Systematic Literature review and Evidence based practice

 

 

Systematic Literature review and Evidence based practice   

        

Academic Year: 2021/22     

 

 

 

 

 

 

Systematic Literature Review and Business

Idea/intervention plan: Assignment Brief  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Welcome and Introduction    

 

 

The intended learning outcomes are that on completion of this module the student should be able to:

1. Conduct a systematic literature review in order to critically evaluate a specified area of business psychology using related literature.
2. Work independently to deadlines and demonstrate initiative and an advanced level of skill in planning, problem-solving, information gathering and investigation.
3. Report the findings of the review in a format suitable for publication in an appropriate review journal, demonstrating a scholarly level of ability in terms of innovation, creativity, interpretation and integration of theoretical concepts and empirical research.
4. Produce a report introducing a business idea or an intervention plan related to the conclusions of the systematic literature review.

CW1: A systematic literature review (Learning Outcomes 1-3) word count stated by the relevant journal approved by the supervisor and module leader

CW2: Report introducing a business idea or an intervention plan 2, 000 words (+/-10%)

 

Component	credits	Learning outcomes	Submission Date
Ethics approval (Sign off by Supervisor)	0	1 – 4	14th March 2022
A systematic literature review, word count stated by the relevant journal approved by the supervisor and module leader (Approx., 8000 words)	30	1,2 and 3	8th August 2022
Report introducing a business idea or an intervention plan 2, 000	20	4	8th August 2022

 

 

Each coursework accounts for 30/20 credits with an overall grade to 50 credits (both CW1 and CW2 must be passed in order to pass the module). A ‘pass’ grade must be above 40% for each component of the assessment.

Going above or below the word count by 10% or more will be considered when providing feedback and grades.  The reference list, acknowledgments, table of contents, appendices are not included in the word count.

 

Presentation of the Literature Review – Evidence-based

Practice/Business Plan   

 

Each report should be word processed on A4 sized paper and your submission should follow the formatting that your chosen journal requires.  The only exception is that your submission must be at least 1.5 line spacing if not indicated by the journal. Your business plan or intervention/practice plan should follow the format detailed below.

 

The word guideline for the literature review is associated with your chosen Journal. This will not include any acknowledgements, contents page, appendices, footnotes, references. There is no penalty imposed directly for being over or under the word count and there is not a 10% margin given either way.  Students should be aware that work that is below or over the guided word count will be marked on content and clarity as well as other criteria so this will affect the overall mark given. It is, therefore, recommended that students stay within the recommended word count guide. Please provide your word count on the title page.

 

Each report should begin with a title page, which should contain the project title, the author’s full name, a date, and a formal statement as shown below.

 

 

(THE TITLE OF YOUR PROJECT)

 

(YOUR FULL NAME)

 

A report presented in the Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, Coventry University, towards the degree of (YOUR DEGREE, e.g., Master of Science in Psychology or Applied Psychology),

 

(DEADLINE DATE)

 

WORD COUNT

 

This should be followed by a contents page containing the relevant order of sections along with their page numbers, including the references and appendices. You may insert a page entitled ‘Acknowledgements’ either between the title and the contents, or between the contents and the abstract, where you may acknowledge anyone who has helped you with your project, project supervisor, other academic staff, even friends or family.

 

The appendices should be listed in full, along with their titles.

 

 

 

Literature Review: Assignment Structure

 

You should follow the guidance of your chosen Journal to structure your literature review report. The below section is a guide to what each section should contain.  The guide also relates to the marking criteria.

 

The format and wordcount should follow that required by your chosen journal. However if not stated by the journal your minimum line spacing must be 1.5 and margins between 2.5-

3.00cm on all sides.  Place your student i.d. number as a header.  Number all pages. A formal font is required Times New roman, Arial, size 12.

 

Title and summary (5%)

 

This section should be written after the rest of the report, because it is effectively the summary of the report and so you should wait until you are familiar with everything the report contains. Above all else, your review’s title should be informative. Ideally, they should be imaginative as well, but not at the expense of conveying the essential information.

At the bare minimum, in no more than 150 words, the following information should be contained in your abstract:

 

• Background: A sentence explaining what the study is about, and why it was conducted (rationale), in precise yet jargon-free language
• Conclusions/Implications: Some statement about the theoretical implications of your findings.

