A critical appraisal is an evaluation of the ideas and information in an academic text. Your task is to question the text and present a rational judgment of its strengths and weaknesses. Suggested criteria for evaluation are outlined below.

Technical Information

References

Include a list of all the sources you have used at the end using the Harvard referencing system.

Length

• The word count is provided in the Module Assessment.
• Includes all words in the text of the assignment.
• Excludes tables, diagrams, glossaries/appendices, and reference lists.
• In-text references (e.g., (Davies, 2019, p. 17)) are included in the word count.
• State the actual word count on the title page of your submission.

Formatting

• Use 12pt font for all text (except headings).
• Double line spacing.
• Standard size margins.
• Numbered pages where possible.

Submit your final file in Microsoft Word (.docx) or PDF (.pdf) format.

Essay Structure

Introduction

• Mention authors, title, and research question.
• Summarize the key argument.
• Conclude with your overall opinion of the text.

Summary

• Keep it concise (max one-third of the total length).
• Outline key arguments, evidence, and conclusions.
• Ensure comprehension for those who haven't read the text.

Evaluation/Critique

• Discuss strengths and weaknesses.
• Support with evidence from the text and other sources.
• Regularly refer back to the original text.

Conclusion

• Summarize your overall opinion.
• Provide recommendations if applicable.

Marking Rubric

Grade	Knowledge & Understanding	Analysis	Synthesis / Creativity	Evaluation
Distinction	Evidence of extensive reading. Well referenced and expressed in own words. Demonstrates systematic, detailed and comprehensive knowledge of a field of study. Confidently handles issues which are complex or specialist in nature.	Consistently analytical. Selects and uses with confidence the most appropriate analytical frameworks to examine the key issues of an area of knowledge. Can analyse complex issues where knowledge is incomplete. Analysis is purposeful and illuminates practical considerations.	Devises an effective and imaginative structure. Shows originality in the practical application of advanced knowledge. Can discuss application of knowledge to complex or novel situations in a patient-focused way. Is able to pull together and give coherence to information / ideas from diverse sources.	Evaluates alternative views of complex or novel situations, based on a clear grasp of all relevant viewpoints and an even-handed discussion of their relative merits. Justifies conclusions and recommendations and shows awareness of their limitations. Critiques the rigour and value of the different positions taken or methods used. Where appropriate, makes critical use of own experiences.
Merit	Evidence of extensive reading. Well referenced and expressed in own words. Demonstrates comprehensive & detailed knowledge of complex issues or specialist knowledge. Understanding of current issues in the field and the provisional nature of knowledge.	Consistently analytical. Considers abstract and contextual information. Identifies key features of advanced or complex issues. Selects from a range of methods / techniques appropriate to the subject for clarifying the information.	Effective structure used to present arguments. Draws on a variety of sources. Consistently addresses the practical application of information / ideas with some originality. Can discuss application of knowledge to complex or novel situations in a patient-focused way.	Evaluates alternative views of complex or novel situations. Discusses reliability, validity and significance of information. Draws conclusions and makes recommendations that are justified by the arguments presented. Where appropriate, makes critical use of own experiences.
Good Pass	Evidence of wide reading. Well referenced and expressed in own words. Demonstrates comprehensive and/or detailed knowledge. Aware of provisional nature of knowledge.	Analyses aspects of the subject. Considers abstract and contextual information. Identifies important features of advanced or complex issues. Considers analytical methods / techniques appropriate to the subject.	Structures arguments well. Draws on a variety of sources. Discusses the practical application of information / ideas in a patient focused way, showing some originality.	Can evaluate alternative views of complex or novel situations. Questions reliability, validity and significance of information. Where required, explores own experiences and views and their implications. Conclusions and recommendations are well argued and reasoned.
Clear Pass	Evidence of wide reading. Well referenced and expressed in own words. Demonstrates familiarity with the body of relevant knowledge and some current / advanced issues.	Identifies significant features of issues, including those which are advanced or complex. Makes appropriate use of methods /techniques for analysis. Able to consider incomplete or contradictory areas of knowledge.	Structures arguments adequately. Discusses the application of information / ideas in an appropriate patient-focused way.	Can evaluate alternative approaches/ viewpoints in complex or novel situations. Shows awareness of issues of reliability, validity and significance of information. Where required, explores own experiences and views and their implications. Conclusions and recommendations are supported by the arguments presented.
Pass	The work incompletely meets the criteria for a pass grade for some descriptors but demonstrates attainment of assessment criteria; or the work does not achieve the standard equivalent to pass for one or more descriptors but is redeemed by a good standard in the others; or the work fulfils the criteria for a pass in relation to all descriptors but only meets the minimum requirements of assessment criteria.
Condonable Fail	Reading inadequate or not fully understood OR Knowledge of the field of study is limited and not consistent with module learning outcomes.	Where present, analysis overlooks the key features OR uses unsuitable methods/criteria. Does not address the assessment criteria.	Structure has problems with coherence or consistency. Limited application of theory to practice or lack of patient focus.	Lacks a balanced approach or adequate supportive evidence. Lacks discrimination or does not reach a well reasoned conclusion.
Fail	Reading inadequate or not fully understood OR Knowledge of the field of study is limited and not consistent with module learning outcomes.	Where present, analysis overlooks the key features OR uses unsuitable methods/criteria. Does not address the assessment criteria.	Structure has problems with coherence or consistency. Limited application of theory to practice or lack of patient focus.	Lacks a balanced approach or adequate supportive evidence. Lacks discrimination or does not reach a well reasoned conclusion.
Fail	Very limited evidence of appropriate reading. Very limited knowledge base.	Little evidence of analysis. Does not address the assessment criteria.	Poor structure and little attempt to link theory with practice.	Little attempt to formulate an argument or draw conclusions.