Students are required to demonstrate their ability to critically appraise two pieces of evidence (i.e., primary research studies) provided, highlighting methodological rigour of the studies, at a...

Students are required to demonstrate their ability to critically appraise two pieces of evidence (i.e., primary research studies) provided, highlighting methodological rigour of the studies, at a foundational level using a validated critical appraisal tool. Purpose and rationale: This assignment requires you to demonstrate critical appraisal of two published research studies. This is a skill central to effective clinical practice and in many instances throughout your career, where you will be required to locate and apply best available evidence to support clinical decisions. Instructions: • You are expected to critically appraise the two research studies provided in HLSC122 LEO Assessment Task 3 tile. • The research studies should be accessed as a full text and critically appraised using an appropriate Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) checklist. • This assignment must be supported by a minimum of four references, which need to be valid and varied academic sources (i.e., textbooks listed in unit outline). However, you are encouraged to use more references if needed to support your discussion. • Your essay should have in-text references as per APA 7th referencing style (i.e., author, year). You should refer to the https://libguides.acu.edu.au/referencing/apa7
Use the subheadings to address the assessment objectives. Address both publications in your response (1) Problem and Research Question (150 words) • Accurately and concisely describes the problem very well. Correctly states the research question or study hypothesis, and study aims. • Provides a brief summary of all key elements of justification correctly, noting significance of the problem, current research knowledge and gaps in research. (2) Critical appraisal (600 words) • Correctly answers all CASP questions regarding the reliability of the study. • Identifies and describes the strengths and weaknesses of the study and discusses whether biases are present in how the study was undertaken (methods used). • Provides a detailed explanation of how the research findings have answered the research question, study hypothesis or study’s aim/s. • States correctly at least two limitations of the study (as cited by the authors) in their discussion section, and clearly states how these limitations may impact on the implementation of the research findings in clinical practice. (3) CASP checklist and appraisal summary (150 words) • All relevant sections of the CASP checklist are correctly answered and a detailed rationale to each CASP question is provided. The appraisal summary is completed stating the student’s conclusion of the methodological rigour of the publication. (4) Application - outcome & methodological rigour (300 words) • Accurately describes all outcomes of the study. • Demonstrates effective problem solving in describing the critical appraisal of the publications and accurately applies the critical appraisal to how the research publications have been written up.