Updated 8/1/2017
Case Study Discussion 2 (50 points)
Purpose: To assess ability to appraise statistical evidence and use quantitative reasoning to examine clinical
problems in evidence based practice. (Objectives 1 – 3).
Due date: Post by Wednesday of Week 8. Discuss through SATURDAY of Week 8.
Submit: Discussion Board in Blackboard
This assignment is an opportunity for students to collaborate with classmates and instructors in appraising
statistical evidence. The goal of the assignment is to allow students to demonstrate their ability to use the CER
approach to appraise statistical evidence presented in a journal article.
Before beginning the assignment, students should refresh their recollection of the Cohn et al. (2009) article
(posted in Week 4 in Blackboard). Students will investigate claims made in the Chun et al. (2014) article on
hand hygiene among ICU nurses.
The assignment has four steps.
1. Read the article.
2. Choose one of the following claims (only one).
a. Claim #1 by Chun et al (2014) is: “Hand hygiene education and individual feedback of hand
hygiene frequency and method were effective in increasing hand hygiene frequency and
improving nurses’ methodology scores of hand hygiene” (Chun et al., 2014).
b. Claim #2 by Chun et al (2014) is that the intervention” was proven to decrease MRSA
acquisition rate and MRSA colonization pressure” (Chun et al., 2014).
3. Write a post for the discussion board in the following format (and post it by Wednesday of Week 8). The
post should be 100 to 300 words in length.
a. State the claim
b. List the statistical evidence provided in the article to support the claim
c. Explain why the evidence supports or fails to support the claim and critically appraise the article
and claim using Cohen et al. (2009).
4. Engage in the discussion board to read and comment on classmates’ and instructors’ contributions.
a. Students must engage with the topic; i.e., comments need to present differing perspectives and
alternative explanations.
b. Students must engage in conversation; i.e., when Student B comments on Student A’s post, then
Student A should respond to Student B’s comment.
c. Students must be collegial and collaborative in their posts and conversations.
Case Study Discussion will be graded with the following rubric:
Exemplary 4 Proficient 3 Developing 2 Emerging 1
Original post (3.75) Fully responds to all questions
in DB Prompt with insightful
appraisal of evidence using
appropriate support
Responds to all
questions, but lacks
development (AND)
Clear statement of
evidence and
conclusion (OR)
Does not use
appropriate support
Does not respond
to all questions
(OR) Response
not in appropriate
format
(AND/OR) Does
not use
appropriate
support)
Does not respond
to all questions.
(AND) Response
not in appropriate
format (AND)
Does not use
appropriate support
Original post (3.75) Fully responds to all questions
in DB Prompt with insightful
appraisal of evidence
Responds to all
questions, but lacks
development (AND)
Clear statement of
evidence and
conclusion
Does not respond
to all questions
(OR) Response
not in appropriate
format.
Does not respond
to all questions.
(AND) Response
not in appropriate
format.
Timeliness of
original posts
(1.25)
Initial post by Wednesday of
the assigned week.
Initial post by
Thursday of the
assigned week
Initial post by
Friday of the
assigned week
Initial post after
Friday of the
assigned week.
Comments on
Others’ Posts (3.75)
Provides relevant and helpful
feedback with insightful, clear,
and thorough use of CER
approach in discussions with
classmates.
Provides relevant
and helpful feedback
with use of CER
approach in
discussions with
classmates.
Responses lack
substance and
attempt to use
CER approach in
discussions with
classmates.
Poor response
quality
Engagement
(1.25)
Responses to at least three
classmates (AND) Responses
spread over more than two days
Responds to fewer
than three classmates
(OR) Responses on
two days.
Responds to two
classmates on
two days (OR) all
responses on one
day
Responds to one
classmate on one
day (OR) does not
respond to
classmates.
Format
(2.5)
Writing is graduate level and
engaging. (AND) Written
responses communicate clearly
using appropriate professional
tone, grammar, spelling, and
punctuation.
Writing is graduate
level and engaging.
(AND) Written
responses may not
communicate clearly,
use appropriate
professional tone, or
there may be a few
errors grammar,
spelling, and
punctuation without
detracting from
readability.
Writing may not
be graduate level.
(OR) Written
responses do not
communicate
clearly, use
appropriate
professional tone,
or there are
several errors
grammar,
spelling, and
punctuation,
detracting from
overall
readability.
Poor writing
quality, poor
communication and
unprofessional
tone. (OR)
Extensive errors in
spelling, grammar,
or punctuation that
detract from the
readability.