Assessment Task 1 – Literature Review
Due on 5th of September 1300 hrs
In this assessment task students are required to conduct a review of the current literature using a systematic approach. There will be several key sections to this assessment task, including creation of a flow chart that represents how the literature search was conducted including the inclusion / exclusion criteria, the final selected papers (10-12) represented in a table format highlighting the following aspects; author/year/country, methodology, participants, key findings, and a detailed description of the key findings of the selected papers.
Purpose: To develop and demonstrate skills related to reviewing literature using a systematic approach.
RESEARCH TOPIC: Does the prevalence of marijuana use among teenagers enhance their risk of developing depression and other mental illnesses?
Description: Students will be required to choose a research topic of interest and conduct a review of the literature. Students are required to complete a written piece of work with the following headings:
1. Introduction or Background: 1-2 paragraphs that introduces the reader to the topic of interest. Older references may be used here to give context to the topic.
2. Aim or Purpose: 1-2 sentences that succinctly gives the aim or purpose of the literature review.
3. Method: 2-3 paragraphs that includes a summary of the Search Strategy, quality appraisal tool used and a Flow chart of the literature search.
4. Results: Summary Table of Selected literature (10-12 articles), Quality appraisal scores and 1-2 paragraphs summarising the Key findings. This may include the demographics/qualities of the selected articles.
5. Discussion: 3-4 paragraphs discussing the findings of the articles and any commonalities or themes identified between them. This could also include any limitations of the review and/or any recommendations for future work in the area.
6. Conclusion: 1 short paragraph that summarises the findings of the review.
7. Reference list: Following correct formatting and citations throughout the review.
Word limit: 2000 words. Note: Tables, figures and references will not count towards this word count limit.
Marking Criteria: Refer to marking rubric.
Weighting: 50%.
Time Allocation: Approximately 40 hours.
Searching the Literature:
• Some points to remember:
• Add in CINHAL and Medline together to do the search
• Mesh terms / key terms
• Use of AND / OR
• Keep record of the search numbers – which will go into their flow chart
• Inclusion / exclusion criteria (Years 10 years / English / Peer reviewed journal articles / full text available / international or multi-centred studies, ordinal articles that consists of data)
Please don’t include any literature reviews, theoretical paper, discussion paper, personal opinions
• Approx 15 papers apply modified CASP tool
• Aim final data set – 10 papers
Task 0 points 1 point 2 points 3 points 4 points 5 points
PRESENTATION
Structure Presentation displayed no clear structure and sequence. Did not follow the assessment guidelines. Moderate structure and/or sequence of presentation. Poorly followed the assessment guidelines. Presentation required a clearer structure/ sequence, and/or better linking dialogue between information. Presentation displayed a clear structure and sequence – introduction, body, and conclusion, references Linking dialogue provided. Presentation displayed a good structure and sequence –introduction, body, and conclusion, references Linking dialogue provided. Presentation displayed excellent structure and sequence –introduction, body, and conclusion, references Linking dialogue provided.
PRESENTATION
Fluency Format of presentation was poor with no fluency between, themes or information, no topic sentences, and transitions between paragraphs. Flow of information was poor with indistinct ideas per paragraph, missing topic sentence and limited connections between paragraphs used. Many ideas per paragraph,
missing topic sentences,
abrupt transition, and/or
missing or rough
connections between
paragraphs Format of presentation flowed at times, one idea or point per paragraph, some transitions, mostly clear topic sentences, some connections made between paragraphs. Format of presentation flowed most of the time, appropriate themes and mostly relevant information was included. Format of presentation always flowed, with sound themes and relevant information. Clear topic sentences and smooth connections between paragraphs.
CONTENT
Introduction or Background Failure to demonstrate an understanding of the background of the topic and fails to introduce the topic/argument. Present but lacks detail or is too short to introduce the topic. Minimal explanation of background or introduction to the topic. Satisfactory background or introduction to the topic, some or no sources of background literature cited throughout. Good introduction or background. Provides sufficient information and background sources of literature cited throughout. Excellent background or introduction to the review and relevant sources cited throughout.