 

Familiarise yourself with titles and abstracts by trawling through journal databases and observing journal articles. You should soon pick up the idea and see what they include (abstracts) and how titles are often ‘attention grabbing’, but not at the expensive of informing the reader what the review is about.

 

Introduction (15%)

 

• A short initial statement that makes the focus of the research clear.
• Introduction to the background theory around the chosen topic area, with sufficient critical evaluation to culminate in a Justification of the need for research to be conducted  on this topic and how it might add to knowledge, deliver productive outcomes, or add value  for policy and/or practice.
• A clear initial statement that makes the focus of the research clear.
• Introduction to the background theory around the chosen topic area, with sufficient critical evaluation to culminate in a justification of the need for research to be conducted.

 

Methodology (15%)

• An outline of, and a justification for the research approach that has been taken.
• Details of the literature review method to be employed, this should include which database used, inclusion and exclusion criteria and keywords with indication of the Boolean operators that have been used. This section should be detailed and justify and show consideration of your chosen timeframe, use of national or international literature, specific or general context, you may also need to consider cultural or gender differences, this should all be very clear here
• Details of the tools that have been used (e.g. Prisma flowchart, quality assessment tools,

etc.)

• Any difficulties associated with the use of the method(s) proposed are addressed by the prospective researcher
• This section should be detailed enough to enable replication without needing any further information.

 

Results (20%)

• A representation of the flow of citations reviewed in the course of a Systematic Review, for instance, using a Prisma flowchart.
• A detailed description of the literature that has resulted from the search process, including how many articles, characteristics of those articles (e.g. type of article (literature review, empirical papers, meta-analysis, etc.).
• A detailed description of the focus of those articles in regard to the concepts being analysed (e.g. antecedents, consequences, comparisons between populations, etc.).  In other words make clear what may link or differentiate some of the literature, some may form a group in terms of one concept but not another. Make clear the value of the literature sought as a collective to respond to your research question.

 

Discussion (20%)

• Provide a discussion of the main findings
• Discuss the quality of the evidence and how it influences the interpretation of the results
• Limitations of the study and the reliability of the results.

 

Conclusion (15%)

• Provide a summary of the main findings and how they link to your research question/aim of the review
• State the contribution of your study for practice and/or research and/or policy making   Provide clues for future studies

 

References & Presentation (10%)

You should be using the APA (7^th Edn.) advocated by the Centre for Academic Writing (available here).  Or the referencing style advocated by your chosen Peer-reviewed Journal; this is likely to be the APA, but you must check. It is important that you follow these referencing guidelines accurately and consistently throughout your work.

 

Business Plan: Assignment Break down

 

The format for your business plan should be set out following the guidance below.  The minimum line spacing must be 1.5 and margins between 2.5 – 3.00cm on all sides.  Place your student i.d. number as a header.  Number all pages. A formal font is required, Times New Roman, Arial size 12.

 

Feasibility Study

2,000 word feasibility study on new venture idea. Marks will be awarded as follows: 

The background to the concept and its origins (10%)

• Provide a clear title to the Business report that is inclusive of all elements of the report
• Introduction to the report
• Details about the intervention or business idea? How did you come up with it?
• Is it solving a problem? Is there a need for it? Is it a unique business idea? What will it contribute to the context/environment it is designed for?

 

The Opportunity Evaluation: Including Market research clearly outlining the potential for the innovation (30%)

• Secondary research into the market (wide search of the industry/context), international national, sector/context related research
• Identify your     targeted          customer/end             user/organisation       and      how     they     like     to purchase/incorporate your product/intervention.
• Direct research into your competition (Table format)
• Investigation into other products/services/interventions in the market

 

The strategic process – SWOT / PESTLE (20%)

• Detailed strengths and weaknesses of the idea (at least 3 points)
• Pestle analysis = opportunities and threats (at least 5 points per point). The PESTLE can be included in the SWOT.
• Fully referenced Opportunities and Threats
• Make sure that if you use SWOT and/or PESTLE you make some comment about your conclusions – don’t just place it in the report. You may choose to append the SWOT and/or PESTLE, so a couple of sentences relating to its key points is even more important.

