A finished DNP-801A Topic 2 search strategy record example, documented so that another reader could repeat it and arrive at the same counts. Searches like "dnp 801a topic 2 assignment example", "dnp801a topic 2 sample" and "dnp-801a topic 2 example" land here.
What a finished DNP-801A Topic 2 search strategy record looks like
The finished example reads like a laboratory record rather than a description. Each database is named with the date it was searched, because the yield changes month to month and an undated count means nothing. The search string appears exactly as entered, with the controlled vocabulary terms distinguished from the keyword terms, so a reader can see where the mapping came from and where the writer supplied their own language. Limits are listed with the reason for each, and the example is explicit that a five year limit was chosen and not inherited. Numbers fall stage by stage: returned, screened by title, screened by abstract, retained. Where two databases returned the same study it says so and counts it once.
How a DNP-801A Topic 2 example is structured
The example builds a record another person could follow. It opens with the problem area in one sentence and the concepts drawn out of it, since the string is assembled from those concepts. A second section maps each concept to controlled vocabulary in the databases used, showing the mapped term beside the writer's own keyword. A third gives the full string as typed for each database, with the operators visible. A fourth lists the limits applied and defends each one, including any that narrowed the yield sharply. A fifth reports the numbers at every stage, from returned through to retained, with duplicates identified. A closing section states what the search missed and how the writer knows. Every figure in the report ties back to a stage the reader can see for themselves.
A record, not a description
Databases carry the date searched, because an undated count cannot be reproduced by anyone.
Controlled vocabulary shown beside keywords
The mapped subject headings appear next to the writer's own terms, so the reader sees which is which.
The string given as typed
Operators and truncation are visible, which is the only way a search can be repeated exactly.
Every limit defended
A date range or language restriction that cut the yield in half is justified rather than quietly applied.
What the search missed
The closing section names the gap and says how the writer detected it, usually through a known study that failed to appear.
Where marks go in DNP-801A Topic 2
The version that fails is a paragraph saying which databases were used and roughly what was found, which cannot be checked and therefore cannot be trusted. A second weakness is a string built entirely from the writer's own words with no subject headings, which misses indexed studies and usually explains an implausibly small yield. Marks also go for applying a date limit without argument, since five years is a convention rather than a rule and some problems have their key study outside it. Reports that give a final count with no stages behind it hide where the screening happened. Duplicates counted twice inflate the yield. Searches with no stated gap claim a completeness nobody achieves.
Get a DNP-801A Topic 2 example written to your instructions
Send the DNP-801A Topic 2 instructions and the rubric your classroom posts, with the databases your section requires. We write a custom example to those criteria, recorded so another reader could repeat it, with strings as typed, limits defended and yields reported stage by stage, in 24 to 48 hours. The first is free.
DNP-801A Topic 2 questions, answered
Why record the string exactly?
Because a search is a method, and methods have to be repeatable. Somebody reading your project should be able to enter the same string in the same database and see the same number, allowing for the months between. A paraphrase of what you looked for cannot be checked, which puts every count that follows it beyond examination.
Do I need controlled vocabulary as well as keywords?
Yes, and the difference matters. Subject headings find studies indexed under a concept regardless of the words the authors chose; keywords find the words themselves. Using only keywords misses indexed literature, and using only headings misses recent work not yet indexed. Showing both, mapped concept by concept, is what a doctoral search looks like.
Should I admit the search missed something?
Yes, and it strengthens the record rather than weakening it. Every search has boundaries: a database you lacked access to, a language limit, gray literature left out. Naming the gap and saying how you noticed it, usually because a study you knew of failed to appear, shows you tested your own method rather than trusting it.