CONTENT
Aim or Purpose Not present. Present but lacks sufficient detail so aim or purpose is not clarified. Purpose and aim are articulated but lacks sufficient detail. Adequate with some demonstration of thought when using a PICO approach. Present with good demonstration of thought when using a PICO approach. Present with excellent demonstration of thought when using a PICO approach.
CONTENT
Method No discussion of databases searched, method used in search or process followed. Present but no detailed discussion on the method used or the process followed. Present but no detailed discussion on the databases used or the key search terms used etc.
Present but only slightly explained. Good summary of the methods with most databases specified as well as, key search terms etc. Excellent summary of the method with all databases detailed, key search terms included etc., and process followed.
CONTENT
Results: Summary Table and use of CASP tool No understanding of the task demonstrated. No links or connections made between ideas. Information was irrelevant and poorly expressed. No evidence of the use of the CASP tool. Poor understanding of the task demonstrated. Links and connections between ideas unclear. A lot of information was irrelevant or poorly expressed. CASP tool mentioned. Minimal understanding of the task demonstrated. Numerous links and connections between ideas unclear. Some information was irrelevant or not well expressed. CASP tool mentioned and demonstrated. Moderate understanding of the topic demonstrated. Some links and connections between ideas unclear. Most information was relevant. CASP tool used to critique papers and scores present in table. Substantial understanding of the task demonstrated. Links and connections between ideas generally clear. Information was relevant. CASP tool critique is demonstrated well throughout table. Excellent understanding of the task demonstrated. Links and connections between ideas made clear. Information was relevant and well expressed. CASP tool critique is demonstrated well and explained.
CONTENT
Results: Literature search flow chart Flow chart was absent, did not follow the assessment guidelines for this task. The flow chart was poorly constructed, with little evidence of a logical sequence. The Flow chart showed some detail and logical sequence. The Flow chart showed moderate detail and logical sequence. The Flow chart showed good sound detail and logical sequence. The Flow chart showed excellent detail and logical sequence.
CONTENT
Discussion and Critique
Conclusion Discussion and/or conclusion section was absent, did not follow the assessment guidelines for this task No critique of the literature. The discussion and/or conclusion section was poorly constructed, with little evidence of a logical sequence. Literature is poorly critiqued. The discussion and/or conclusion section showed some detail and logical sequence. Some attempt at critique of the literature was made. The discussion and/or conclusion section showed moderate detail and logical sequence. The literature has been critiqued with some attempt at linking the papers together. The discussion and/or conclusion section showed good sound detail and logical sequence. May or may not have included limitations and/or recommendations. The literature has been critiqued well with some attempt at linking research papers together. The discussion and conclusion sections showed excellent detail and logical sequence. Including limitations and/or recommendations. An excellent literature critique with a link between papers demonstrated. Makes connections explicit, discusses implications, relevance, or significance.
STRUCTURE
Professional Prose Inconsistent levels of articulation or expression, numerous spelling and grammatical errors and lack of sentence/paragraph structure makes paper difficult to read/understand. Poor level of articulation and expression, with sentence or paragraph structure unclear, and/or extensive spelling or grammatical errors. Minimal level of articulation and expression, with some sentence or paragraph structure unclear, and/or a considerable number of spelling or grammatical errors. Moderate level of articulation and expression, with some sentence or paragraph structure unclear, and/or a number of spelling or grammatical errors. Substantial level of articulation and expression, with clear and concise sentence and paragraph structure, and minimal spelling or grammatical errors. Excellent level of articulation and expression, with clear and concise sentence and paragraph structure, and no spelling or grammatical errors. Used complex and varied sentence structure; appropriate tone and style
REFERENCES
APA Style and credibility No references cited. Incorrect APA referencing style for in-text citations quotes and/or references. Numerous errors noted in APA referencing of in-text citations, quotes or references. Some references are NOT reputable, current, extensive or relevant. A couple of errors noted in APA referencing of in-text citations, quotes or references. A number of references are reputable, current, extensive and relevant. In-text citations and quotes and referencing are in APA style of a sound quality. Most references are reputable, current, extensive and relevant. All in-text citations, quotes and references are in APA style of a very high quality. All references are reputable, current, extensive and relevant

Related posts: