PUBH6005_Assessment Brief 3 Page 1 of 8ASSESSMENT BRIEFSubject Code and Title PUBH6005: EpidemiologyAssessment Assessment 3: Critical Appraisal EssayIndividual/Group IndividualLength 2,500 wordsLearning Outcomes This assessment addresses the following learning outcomes:1. Assess levels of evidence and make recommendations2. Interpret data arising from surveillance and research studies, including rates and ratios3. Understand the difference between association and causation, statistical and public health significance4. Critically evaluate epidemiological studies, including potential for bias, confounding and chance errorsSubmission Due Sunday following the end of week 11 at 11:55pmAEST/AEDT*Weighting 40%Total Marks 100 marks*Please Note: This time is Sydney time (AEST or AEDT). Please convert to your own time zone(eg. Adelaide = 11:25pm).PUBH6005_Assessment Brief 3 Page 2 of 8Context:This assessment requires you to apply the knowledge and skills gained in all the modules to undertake a critical appraisal. You will need to appraise 3 articles of a topic and research question given to you by your facilitator.Part A1. Search the library database to find three studies that answer your research question. All three studies must be of different study designs. For instance, you could include case control, cohort and RCTs. These studies do not have to prove their hypothesis or agree with each other. Please note that marks will be deducted if all identified papers are of similar study.2. Critically appraise all three articles you found using the CASP checklist. Make sure you use the relevant CASP checklist corresponding with your study design. Please note that you will need to make 3 different tables for the critical appraisal of the three different study design papers.3. Submit the Part A of the three tables for feedback before writing up Part B (essay).Part BBase on the feedback in Part A, you should write an essay on the three articles using the following headings:Introduction: introduces the topic, outlines background information to your research question and finishes with the research question. This sets the context for the rest of the assignment. You may refer to any published articles as they would have the same style of scientific writing. Citation for all sources used (in-text and in the reference list).Methodology: explain how you found the three articles that you critically reviewed, including the databases you used and the search strategy/keywords used. You may use a systematic review as an example to write this part. Also mention which critical appraisal tools you used.Results: answer directly to all the relevant CASP checklist questions. You MUST present a table. Additionally, create a column to include ‘justification’ to your decision of each question, i.e. Yes, No, Unclear.Discussion: discuss all three papers of different study designs in regards to bias, chance and confounding factors. All answers of ‘YES, NO and UNCLEAR’ in your result MUST be accompanied by an explanation on how you can avoid pitfalls (bias, confounding factor), improve on the current methodology, or to further support by comparing and contrasting other approaches to an issue. Provide suggestions or solutions for future research of your research question/topic.Conclusion: provide one concluding paragraph based on what you have discussed.References: include all the sources you have used within your text and organize them in alphabetical order according to APA 6th edition style.PUBH6005_Assessment Brief 3 Page 3 of 8Resources for this assignmentCritically appraising INDIVIDUAL articlesRychetnick, L., Frommer, M., Hawe, P., & Shiell, A. (2002). Criteria for evaluating evidence onpublic health. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 56, 119-127.Young, J.M., & Solomon, M.J. (2009). How to critically appraise an article. Nature Clinical Practice Gastroenterology and Hepatology. 6, 82-91.CASP UK. Critical appraisal skills program checklists (2018). Retrieved from http://www.casp-uk.net/#!casp-tools- checklists/c18f8Thinking about biasSkelly, A. C., Dettori J. R., & Brodt, E. K. (2012). Assessing bias: the importance of consideringconfounding. Evidence Based Spine Care Journal, 3(1), 9-12Note: Please refer to the Academic Writing Guide as available in the Academic Skills section on your Learning PortalPUBH6005_Assessment Brief 4 Page 4 of 8PUBH6005 Assessment 3 Marking Rubric Assessment Attributes Unacceptable Poor Functional Proficient Advanced Exceptional PART A (CASP Checklist, 30 marks)Table 1:CASP checklist is used to appraise the study with supporting comments.*3 Tables must be of different study design. No marks for same study design.(10 marks)Fails to answer each question and provide relevant comments.0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5All questions answered but some irrelevant comments.3 3.5 4 4.5Answered all questions and comments are relevant.5 5.5 6Answered all questions and comments are relevant with adequate justification.6.5 7 7.5Answered all questions and comments are relevant with highly developed justification.8 8.5 9Answered all questions and comments are relevant with highly developed, interesting justification.9.5 10Table 2:CASP checklist is used to appraise the study with supporting comments.*3 Tables must be of different study design. No marks for same study design.(10 marks)Fails to answer each question and provide relevant comments.0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5All questions answered but some irrelevant comments.3 3.5 4 4.5Answered all questions and comments are relevant.5 5.5 6Answered all questions and comments are relevant with adequate justification.6.5 7 7.5Answered all questions and comments are relevant with highly developed justification.8 8.5 9Answered all questions and comments are relevant with highly developed, interesting justification.9.5 10Table 3:CASP checklist is used to appraise the study with supporting comments.