APM002 SHS MSc Dissertation | City Uol

Marking Criterion

In this piece of work you will be expected to:

Proportion of marks

Background, rationale, objectives

· Provide an appropriate title for the review, including the review type and an indication of the included study designs

· Provide a structured abstract summarising the entire review, including rationale, search strategy, key findings, implications, recommendations (if appropriate) and conclusions

· Describe the rationale for the review topic, questions and method in the context of what is already known and the evidence gaps

· State the objective(s) of the review and the review question(s)

25%

Methods

· Provide protocol registration details (if applicable)

· Provide a clear description of the type of review

· Specify the study eligibility (inclusion and exclusion) criteria, and their rationale

· Describe all information sources used in data collection for the review

· Present the full electronic search strategy for one named database, such that it could be replicated

· Describe the process for selecting studies or other sources of evidence, and for reference screening

· Describe the data extraction methods, and list/define all data items to

be extracted from included studies

· Describe the methods for critical appraisal (or quality assessment or risk of bias assessment etc.) of individual studies

· Describe the methods for data synthesis/combining the results of included studies and provide a rationale for the methods chosen

· Specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the evidence (e.g. publication bias, selective reporting), where appropriate

· Describe any additional analyses that were carried out (e.g. sensitivity/subgroup analyses), where applicable

20%

Results

· Include a PRISMA flow diagram, giving numbers of studies screened, included and excluded, with reasons for exclusions

· Present key characteristics for each included study, in tabular format

· Present data on critical appraisal (or quality assessment or risk of bias assessment etc.) for each study

· Present the results of the data synthesis

· Present the results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies, and of any additional analyses, where applicable

25%

Discussion

· Summarise the main findings of the review. Discuss the implications of the findings (for research, practice or policy) and key arguments, with reference to the wider literature. Discuss the strength of the evidence, and consider the relevance of the findings to key stakeholders

· Discuss the strengths and limitations of the review

· Provide a conclusion, including implications for future research

20%

Structure, presentation and referencing

· Structure the review according to a reporting standard appropriate to the review type (e.g. the PRISMA checklist)

· Present your work clearly, accurately and in accordance with the module/journal guidelines on style and presentation

· Consistently use an appropriate referencing system throughout, include an accurate and complete reference list, and observe good academic practice

10%

Marking Criterion

In this piece of work you will be expected to:

Proportion of marks

Title, background, rationale and objectives

· Identify the study as a secondary data analysis in the title

· Secondary Data Analysis Projects should follow the criteria outlined for quantitative or qualitative Empirical Research Projects, as appropriate

25%

Methods

· Secondary Data Analysis Projects should follow the criteria outlined for quantitative or qualitative Empirical Research Projects, as appropriate.

In addition, Secondary Data Analysis Projects should:

· Include a brief description of the data source(s) at the beginning of the methods section (e.g. study design and methods of the original study or details of routinely collected data) under an appropriate sub-heading

· Provide details (and evidence, in an appendix) of the appropriate regulatory approvals that were obtained to allow you to access the data (e.g. ethics approvals, letter from individuals or organisations that act as the data controller, memorandums of understanding from a supervisor sharing their data).

· Provide details of how the data were originally collected and/or how different data sets were linked, and by whom. If a subset of the data is used for your dissertation, the means of selecting/determining this data should be reported

· Provide details of how the data were transferred to you or how you accessed the data, including, where relevant (e.g. for patient data from clinical services), how the data were anonymised

· Provide precise details of your role in data collection, data linkage, data transfer, preliminary data cleaning and data analysis

20%

Results / findings

· Secondary Data Analysis Projects should follow the criteria outlined for quantitative or qualitative Empirical Research Projects, as appropriate

25%

Discussion, implications, recommendations (if appropriate), conclusions and statement of contribution

· Secondary Data Analysis Projects should follow the criteria outlined for quantitative or qualitative Empirical Research Projects, as appropriate

In addition, Secondary Data Analysis Projects should:

· At the end of the discussion, provide a brief Statement of Contribution to the parent study and the current study.

20%

Cohesion, presentation and referencing

· Secondary Data Analysis Projects should follow the criteria outlined for Empirical Research Projects.

