly recommend using a reference manager. This is NOT a requirement of this assessment.
You are recommended to upload the results from your searches into an EndNote or Zotero reference library. This will greatly facilitate keeping track of and retrieving previously located articles when you need them.
A library allows you to retain a record of all articles retrieved (after removing duplicates) and to organise them into “custom groups” as follows:
• Irrelevant titles retrieved;
• Background reading on population (diagnosis, disorder or circumstance applicable to your question);
• Background reading on intervention / exposure of interest; outcome of interest; or experience and views of interest (as applicable to your question);
• Directly relevant titles to answer the clinical question.
Links to full text of relevant articles and key background readings can also be retained in your EndNote library, using the URL field, or a PDF of the article.
You are expected to take a scholarly approach, and your analysis and reasoning should be informed by relevant literature. You are expected to read and use information from a minimum of 10 relevant academic literature.
– Find between 8 – 12 research papers that answer my new question: “What is the most effective occupational therapy intervention to support mothers with depression?”
– Appraise the research paper, which must match and tick everything; it must be strong evidence to answer my research question using CINAHL.
– Follow the template instructions and the examples, but don’t copy the example exactly; use it as an example only.
– Try to link it to Occupational therapy practice.
– Use the PICO table or SPIDER table according to the assessment flow.
– 2000 words for the assessment and a separate document for the appendix.
– When you appraise the research paper, ensure it’s strong evidence.
– Try not to use researchers related to a specific culture.
– USE cognitive behaviour therapy (CBT) as an intervention.
– Follow the example of the template and modify the work accordingly.
– Directly relevant titles to answer the clinical question.
– Use the appraisal tool in the template to follow appropriately.

Search history demonstrates a comprehensive and clear search plan: each concept searched separately, both thesaurus index terms and key word searches conducted for each concept. Sound application of Boolean operators and truncations.
Appropriate length and detail. Succinctly summarises the combined search results with team members results. Inclusion and exclusion criteria, relevant references identified, and a summary of selection of relevant evidence.
All papers categorised correctly in terms of study design and the best papers retrieved are clearly justified.
Appropriate length and detail. Articles presented in APA-7 format. Succinctly and effectively justifies the best evidence. Highly relevant selection and justification of articles. Chosen critical appraisal tool highly relevant and justified for individual article.
Succinct yet comprehensive summary of critiqued paper. Demonstrates a comprehensive understanding of the key elements of a research article: aim, methods, findings, and interpretation of findings.
Appropriate length and detail. Appraisal is clearly presented and provide an in-depth comprehensive critique of the research article under review according to the selected critical appraisal tool selected.

Excellent structure. Appropriate layout. Referencing correct. Language is professional.
Don’t copy the example,
change the paper it says CINHAL RESEARCH, the rest are examples and add appendix using offical website