*3 Tables must be of different study design. No marks for same study design.(10 marks)Fails to answer each question and provide relevant comments.0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5All questions answered but some irrelevant comments.3 3.5 4 4.5Answered all questions and comments are relevant.5 5.5 6Answered all questions and comments are relevant with adequate justification.6.5 7 7.5Answered all questions and comments are relevant with highly developed justification.8 8.5 9Answered all questions and comments are relevant with highly developed, interesting justification.9.5 10PART B (Essay, 70 marks)PUBH6005_Assessment Brief 4 Page 5 of 8Introduction: introduces the topic, outlines background information to the research question and finishes with the research question.(10 marks)Fails to write introduction & research question clearly.0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5Poorly written introduction clearly & lack of specificity of research question.3 3.5 4 4.5Satisfactorily written introduction clearly & specific research question.5 5.5 6Well-constructed, coherent and clear introduction, & specific research question.6.5 7 7.5Highly developed, coherent and clear introduction, & specific research question.8 8.5 9Highly developed, coherent and clear introduction & exceptionally interesting or novel research question.9.5 10Method: explain how you found the three articles such as databases and the search strategy/keywords. Mention which critical appraisal tools you used.(10 marks)Fails to write methodology clearly and inappropriate use of search strategy and CASP Checklist.0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5Poorly written methodology clearly but with suboptimal use of search strategy and CASP Checklist.3 3.5 4 4.5Satisfactorily written methodology clearly with optimal use of search strategy and CASP Checklist.5 5.5 6Well-constructed methodology with competent use of search strategy and CASP Checklist.6.5 7 7.5Highly developed methodology with proficiency in search strategy and CASP Checklist.8 8.5 9Highly developed questions methodology with exceptionally interesting or novel in search strategy and CASP Checklist.9.5 10Results:Answer directly to all the relevant CASP checklist questions. MUST present the table. Additionally, create a column to include ‘justification’ to your decision of each question.*Please note that “comments” in Part A differs from ‘justification’ as it requires to explain more what you think about the comments.(20 marks)Fails to sufficiently presented the tables and irrelevant justification.0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5Unsatisfactory presented the tables and inadequate justification.5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9 9.5Satisfactory presented the tables and adequate justification.10 10.5 11 11.5 12 12.5Well-constructed tables and competent justification.13 13.5 14 14.5 15Well-constructed tables and proficient justification.15.5 16 16.5 17 17.5Well-constructed tables and exceptionally interesting justification.18 18.5 19 19.5 20PUBH6005_Assessment Brief 4 Page 6 of 8Discussion:Discuss all three papers of different study designs in regards to bias, chance and confounding factors. All answers of ‘YES, NO and UNCLEAR’ in your result MUST be accompanied by an explanation on how you can avoid pitfalls (bias, confounding factor), improve on the current methodology, or to further support by comparing and contrasting other approaches to an issue. Provide suggestions or solutions for future research of your research question/topic.(20 marks)(4 marks each statement)Fails to sufficiently discuss on:1. Three study designs2. Avoidance of pitfalls (bias, confounding factor),3. Improvement of methodology4. Compare and contrast other approaches.5. suggestions or solutions for future research.0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5Unsatisfactory discussion on:1. Three study designs2. Avoidance of pitfalls (bias, confounding factor),3. Improvement of methodology4. Compare and contrast other approaches.5. suggestions or solutions for future research.5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9 9.5Satisfactory discuss on:1. Three study designs2. Avoidance of pitfalls (bias, confounding factor),3. Improvement of methodology4. Compare and contrast other approaches.5. suggestions or solutions for future research.10 10.5 11 11.5 12 12.5Demonstrated competent discussion on:1. Three study designs2. Avoidance of pitfalls (bias, confounding factor),3. Improvement of methodology4. Compare and contrast other approaches.5. suggestions or solutions for future research.13 13.5 14 14.5 15A highly developed discussion on:1. Three study designs2. Avoidance of pitfalls (bias, confounding factor),3. Improvement of methodology4. Compare and contrast other approaches.5. suggestions or solutions for future research.15.5 16 16.5 17 17.5A sophisticated and exceptionally interesting discussion on:1. Three study designs2. Avoidance of pitfalls (bias, confounding factor),3. Improvement of methodology4. Compare and contrast other approaches.5. suggestions or solutions for future research.18 18.5 19 19.5 20Conclusion:Provide one concluding paragraph based on what you have discussed(5 marks)Fails to sufficiently conclude the findings.0 0.5Unsatisfactory conclusion.1 1.5Satisfactory conclusion.2 2.5competent conclusion.3 3.5Proficient conclusion.4 4.5Exceptionally well concluded.5References(5 marks)Wrong referencing style.0 0.5Gross mistakes in APA 6th Edition style and improper in-text citation.1 1.5 2There minimal mistakes in APA 6th Edition style and in-text citation.2 2.5No mistakes in APA 6th Edition style and in-text citation.3 3.5No mistakes in APA 6th Edition style and in-text citation.4 4.5No mistakes in APA 6th Edition style and in-text citation.5