Top of Form

Topof Form

Bottomof Form

&nbsp HLT-317vPeer Review Worksheet

Partof your responsibility as a student in this course is to providequality feedback to your peers that will help them to improve theirwriting skills. This worksheet will assist you in providing thatfeedback. Copy and paste the completed review into your reply to thepost containing the assigned draft. Do not post your review as anattachment.

Nameof the Draft’s Author: CynthiaKadzashie

Nameof the Peer Reviewer:

Summary: After readingthrough the draft one time, write a summary (3–5 sentences) of thepaper in the box below.

This paper starts with an introduction of what medical errors are and how they can take place. The author expounded on how these errors arise, explaining what they can also result in as well. There followed a description of what literature review is and the ethical considerations that are required when collecting data that is used in the paper.

&nbsp

&nbsp

&nbsp

&nbsp

&nbsp

&nbsp

LiteratureReview Draft

Aftera second, closer reading of the draft, evaluate the essay using theLiterature Review Draft.&nbspDetermine the level of achievementappropriate for each assignment criteria. (Level of achievementranges from Unsatisfactory to Excellent and are found at the top ofthe rubric. Assignment criteria are found in the left column of therubric.)

Introductionof the Topic

  • What level of achievement did the author score for this criterion?

Excellent

  • What evidence do you have for this score?

Thewriter has adequately explained what is expected from a literaturereview. The introduction is broad and descriptive, giving all thenecessary details. Someone who does not have an adept knowledge ofthis topic would be able to understand what they are trying to bringabout. They have used real life examples for all instances, thereforeenabling readers to relate to what is being explained. In short, thecommunication used in this paper was exquisite and straight to thepoint.

LiteratureReview in Research

  • What level of achievement did the author score for this criterion?

Adequate

  • What evidence from the paper do you have for this score?

Thewriter has explained what is expected from a literature reviewaccurately. However, they have focused more on the introduction anddefinition of a literature review rather than give a detailed review.Nevertheless, there was some important information on ethicalstandards and statistical information that was mentioned.

EthicalConsiderations for Data Collection

  • What level of achievement did the author score for this criterion?

Excellent

  • What evidence from the paper do you have for this score?

Theauthor points out some of the things required from a writer so as toensure that they do not breech ethical standards required of them. Asa result, they were able to adhere to these requirements andstandards thus allowing them to ascertain that all ethicalconsiderations associated with data collection were observed.

Explanationof What the Data Reveals in Terms of Statistical Analysis

  • What level of achievement did the author score for this criterion?

Fair

  • What evidence from the paper do you have for this score?

Thestatistical data obtained was interpreted correctly and therefore itis much easier for the readers to understand and relate to theinformation being discussed in the paper. The writer, however focusedmore on giving this statistical data rather than explaining it.

Evaluationof the Effectiveness of the Specific Study

  • What level of achievement did the author score for this criterion?

Excellent

  • What evidence from the paper do you have for this score?

The author focused on thetopic of medical errors explaining how they occur in more than oneway. The topic has been developed effectively throughout the paper.

of the Conclusions from Literature Review.

  • What level of achievement did the author score for this criterion?

Adequate

  • What evidence from the paper do you have for this score?

Theauthor adequately summarized the information that had been put forthin the literature review. However, it seems as though he could haveadded a few more points in the conclusion so as to make iteffectively summarize the entire literature review.

ThesisDevelopment and Purpose

  • What level of achievement did the author score for this criterion?

Excellent

  • What evidence from the paper do you have for this score

Theauthor has developed the topic of medical errors sufficientlythroughout the paper. The introduction gave a brief insight to whatthe paper would talk about, followed by a detailed literature reviewand discussion that was also well summarized and explained in theconclusion.

ArgumentLogic and Construction

  • What level of achievement did the author score for this criterion?

Fair

  • What evidence from the paper do you have for this score

Theliterature review part of the paper seemed to have its ownintroduction despite the fact that it was in the middle of the paper.This can easily confuse the reader on how the information is flowingin the paper. It did not develop logically from the beginning of thepaper to the end.

Mechanics of Writing

  • What level of achievement did the author score for this criterion?

Excellent

  • What evidence from the paper do you have for this score

Theauthor used correct language and grammar while compiling this paper.This is crucial in the presentation of a quality paper. There wasalso the correct use of connectors in the sentences to assist in theflow of information.

Paper Format

  • What level of achievement did the author score for this criterion?

Fair

  • What evidence from the paper do you have for this score

APA format has correctly beenused however, the writer did not use a running head

Research Citations

  • What level of achievement did the author score for this criterion?

Adequate

  • What evidence from the paper do you have for this score

Thein text citations have been done properly with accordance to the APAstandards. Most of the references in the reference list also complywith the standards. However, one of the references had been writtenin all caps.

Threepositive things about this paper are:

  1. It has a very descriptive and helpful introduction

  2. The language used was correct and yet not too complicated. It is easy for anyone to understand it.

  3. The ethical standards involved through collection of data were well explained before provision of the data in question.

Threethings that could be improved are:

  1. Paper formatting style

  2. The level of research put into the paper.

  3. The referencing of the paper.

Reference

Giltrow, J. (2009). AcademicWriting: An introduction.

© 2014. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.