HRM001 Introduction to Research Methods and Applied Data Analysis
(2019-20)
Information about the module assessment
Systematic review stream
Systematic review protocol (100%)
You will develop a protocol for a systematic review. Your protocol should be structured using an appropriate reporting guideline/template (such as PRISMA-P).
You will:
• provide a succinct background that presents the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known;
• provide a clear and explicit statement of the question(s) the review will address (and check that there is no existing recent review addressing your proposed question);
• describe the study characteristics/eligibility criteria for included studies (structured using a tool such as PICO(S) or SPIDER..;
• describe all intended information sources (such as electronic databases, contact with study authors, trial registers or other grey literature sources);
• present a full draft search strategy to be used for at least one electronic database (such that it could be repeated);
• state the process that will be used for selecting studies (such as two independent reviewers) through each phase of the review (i.e. screening, eligibility and inclusion in meta-analysis);
• list and define all variables and outcomes for which data will be sought (data items), and describe the method for data extraction, and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from authors;
• describe the methods for quality appraisal (assessing risk of bias) for individual studies (including reference to appropriate quality appraisal checklists);
• describe the approach to synthesising the findings of included studies, and any analyses that will be carried out (if data are appropriate for quantitative synthesis (meta-analysis), describe planned summary measures, methods of handling data and methods of combining data from studies).
The protocol should be no more than 3,000 words in length.
Additional guidance on developing review protocols is available at https://www.york.ac.uk/crd/guidance. You can find examples of published Cochrane review protocols at http://www.thecochranelibrary.com (the Search Limits option under Advanced Search allows you to search only for protocols).
Pass Mark
The pass mark for this assessment is 50%.
Marking Criteria
This assessment will be anonymously marked.
Please find the marking criteria below. They are descriptions, based on the module’s learning outcomes, of the skills, knowledge or attributes you need to demonstrate to complete an assessment successfully. Your feedback will be based on them.
Please also consult the Grade-Related Criteria (below) for descriptions of the level of skills, knowledge or attributes you need to demonstrate to achieve a certain grade or mark in an assessment.
Systematic review stream
Marking criterion In this piece of work, you will be expected to: Proportion of marks
Background, rationale and review question(s) • provide a succinct background that presents the rationale for the review;
• provide a clear and explicit statement of the question(s) the review will address; 25%
Eligibility criteria, information sources and search strategy • describe the eligibility criteria for included studies;
• describe all intended information sources;
• present a draft search strategy for at least one electronic database; 25%
Study selection, data extraction & quality appraisal • state the process that will be used for selecting studies;
• list and define all variables and outcomes for which data will be sought;
• describe the methods for data extraction;
• describe the methods for quality appraisal for individual studies; 20%
Data synthesis • describe the approach to synthesising the findings of included studies, and any analyses that will be carried out. 20%
Presentation, clarity of expression and referencing • present your work professionally;
• write clearly and accurately;
• follow the assessment guidelines in relation to style and presentation;
• consistently observe good academic practice and the conventions of Harvard referencing. 10%
Presentational aspects
Please pay careful attention to how you present your work; in particular:
• Present your work clearly.
• State the title of the assignment clearly at the beginning.
• Structure your assignments using appropriate headings and sub-headings.
• Use Harvard referencing consistently (for details of how to correctly reference your work, please refer to your Programme Handbook or the SHS Learning Support module on Moodle).
• All references cited in the text must be included in the reference list, and vice versa.
• Avoid paragraphs that are very long or very short.
• Use bulleted/numbered lists sparingly – or not at all.
• Use an appropriate font (e.g. Verdana, Calibri, Times New Roman, Arial), with a font size of 12.
• Use single line spacing, leaving a blank line between paragraphs. Please do not indent paragraphs.
• Include a page number at the bottom of each page.
Important notes
• It is vital that you follow the principles of good academic practice and avoid plagiarism. All submitted assignments are checked using plagiarism detection software (Turnitin). Please ensure you have read and complied with the guidelines on academic misconduct and plagiarism avoidance set out in your Programme Handbook. You must ensure that you correctly reference (using the Harvard system) all the sources you have used, and that all direct quotations (even if only a few words) are enclosed within double quotation marks.
Grade-related criteria
These are descriptions of the level of skills, knowledge or attributes you need to demonstrate to achieve a certain grade or mark in an assessment.
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, realizing 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 realizes 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 analyze 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 realized. 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.
