Print this page Email this page Users Online: 377 | Click here to view old website
Home About us Editorial Board Search Current Issue Archives Submit Article Author Instructions Contact Us Login 
Year : 2018  |  Volume : 31  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 72-79

Development and testing of an analytic rubric for a master's course systematic review of the literature: A cross-sectional study

1 Nursing Science Program, Clinical Health Sciences; Department of Nursing Science, Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
2 Center for Teaching and Learning, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands
3 Center for Research and Development of Education, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands

Correspondence Address:
Thóra B Hafsteinsdóttir
P.O. Box 85500, Suite Str. 7.116, 3508 Ga Utrecht
The Netherlands
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/efh.EfH_336_17

Rights and Permissions

Background: Conducting grading of systematic reviews in master's level programs of health sciences education is a complex process. Students conduct systematic reviews under the supervision of course faculty in seminar groups where both draft version and definite version of the literature review are graded/assessed. The aim of this study was to develop a systematic review of the literature rubric (SRL-rubric) for the evaluation of systematic reviews in the course of SRL in a master's Program of Health Care Sciences and to investigate students and faculty experiences with and the usability of the SRL-rubric. Methods: The SRL-rubric was developed using a seven-step approach. Usability was investigated with cross-sectional survey. Results: The SRL-rubric included nine categories and five proficiency levels. Fifty-two of 59 students and all six faculty members at Utrecht University Program of Health Care Sciences completed the survey. Students rated the ease of working with the rubric with an average 6.6 (10-point scale). Faculty ratings ranged from 7 to 9. Problems were identified with distinction among cells describing proficiency levels and final grading. Discussion: A structured process focused on the requisite actions to develop the SRL-rubric. It was useful in writing and grading systematic reviews. However, some students indicated that they missed specific feedback and suggestions describing how to improve their weaknesses. Further development and research is needed to enhance grading reliability of SLR-rubric and to establish content validity and maintain consistency with criteria for conducting and reporting reviews.

Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded618    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 2    

Recommend this journal