| Course | BUSI 418 Research and Evidence Based Practice in Healthcare (BUSI418) |
|---|---|
| Module/Week | 6 |
| Assignment | Levels of Evidence |
| Paper type | Levels of evidence summary |
| Length | about 518 words, 2 double-spaced pages plus title page and references. Course guide: a completed levels of evidence template identifying the level of evidence for each article from the Literature Review Matrix, with a summary description of the levels chosen |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| Points | 100 |
| School | Liberty University Online |
| Program | BS in Healthcare Administration |
| Where it sits | Module/Week 6 in Liberty's published BUSI 418 course guide; current sections can differ |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for BUSI 418 Week 6
Levels of Evidence for Four Studies on Nurse Retention: What the Hierarchy Says About the Matrix
[Student Name]
School of Business, Liberty University
BUSI 418: Research and Evidence Based Practice in Healthcare
Levels of Evidence
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
The question and the writer's workplace are composites; the four research articles rated here are real and are the same ones used in the Module/Week 2 matrix.
Levels of Evidence for Four Studies on Nurse Retention: What the Hierarchy Says About the Matrix
Question and Hierarchy
My matrix asked what influences whether hospital and long-term care nurses plan to remain in their jobs. Hall and Roussel (2017) explain that evidence hierarchies rank studies by how well their designs protect against bias, so that decision makers know how much confidence a finding deserves. For this assignment I rated each study on Melnyk and Fineout-Overholt's (2023) seven-step scale. At the top, Level I, sit syntheses of randomized controlled trials, followed by one well-designed randomized trial at Level II, then controlled trials without randomization (Level III), case-control and cohort studies (Level IV), syntheses of descriptive or qualitative work (Level V), individual descriptive or qualitative studies (Level VI) and, at the bottom, the opinions of experts and committees (Level VII).
Levels Assigned
| Article | Design | Level | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|
| Muir et al. (2026) | Cross-sectional observational study linking nurse surveys and patient data | VI | Single descriptive study measured at one time; no comparison over time or intervention |
| Xu et al. (2025) | Cross-sectional survey with structural equation modeling | VI | Single descriptive correlational study; associations only |
| Chamanga et al. (2025) | Qualitative exploratory study using interviews | VI | Single qualitative study |
| Ramanan et al. (2026) | Qualitative study using focus groups | VI | Single qualitative study |
Summary
All four studies fall at Level VI. The two quantitative studies are large and carefully analyzed; Muir et al. (2026) drew on more than half a million patients and 2,782 nurses, and Xu et al. (2025) on 572 nurses. Size, however, does not raise the level, because both measured their variables at a single point in time and cannot show which came first. The two qualitative studies, Chamanga et al. (2025) and Ramanan et al. (2026), sit at the same level, not because they are weaker in quality but because a single qualitative study is designed to explain experience, not to test effects.
The levels mean that the matrix supports a reasonable picture of why nurses leave, with workload, distress after errors, leadership, values and recognition all involved, but not firm conclusions about what will keep them. Higher-level evidence would include cohort studies following nurses over time, controlled evaluations of retention programs or systematic reviews such as those available on nurse residency programs. Level VI evidence can tell a manager where to look; it cannot yet tell them what will work.
Rating the qualitative studies at Level VI should not be read as a verdict on their value. Chamanga et al. (2025) heard community nurses describe caseloads, travel and isolation in their own words, and Ramanan et al. (2026) learned from nursing home staff which forms of recognition they would actually notice. Neither finding could have come from a survey, and both suggest specific changes a manager could try. Within the hierarchy, these studies earn their place by generating ideas, while the quantitative studies estimate how strongly those ideas are linked to the outcome.
Corrections to the Matrix
Returning to the matrix revealed one error worth fixing. In Module/Week 2 I described Muir et al. (2026) as showing that staffing levels drive turnover, which overstates a cross-sectional design. The corrected entry now says the study found an association between staffing and nurse outcomes measured at the same time. I also clarified that Xu et al. (2025) used structural equation modeling to test a mediating pathway, which describes relationships among measured variables but still does not establish cause. These corrections bring the matrix and the levels into agreement.
For an administrator, the right response is to act cautiously on the consistent themes, test changes on a small scale and measure the results, which in effect generates local evidence while waiting for stronger studies.
References
Chamanga, E., Dyson, J., Jarrett, M., & McKeown, E. (2025). Investigating factors influencing recruitment and retention of adult community nurses: An exploratory qualitative study across NHS trusts in England. Primary Health Care Research & Development, 26, e87. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1463423625100480
Hall, H. R., & Roussel, L. A. (2017). Evidence-based practice: An integrative approach to research, administration, and practice (2nd ed.). Jones & Bartlett Learning.
Melnyk, B. M., & Fineout-Overholt, E. (2023). Evidence-based practice in nursing and healthcare: A guide to best practice (5th ed.). Wolters Kluwer.
