Study Guide

Objective

The student:
- understands and is able to analyse the knowledge development in the social and/or health care area from a scientific theoretical perspective
- is able to evaluate and critically review development and research results in her/his own field
- is able to contribute to a research-based development of her/his own business

Content

Science theory
Critical evaluation and review

Location and time

Online 1.9.-31.12.2025

Materials

THEORY OF SCIENCE:
- Polit, D. F., Flanagan, J., & Beck, C. T. (2025). Polit and Beck's nursing research: Generating and assessing evidence for nursing practice (Twelfth edition.). Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
- Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2023). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (Sixth edition. International student edition.). SAGE.

INSTRUMENT DEVELOPMENT:
- Streiner, D. L. a., Norman, G. R., & Cairney, J. (2015). Health measurement scales: A practical guide to their development and use (Fifth edition.). Oxford University Press.

IMPLEMENTATION:
- Braden, C. J., & Braden, C. J. (2021). Nursing and health intervention: Design, evaluation and implementation (2nd ed.). Wiley Blackwell.

Teaching methods

Self-study
Lectures
Group work

Exam schedules

Module 1: Theory of Science and Instrument Development
- Instrument development (group assignment), deadline: XX.XX.2025

Module 2: Evidence-based practice and implementation
- Critical appraisal of a scientific article (individual assignment): XX.XX.2025
- Implementation plan (individual assignment): 31.12.2025

Student workload

5 ECTS = 135h

Lectures: 10h
Self-study: 70h
Group work: 51h
Seminar: 4h

Content scheduling

Module 1: Theory of science and instrument development
Module 2: Evidence-based practice and implementation

Further information

All written submissions are plagiarism checked.

Evaluation scale

H-5

Assessment criteria, satisfactory (1)

Criteria for evaluation of the exam:
The student has a superficial knowledge of the subject (by heart reading)

Assessment criteria for assignment:
The student has followed the instructions and her/his knowledge of the other students' work is inadequate. The student shows limited substance knowledge, it can be essential.
The student shows insufficient knowledge about the other students' assignments. The student has followed the instructions for the assignment. She/He have a deficient knowledge of the substance also touching the essential

Assessment criteria, good (3)

Criteria for evaluation of the exam:
The student can account for the literature, reflect and motivate his/her views

Assessment criteria for written assignment:
The student has followed the instructions for the written assignment and shows insufficient knowledge about the other students' written assignments.
The student has mastered the substance of her/his work, but the application is limited

Assessment criteria, excellent (5)

Criteria for evaluation of the exam:
The student shows in her/his answer an in-depth knowledge and maturity beyond the traditional

Criteria for evaluation of assignment individually or in groups:
The student has followed the instructions for the assignment and shows that she/he has mastered the substance. She/he have read the other participants' assignments and can ask relevant questions and can lead a discussion at the seminar. The assignment and the possible opponentship show something out of the ordinary (technical execution, oral presentation, mature reflections, independent working methods)
The student has followed the instructions for the assignment and shows that she/he has mastered the substance. She/he have read the other participants' assignments and can ask relevant questions and lead a discussion at the seminar

Assessment methods and criteria

Modules 1-2 are assessed on a 0-5 scale. Assessment is based on:
- Ability to analyse
- Ability to summarise relevant data
- Critical reflection
- Use of literature
- Use of Novia's writing instructions

To pass the course, all assignments (Modules 1-2) should be approved. Assignments must be submitted on time. Late submissions may lower the grade. Written feedback cannot be guaranteed for late submissions.

Module 1: 50 % of the grade
- Instrument development: 1-5

Module 2: 50 % of the grade
- Critical appraisal of a scientific article: pass/fail
- Implementation plan: 1-5

Assessment criteria, fail (0)

Modules 1 and 2:
- Literature is not referenced
- Reflections are not provided
- The technical design is lacking
- The overall picture and context are missing
- The assignment does not contain all required elements
- The criteria for grade 1 are not met
- The text is fragmentary and does not answer the questions

Assessment criteria, satisfactory (1-2)

Modules 1 and 2:
- The literature is referenced
- Reflections are made only to a limited extent
- The technical design is satisfactory
- The overall picture and context are satisfactory
- The task does not contain all required elements

Assessment criteria, good (3-4)

Modules 1 and 2:
- The literature is applied
- The text is reflective and critical
- The technical design is good
- The overall picture and coherence are good
- The assignment contains all required elements

Assessment criteria, excellent (5)

Module 1 and 2:
- The literature is analysed and applied
- The reflection is scientifically analytical
- The technical design is commendable
- The overall picture and context are commendable
- The assignment contains all required elements

Qualifications

No prerequisites