 

Licenses, Risk & Insurance (10%)

• Identify the risk/ethical issues within your venture and investigate how to minimize any
• Please state the licenses required (If any) to operate within this sector.

 

Overview and recommendations (10%)

• Summary of the findings
• Recommendations for future research into the opportunity
• Be critical of the research you have stated.

 

Use of resources and research (10%)

Looking at 20+ references, but these can be very applied to your idea. These can include, market size, product innovation, competitor, and customer information.

 

Structure, Style, Language, and presentation of Work (10%)

Professional report style format. Areas of the report can be bulleted, and information included in tables, (tables must be correctly formatted, as per APA). Make sure that the incorporation of tables is not at the expense of a clear narrative running throughout the report. Avoid overuse of ‘jargon’ type language.

 

Referencing

You should use the APA (7^th Edn.) referencing format advocated by the Centre for Academic Writing (CAW) (available here). It is important that you follow these guidelines accurately and consistently throughout your work.

 

 

 

Intervention Plan: Assignment Structure

 

The format for your Intervention/change report plan should be set out as guided below.  The minimum line spacing must be 1.5 and margins between 2.5 – 3.00cm on all sides.  Place your student i.d. number as a header.  Number all pages. A formal font is required Times New Roman, Arial size 12

 

Title (5%)

Clear and inclusive title that includes all elements of the report including the problem/change that is being addressed/implemented.

 

Background to the intervention/practice (25%)

• This section should introduce the context or organisation of focus for your intervention/change/practice. It should be clear what sector, environment, or context this

is intended for. Also, what population does your intervention/change/practice focus on, this should be clear and appropriate.

• Offer a clear and convincing rationale for your intervention/change/practice. Making a good argument as to why your plan should be utilised.
• Support your argument and rationale with evidence that is clearly derived from your literature review and its findings and conclusions.

 

Aim and Objectives (10%)

• Aims and objectives should be clearly stated and relate directly to your intervention/change or practice.
• These should be concisely presented and logical to your plan.

 

 

 

 

Details of the intervention or change Plan (30%)

• Complete details of your intervention, practice or practice change should be provided here with enough detail for this plan to be carried out
• Provide details of the context or organisation or sector that you are targeting
• Provide clear details of the population target – who will benefit from this intervention, practice or change?
• Additional information should be appended.

 

Evidence-Based Practice (20%)

• There should be a clear link running through the report, showing the evidence provided by the literature review supports/justifies the intervention, practice or change you are planning.
• This does not mean repeating your conclusions/findings in the report but making clear in the narrative and with the use of appropriate citations, the support derived from the literature review for your plan.

 

Structure, Style, Language and Presentation (10%)

• Format following guidelines.
• Clear and concise writing in an academic style appropriate to this report.
• Check language and grammar before submission, avoiding overuse of ‘jargon’ or colloquial/slang language.
• Consider your audience in how you are pitching your plan, be convincing and confident – but promise what can’t be justified/supported.

 

Referencing 

• You should use the APA (7^th Edn.) referencing format advocated by the Centre for Academic Writing (CAW) (available here). It is important that you follow these guidelines accurately and consistently throughout your work.

 

 

 

MARKING GUIDELINES – All Submissions   

 

Literature Review Marking Guidelines

 

For all bands the mark will fall towards the lower end the more that negative criteria are present.

 

90, 95, 100 (Distinction)

An excellent well-argued report of a well-designed study which shows originality and flair and could be submitted for publication as is. The report will demonstrate critical and contemporary awareness, be accurately, coherently, and concisely written, and demonstrate outstanding depth of analysis, understanding and insight. The discussion of findings provides a thoughtful and insightful integration with existing literature, and the arguments developed contribute to the contemporary understanding of the field. English usage is impeccable.

 

72, 75, 78, 82, 85, 88 (Distinction)

A full, organised, coherent and critical account of a well-designed study that demonstrates comprehensive understanding and evidence of originality. All parts are well argued, and it is easy to follow the rationale. The report could feasibly be prepared for publication with only minor amendments. The discussion of findings provides a thorough integration with existing literature, and the arguments developed contribute to the contemporary understanding of the field. Very minor English faults if any.

