A finished NUR-590 Topic 2 search strategy write-up example, with databases, terms and limits recorded and every inclusion decision defensible to a reviewer. Searches like "nur 590 topic 2 assignment example", "nur590 topic 2 sample" and "nur-590 topic 2 example" land here.
What a finished NUR-590 Topic 2 search strategy write-up looks like
The finished example is written for a reader who was not there and may disagree. Databases are named with a reason for each, terms appear as they were entered, and the limits carry justifications rather than being listed. What distinguishes this from a search log is the emphasis on decisions: inclusion and exclusion criteria are stated before the results are screened, so the screening cannot be accused of selecting studies that suited the writer's preference. Numbers are reported at every stage and reconcile at the end. Studies excluded at full text are listed with the reason each was dropped, which is the section a reviewer checks first when they suspect a selection was convenient rather than principled.
How an NUR-590 Topic 2 example is structured
The example is written as a section somebody will audit. It opens by restating the project question and deriving the search concepts from it, so the terms can be traced to the question rather than to intuition. A second section names the databases and states what each contributes that the others do not. A third records the search itself, terms, headings, operators and limits, each limit with the reason it was applied. A fourth states inclusion and exclusion criteria in advance of screening, which is what makes the selection defensible. A fifth reports the screening in numbers, retrieved, screened by title, read in full, kept, and reconciles them. A closing section lists the studies excluded at full text with the reason for each.
Terms traced back to the question
Search concepts are derived from the project question so a reviewer can see where each came from.
Criteria stated before screening
Setting inclusion rules in advance is what stops the selection looking chosen to suit the writer's preference.
Every limit given a justification
A date cutoff or a language restriction removes evidence, so each one carries a reason rather than a checkbox.
Numbers that reconcile
Retrieved, screened, read and kept are reported at each stage and add up, since a reviewer will check the arithmetic.
Full text exclusions listed with reasons
The section a reviewer reads first when they suspect the selection was convenient rather than principled.
Where marks go in NUR-590 Topic 2
Search sections written as narrative are the standard loss, because a paragraph saying that several databases were searched cannot be audited by anybody. The second loss is criteria written after screening, which shows when the inclusion rules describe exactly the studies that were kept and nothing else. Papers lose marks for numbers that do not reconcile, since a reviewer adding the stages is the fastest check available and the arithmetic is expected to hold. Excluding at full text without recording reasons removes the evidence that the exclusions were principled. Limits applied only to reduce a result count are a defect rather than a convenience. A search nobody else could repeat is not a method section, whatever it reports.
Get an NUR-590 Topic 2 example written to your instructions
Send the NUR-590 Topic 2 instructions and the rubric from your classroom, with your project question and any database access your program provides. We write a custom example to those criteria, with terms traced to the question, criteria fixed before screening, every limit justified and the counts reconciling, in 24 to 48 hours. The first is free.
NUR-590 Topic 2 questions, answered
How is this different from the search log in an earlier course?
The audience. A log records what you did; this section has to persuade somebody who may challenge the selection, which puts the weight on inclusion criteria and on the reasons for exclusion. The mechanics are similar and the burden is different, since a project reviewer is entitled to ask why a study that contradicts your intervention is absent.
When should I set inclusion criteria?
Before you screen anything, and write them down at that point. Criteria decided after you have seen the results will match what you kept, which is the appearance every reviewer is trained to look for. Setting them in advance also makes screening faster, because each decision becomes a rule application rather than a judgment made again from scratch.
What if my search returns almost nothing?
Widen deliberately and record what you widened. Loosening the population, extending the date range or dropping a setting restriction are all legitimate and each should be logged with its reason. A search returning three studies may also be telling you the project question is too narrow, which is better discovered now than in the evidence table topic.