| Unit 8 Population Health Care Delivery Project: Implementation Plan |
| | | | | | | | 190 |
| Content Rubric | Introductory - Not submitted or largely incomplete. Work may indicate very little if any comprehension of content. | Emergent - Work shows some comprehension but errors indicating miscomprehension may be present. | Practiced - Work indicates overall progress toward comprehension. Minor errors may present. | Proficient/Mastered - Work is complete and indicates full comprehension of content. | Score | Weight | Final Score |
| | 0 - 1.9 | 2 - 2.9 | 3 - 3.9 | 4 |
| Complete the implementation plan for the Population Health Care Delivery Projec | No assignment submitted. | Attempted to complete the implementation plan for the Population Health Care Delivery Project. | Completed the implementation plan for the Population Health Care Delivery Project. | Completed the implementation plan for the Population Health Care Delivery Project.
. | 4 | 20% | 0.80 |
| Rationales supporting design of the implementation plan | No assignment submitted | The implementation plan lacked detail and/or did not include rationales supporting design of the implementation plan | The implementation plan was detailed and included rationales supporting design of the implementation plan, but the content was brief and could be developed further. | The implementation plan was thorough and included rationales that were relevant and supported the implementation plan. | 4 | 20% | 0.80 |
| Provide a detailed critique of one epidemiologic and bio-statistical research method included with the five peer reviewed evidence based journal articles | No assignment submitted | Attempted to provide a detailed critique of one epidemiologic and bio-statistical research method included with the five peer reviewed evidence based journal articles
The critique did not include one epidemiologic and biostatistical research method and/or was not from a peer reviewed journal article and/or did not discuss the reliability and validity of the tool. | Provided a critique of one epidemiologic and bio-statistical research method included with the five peer reviewed evidence based journal articles
The critique lacked detail and did not illustrate a level of critical analysis. | Provided a detailed critique of one epidemiologic and bio-statistical research method included with the five peer reviewed evidence based journal articles
The critique was thorough and illustrated a level of critical analysis. | 4 | 20% | 0.80 |
| Support the implementation plan for the Population Health Care Delivery Project with a minimum of five peer reviewed evidence based journal articles with findings relevant to the target population and implementation plan.(20 points) | No assignment submitted. | Attempted to support the implementation plan for the Population Health Care Delivery Project with a minimum of five peer reviewed evidence based journal articles with findings relevant to the target population and implementation plan.
Articles provided as support were not all from peer reviewed evidence based journal articles and /or were not relevant to the target population and implementation plan. | Supported the implementation plan for the Population Health Care Delivery Project with a minimum of five peer reviewed evidence based journal articles with findings relevant to the target population and implementation plan.
Less than five scholarly peer reviewed articles were utilized to support the content. | Supported the implementation plan for the Population Health Care Delivery Project with a minimum of five peer reviewed evidence based journal articles with findings relevant to the target population and implementation plan. | 4 | 20% | 0.80 |
| Resources | Does not include scholarly evidence to support the policy issue analysis. | Includes only one scholarly source to support the policy issue analysis. | Includes 2-4 scholarly sources to support the policy issue analysis. | Includes 5 or more scholarly sources to support the policy issue analysis. | 4 | 20% | 0.80 |
| (Do Not Change criteria below) | | | | | | Content Score | 190.00 |
| Writing Deduction Rubric (everyone starts with 4's = no deductions) | Introductory | Emergent | Practiced | Proficient/Mastered | Score | Weight | Final Score |
| | 0-1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |
| Grammar & Punctuation | The overall meaning of the paper is difficult to understand. Sentence structure, subject verb agreement errors, missing prepositions, and missing punctuation make finding meaning difficult. | Several confusing sentences or 1 to 2 confusing paragraphs make understanding parts of the paper difficult, but the overall paper meaning is clear. Many subject verb agreement errors, run-on sentences, etc. cause confusion. | A few confusing sentences make it difficult to understand a small portion of the paper. However, the overall meaning of a paragraph and the paper are intact. There may be a few subject verb agreement errors or some missing punctuation. | There are one or two confusing sentences, but the overall sentence and paragraph meanings are clear. There are a few minor punctuation errors such as comma splices or run-on sentences. | 4 | 35% | 1.40 |
| Spelling | The many misspelled words and incorrect words choices significantly interfere with the readability. | Many typos, misspelled words, or the use of incorrect words making understanding difficult in a few places. | Some misspelled words or the misuse of words such as confusing then/than. However, intent is still clear. | A few misspelled words normally caught by spellcheckers are present but do not significantly interfere with the overall readability of the paper. | 4 | 35% | 1.40 |
| Order of Ideas & Length Requirement | Paper has some good information or research, but it does not follow assignment directions and is lacking in overall organization and content. | The order of information is confusing in several places and this organization interferes with the meaning or intent of the paper. However, the paper has a generally discernible purpose and follows assignment directions overall. | The order of information is confusing in a few places and the lack of organization interferes with the meaning or intent of the paper in a minor way. | The overall order of the information is clear and contributes to the meaning of assignment. There is one paragraph or a sentence or two that are out of place or other minor organizational issues. A few sentences may be long and hard to understand. Meets length requirements. | 4 | 20% | 0.80 |
| APA | There is some attempt at APA formatting and citing. There are one or more missing parts such as the cover page or references list. Citation information may be missing. Citation mistakes make authorship unclear. | This is an attempt use APA formatting and citing. There are both in-text citations and reference listings. Citation information may be missing or incorrect (i.e. Websites listed as in-text or reference citations). There is an attempt to cite all outside sources in at least one place. Authorship is generally clear. | There is an overall attempt at APA formatting and citation style. All sources appear to have some form of citation both in the text and on a reference list. There are some formatting and citation errors. Citations generally make authorship clear. | There is a strong attempt to cite all sources using APA style. Minor paper formatting errors such as a misplaced running head or margins may occur. Minor in-text citation errors such as a missing page number or a misplaced date may occur. Quotation marks and citations make authorship clear. | 4 | 10% | 0.40 |
| | | | | | | Writing Deduction | 0 |
| | | | | | | Final Score | 190 |
| | | | | | | Percentage | 100% |
| Feedback: |
| | | | 15 |
| | | | 15 |
| | | | 20 |
| | | | 15 |
| | | | 20 |
| | | | 15 |
| | | | 100 |
Michelle_Michy
20191205015757dn713_unit8_assignment_gradingrubric.xlsx