 

62, 65, 68 (Merit)

Work achieving this standard will be characterised by weaknesses either in design or write up, relative to that achieving higher standards. In general it may be well organised and present a highly competent and full description of a fairly designed study which lacks the originality of content or organization that would qualify for a distinction. Alternatively it might fail to exploit more recent research and/or commentary. Preparation for publication would require noticeable work. The discussion of findings may be integrated within existing literature but will lack the depth of understanding and insight evidenced by reports achieving a Distinction. A few relatively minor English errors perhaps limited to misuse of one or two rules. Ethical issues are fully addressed though there may be minor omissions or misunderstandings in appropriate procedures. Work at the lower end might fall short in one important area or it might contain one or a few important omissions or errors.

 

52, 55, 58 (Pass)

Work achieving this standard will be characterised by substantial weaknesses in its design and/or write up relative to work achieving a Merit. A fairly well organised and relatively competent description of a satisfactorily, or nearly satisfactorily designed study. Towards the lower end the report might be a somewhat pedestrian account.  Literature may tend towards the descriptive and may lack theoretical depth near the lower end. It is still relatively easy to understand the basic aims and most of the details of methodology. Descriptions and explanations may be rather verbose and may introduce irrelevant material. The discussion of findings may lack thorough integration with existing literature, and the understanding to provide a comprehensive discussion of the results and their implications. There may be quite a few English errors with several persistently misused rules or inappropriate phrases. Lacks some coherence in some sections.  Ethical issues may not be fully or appropriately addressed.

 

42, 45, 48 (Pass)

A report that is just of sufficient quality to meet MSc standards. Work achieving this standard will be characterised by either an overall poor write-up, flawed research approach and/or may lack scientific merit. There may be a general lack of depth to the literature and to the rationale, and general argument. May be verbose, repetitive, digressive and lack flow because of the level of English used. Lack of coherence may quite often leave reader needing to check back. Near to the lower end of this band work may feel weak in several sections but there could be a redeeming aspect which warrants a pass. Ethical issues may be only fleetingly attended to or not addressed directly though evidence of attention is given in the narrative.

 

 

 

 

 

35 (Fail)

The report falls short in several of the areas so far described and which is not of MSc standard in at least several sections. Literature might be derivative mainly of textbooks and might be shallow, list like and highly descriptive but also lacking in coherence across and within sections. It will probably be difficult to replicate the study because of omissions, errors and confusion in the description of method. Analysis may be conducted at a superficial level and interpretation of the data might be basic. An important section of the report might be omitted. Some central ethical issues may be omitted. English may be poor enough to obscure meaning in many places.

 

30 (Fail)

The report is clearly not of MSc standard and is generally weak throughout or there are several very poor or even missing sections. Literature might be sparse as well as being derivative as above. Coherence will probably also be poor. Because of errors, omissions and incomprehensibility, replication of the study would probably require substantial questioning of the author. Analysis will be superficial and maybe entirely descriptive or else quite inappropriate and error-ridden. There will probably be an impression that the author has weak command of several methodological concepts and procedures. Ethical issues may be mostly omitted. English may be poor enough to obscure meaning in many places.

 

25, 20 (Fail)

A report that has the criteria for 30 marks above, but which also is very short or which omits several sections or which may pay no attention to traditional sections at all. The report might be riddled with misunderstanding and misapplications of appropriate methodology. It may be hard to see how the chosen method wand procedure is relevant to the literature and rationale of the introduction.

 

10, 0 (Fail)

It is hard to write criteria for this band but on occasion it is possible that a report might fit the 20 mark criteria yet be so poor in all respects, so short or sections so truncated, methods and analysis so poorly and inappropriately conducted that only 10 marks can seem appropriate. Something is presented but it might hardly resemble a conventional report. More is missing than is presented.

 

Business Idea/Plan Marking

 

90, 95, 100 (Distinction)

An excellent well-argued report of a well-designed business plan or intervention plan, which shows originality and flair and could be presented to investors/stakeholders/organisations as is. The report will demonstrate critical and contemporary awareness, be accurately, coherently, and concisely written, and demonstrate outstanding depth of analysis, understanding and insight. It presents an outstanding level of detail about the product/service/evidence based-practice clearly showing its added value to the intended context or competitor advantage. English usage is impeccable.