10%

Marking Criterion

In this piece of work you will be expected to:

Proportion of marks

Background, rationale, objectives

· Provide an appropriate title for the review, including the review type and an indication of the included study designs

· Provide a structured abstract summarising the entire review, including rationale, search strategy, key findings, implications, recommendations (if appropriate) and conclusions

· Describe the rationale for the review topic, questions and method in the context of what is already known and the evidence gaps

· State the objective(s) of the review and the review question(s)

25%

Methods

· Provide protocol registration details (if applicable)

· Provide a clear description of the type of review

· Specify the study eligibility (inclusion and exclusion) criteria, and their rationale

· Describe all information sources used in data collection for the review

· Present the full electronic search strategy for one named database, such that it could be replicated

· Describe the process for selecting studies or other sources of evidence, and for reference screening

· Describe the data extraction methods, and list/define all data items to

be extracted from included studies

· Describe the methods for critical appraisal (or quality assessment or risk of bias assessment etc.) of individual studies

· Describe the methods for data synthesis/combining the results of included studies and provide a rationale for the methods chosen

· Specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the evidence (e.g. publication bias, selective reporting), where appropriate

· Describe any additional analyses that were carried out (e.g. sensitivity/subgroup analyses), where applicable

20%

Results

· Include a PRISMA flow diagram, giving numbers of studies screened, included and excluded, with reasons for exclusions

· Present key characteristics for each included study, in tabular format

· Present data on critical appraisal (or quality assessment or risk of bias assessment etc.) for each study

· Present the results of the data synthesis

· Present the results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies, and of any additional analyses, where applicable

25%

Discussion

· Summarise the main findings of the review. Discuss the implications of the findings (for research, practice or policy) and key arguments, with reference to the wider literature. Discuss the strength of the evidence, and consider the relevance of the findings to key stakeholders

· Discuss the strengths and limitations of the review

· Provide a conclusion, including implications for future research

20%

Structure, presentation and referencing

· Structure the review according to a reporting standard appropriate to the review type (e.g. the PRISMA checklist)

· Present your work clearly, accurately and in accordance with the module/journal guidelines on style and presentation

· Consistently use an appropriate referencing system throughout, include an accurate and complete reference list, and observe good academic practice

10%

Class

%

Literary

Description

Distinction

85-100

Outstanding

Work that demonstrates a comprehensive knowledge of the subject area and addresses the learning outcomes/assessment criteria in full. Where relevant, it will show evidence of independent reading, thinking and analysis and strong critical ability. It will be well- constructed and demonstrate a professional approach

to academic practice. It will be of a professional standard.

80-84

Excellent

75-79

Very good

Work that demonstrates strong knowledge of the subject area and addresses the learning outcomes/assessment criteria well. Where relevant, it will show evidence of wide and comprehensive reading

and critical ability. It will be clearly written and adhere to the principles of good academic practice.

70-74

Merit

67-69

Good

Work that demonstrates a sound level of knowledge of the subject area and makes a good attempt to address the learning outcomes/assessment criteria, realising all to some extent and some well. There will be evidence of thorough research of the topic(s) but some answers may not be complete or arguments sufficiently explored. It will be well-structured and logically written and will demonstrate good academic practice. Some

critical ability will be evident.

64-66

60-63

Pass

57-59

Satisfactory

Work that demonstrates knowledge of the subject area and provides some level of response to the learning outcomes/assessment criteria but only realises these outcomes and criteria to some extent and may not include important elements or information that is fully accurate. Where relevant, development of ideas is limited but attempts will be made to analyse materials

critically. Expression and structure may lack clarity and evidence of academic practice will be limited.

54-56

50-53

Fail

47-49

Poor

Unsatisfactory work that demonstrates very limited knowledge of the subject area and which does not succeed in grasping the key issues. Learning outcomes/assessment criteria will not be realised. There will be no real development of ideas and critical

analysis will be very limited. Presentation is confused or lacks coherence.

44-46

40-43

Very poor

Work that demonstrates no real knowledge of the subject area and which demonstrates a totally inadequate  attempt  to  address  the  learning

outcomes/assessment criteria. No critical ability will be displayed.

20-40

0-20