CAP 4 feedback

Name
Professor
Subject
Date
Critically Appraised Paper Peer Rubric (CAP)
100 points
Points
Title page with the focused clinical question Provided with all information
10 points Provided however not complete
5 points Not provided
0 points The running head is well written, and the clinical question is provided.
9 points
Clinical relevance statement Clear and concise clinical bottom line from both articles.
20 points Clinical bottom line reported however not clearly stated or lacking information
15 points Clinical bottom line not stated or not clear
10 points The article has a clear clinical relevance statement which investigates the impact of mirror therapy in conjunction with task-oriented training on the upper extremities.
The paper has a clear and concise clinical bottom line.
19 points
Study summary Comprehensive information provided in the article
30 points Most information provided on search—missing one-three items for comprehensive information
25 points Minimal information/detail on specific search
15 points The article explores the effect of mirror therapy and task-oriented training among stroke patients with paretic upper extremity. The paper does not provide any information regarding how occupational therapists can apply the knowledge acquired.
25 points
Study appraisal Identification/statement of study strengths as well as threats to validities
25 points Partial statement of study strengths and limitations for both or one article incomplete
20 points Limited statement of study strength and/or threat in both articles
10 points The article provides comprehensive information on the considerations made, strengths, and limitations of the study.

The paper provided limited information regarding the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
20 points
Proper grammar, use of syntax and delivery of information Consistent use of proper grammar, spelling, syntax and clear delivery of information
10 points One-three errors in spelling, grammar, etc.
5 points More than three errors in spelling, syntax, and grammar
3 points There are very few errors related to grammar and syntax. The delivery of information is satisfactory.
9 points
Proper referencing format listed articles (APA or AMA)
Citations in the proper format
5 points More than two APA or format errors
3 points No citation formatting
1 point The reference is in APA, but the format needs revisiting – 1/2 inch hanging indentation
4 points
TOTAL 86 points
Comments:
The article explores how mirror therapy can be used to improve the functional performance of paretic upper extremity. Mirror therapy is accompanied by task-oriented training, and the results show improved functional performance in the affected limbs. An occupational therapist can use the knowledge acquired to treat paretic upper extremity among stroke patients. The paper provides a detailed review of the main points in the article but fails to explain how occupational therapists can benefit from the knowledge acquired. The paper does not review the strengths and the measure of the article as reported.