 

72, 75, 78, 82, 85, 88 (Distinction)

A full, organised, coherent and critical account of a well-designed plan that demonstrates comprehensive understanding and evidence of originality. All parts are well argued, and it is easy to follow the rationale. The report could feasibly be prepared to be presented to investors/stakeholders, with only minor amendments. It presents a good level of detail about the product/service/intervention, showing some added value to the intended context or competitor advantage. Very minor English faults if any.

 

62, 65, 68 (Merit)

Work achieving this standard will be characterised by weaknesses either in design or write up, relative to that achieving higher standards. In general it may be well organised and present a competent description of a product but lacking the originality of content or organization that would qualify for a distinction. Some ideas about the added value are presented and a comparison with competitors is made. The report requires a large revision in order to be presented to potential investors/stakeholders. A few relatively minor English errors perhaps limited to misuse of one or two rules. Work at the lower end might fall short in one important area or it might contain one or a few important omissions or errors.

 

52, 55, 58 (Pass)

Work achieving this standard will be characterised by substantial weaknesses in its design and/or write up relative to work achieving a Merit. Descriptions and explanations of the product/service/intervention may be rather verbose and may introduce irrelevant material. It presents a full description of the product/service/intervention, but the added value is not totally clear.  Most of the report would have to be changed to be presented to potential investors/stakeholders. There may be quite a few English errors with several persistently misused rules or inappropriate phrases. Lacks some coherence in some sections.

 

42, 45, 48 (Pass)

A report that is just of sufficient quality to meet MSc standards. Work achieving this standard will be characterised by either an overall poor write-up, flawed research and/or may lack scientific merit. There may be a general lack of depth on the description of the product/service/intervention, making it difficult for the reader to identify the key features. The added value of the product/service/intervention is not clear.  May be verbose, repetitive, digressive and lack flow because of the level of English used. Lack of coherence may quite often leave reader needing to check back. Near to the lower end of this band work may feel weak in several sections but there could be a redeeming aspect which warrants a pass.

 

35 (Fail)

The report falls short in several of the areas so far described and which is not of MSc standard in at least several sections. The product/service/intervention are not properly explained, and its added value is unclear. Competitors have not been identified and/or there is not enough information about them. An important section of the report might be omitted. Some central ethical issues may be omitted. English may be poor enough to obscure meaning in many places.

 

30 (Fail)

The report is clearly not of MSc standard and is generally weak throughout or there are several very poor or even missing sections. Literature might be sparse as well as being derivative as above. Coherence will probably also be poor. Because of errors, omissions and incomprehensibility, viability of the product/service/intervention would probably require substantial questioning of the author. There will probably be an impression that the author has weak command of several concepts required to offer a convincing business/intervention plan to stakeholders/investors.

 

25, 20 (Fail)

A report that has the criteria for 30 marks above, but which also is very short, or which omits several sections, or which may pay no attention to traditional sections at all. The report might be riddled with misunderstanding and misapplications of what was expected.

 

10, 0 (Fail)

It is hard to write criteria for this band but on occasion it is possible that a report might fit the 20 mark criteria yet be so poor in all respects, so short or sections so truncated, the overall work has been so poorly and inappropriately conducted that only 10 marks can seem appropriate. Something is presented but it might hardly resemble a conventional report. More is missing than is presented.

 

 

Evidence-Based practice – Intervention Plan Marking – Rubric

 

Recognition of independent work

 

Where a supervisor has experienced an inordinate degree of dependence by a supervisee during the course of their project development it is possible to reduce the appropriate mark by one place (e.g., 65 to 62) or two in extreme cases. Supervisors should expect to give the normally agreed amount of time and support in all cases but is some cases students are particularly demanding and a drop of one place would be in order where the final project would have been substantially weaker had a normal level of supervision been provided. There is no reward here for ‘independence’ since avoidance of the normal supervisory and consultation process, in order to gain higher marks, might have adverse effects resulting in ultimately weaker projects. “Deductions for dependence need to be supported by an instantiated commentary from the supervisor. Where deduction would result in a fail for a report which passes otherwise, the criterion might be waived and in any case moderation will need to pay special attention to this outcome and will preferably include the external examiner.”

 

1. module leader.