Muir, K. J., Aiken, L. H., Brom, H., Hovsepian, V., Lasater, K. B., & McHugh, M. D. (2026). Safe minimum nurse staffing requirements for hospitals: Evidence from Pennsylvania. Medical Care, 64(7), 447-455. https://doi.org/10.1097/MLR.0000000000002332
Ramanan, H., Kalarchian, M., Pezzone, A., Rhoads, C., & Linkov, F. (2026). Enhancing employee retention in nursing homes through non-monetary incentives: Insights from focus groups. Geriatric Nursing, 70, 103983. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gerinurse.2026.103983
Xu, Y., Jin, Q., Zhou, Q., Zhang, R., & Ding, W. (2025). Relationship between second victim experience and turnover intention in Chinese nurses: Assessing the mediating role of posttraumatic growth using structural equation modeling. Journal of Nursing Management, 2025, 7327139. https://doi.org/10.1155/jonm/7327139
What the BUSI 418 Week 6 instructions ask
Module/Week 6 brings the Levels of Evidence assignment, worth 100 points, together with Forum 7 and the reading for chapters 12 and 13 of Hall and Roussel and that week's lecture and web resource. You go back to the four articles in your Module/Week 2 matrix, place each one on an evidence hierarchy using the course template and then write a short summary explaining the levels you chose. Since everything rests on the earlier matrix, a design label you got right in Module/Week 2 makes this week straightforward, and a label you got wrong should be corrected openly here.
How this BUSI 418 Week 6 example is built
Pages like this exist to show the moves, not to be copied. The sample first restates the question from the matrix and names the hierarchy used. A table lists each article with its design, the level assigned and a one-line reason. The summary explains what Level VI means, why cross-sectional surveys and qualitative studies fall there and why the two kinds of evidence still complement each other. It notes what higher-level evidence on nurse retention would look like, such as controlled studies of residency programs or systematic reviews, and ends with how an administrator can act responsibly on evidence that is useful but limited. A short section also records one correction to the earlier matrix.
BUSI 418 Week 6 grading rubric: where the points go
Instructors grading this assignment check first that each article sits at the level its design deserves and that a sentence explains why. Two errors come up often: rating a single cross-sectional survey as though it followed people over time, and treating qualitative research as worthless instead of placing it where it belongs. The summary carries real weight. It should tell a manager how much trust the set of studies deserves, what stronger research on the question would look like and how to act in the meantime. Acknowledging any correction to the earlier matrix shows integrity, and the template, table and references should follow APA style.
BUSI 418 Week 6 help: mistakes that cost points
Reread the methods section of each article from your matrix and confirm its design before assigning a level. Use the hierarchy your course provides, and note which level corresponds to each design. Explain each rating in a sentence. In the summary, describe what the levels together say about how much confidence the evidence deserves and what stronger evidence would look like. Keep the same citations as in your matrix, corrected if needed, and format everything in APA. If you find that your matrix described a study's design or findings too strongly, say so plainly and fix the entry; an honest correction reads better to faculty than an inconsistency between the two assignments. Finally, check that each level in your table matches the level named in your summary.
Related BUSI 418 sample papers
Other BUSI 418 weeks
- BUSI 418 Week 1: Discussion Board Forum 1
- BUSI 418 Week 2: Literature Review Matrix
- BUSI 418 Week 3: Discussion Board Forum 4
- BUSI 418 Week 4: Discussion Board Forum 5
- BUSI 418 Week 5: Discussion Board Forum 6
- BUSI 418 Week 7: Discussion Board Forum 8
More BS in Healthcare Administration sample papers
- BUSI 304 Week 6: Discussion Board Forum 5
- BUSI 311 Week 6: Discussion Board Forum 6
- BUSI 323 Week 1: Group Discussion Board Forum 1
- BUSI 344 Week 6: Discussion Board Forum 6
BUSI 418 Week 6 questions, answered
What is the BUSI 418 Levels of Evidence assignment?
A 100-point Module/Week 6 assignment in which students identify the level of evidence for the four articles from their literature review matrix and summarize what the levels mean.
Where can I find a free BUSI 418 Week 6 sample paper?
The finished BUSI 418 Week 6 levels of evidence assignment on this page rates four nurse retention studies, explains each rating and ends with a summary for decision makers.
What level of evidence is a cross-sectional survey?
In the commonly used seven-level hierarchy, a single descriptive study such as a cross-sectional survey sits at Level VI, below cohort, controlled and randomized studies.
Where does qualitative research fall in the evidence hierarchy?
A single qualitative study is usually rated Level VI, and a systematic review of qualitative or descriptive studies Level V; qualitative evidence explains experiences that numbers cannot.
Do I use the same articles as the BUSI 418 matrix?
Yes. The assignment reuses the four research articles from your Module/Week 2 Literature Review Matrix, so any design errors in the matrix should be corrected and noted when you assign levels.
Use it as a model, or ask for your own
This paper is an original model written by our desk for study. It is not a submitted student paper and not an official Liberty University document. Read it for structure and reasoning, then write your own to the instructions in your Canvas course. If you want a version built to your exact prompt and rubric, the first custom sample is free and arrives in 24 to 48 hours.
Ask for a custom BUSI 418 Week 6 sample · All BUSI 418 weeks · All courses