Revisions are needed on the paper I submitted for school. I have uploaded a file titled default.pdf which explains. Any section that scored less than a 3 needs to be revised. Please read teachers comments. Aspects B3, B5, C2 - C2f, D1 and D2 require addre
Michelle_Michy
default.pdf
Evaluation Results
Author: Melissa Smith
Date Evaluated: 04/17/2016 03:21:34 PM (MDT)
DRF template: Policy, Politics, and Global Health (GR, C159, UUT21014)
Program: Policy, Politics, and Global Health (GR, C159, UUT21014)
Evaluation Method: Using Rubric
Evaluation Summary for Policy, Politics, and Global Health: UUT Task 1
Final Score: Does not Meet
Overall comments: 4/17/16 The submission discusses the development and analysis of a public policy that advocates for improvement in the health of the public and the nursing profession globally, such as with safer nursing ratios. The submission indicates that the effects of a poor nursetopatient ratios result in poor care outcomes, increase in safety errors, increase in patient and nursing dissatisfaction, increase in healthcare costs as a result of high nursing turnover, medical errors and poor reimbursement rates. With adequate and safer staffing, all of the above mentioned will decrease if not eradicated or circumvented. Aspects B3, B5, C2 C2f, D1 and D2 require addressing, completion and additional details in order to satisfy the task requirements. Please consult with the course mentor before working further on this task.
Detailed Results (Rubric used: UUT Task 1 (1014))
Articulation of Response (clarity, organization, mechanics)
(0) 0=Unsatisfactory/Not present
(1) 1=Does Not Meet Standard
(2) 2=Minimally Competent
(3) 3=Competent (4) 4=Highly Competent
The candidate provides unsatisfactory articulation of response.
The candidate provides weak articulation of response.
The candidate provides limited articulation of response.
The candidate provides adequate articulation of response.
The candidate provides substantial articulation of response.
Criterion Score: 4.00 Comments on this criterion: 4/17/16 The submission is organized, easy to follow and without errors.
A1. Public Policy Issue
(0) 0=Unsatisfactory/Not present
(1) 1=Does Not Meet Standard
(2) 2=Minimally Competent
(3) 3=Competent (4) 4=Highly Competent
The candidate does not provide a plausible analysis of a health or nursing profession public policy issue that impacts a group of people and requires a policy change.
The candidate provides a plausible analysis, with no detail, of a health or nursing profession public policy issue that impacts a group of people and requires a policy change.
The candidate provides a plausible analysis, with limited detail, of a health or nursing profession public policy issue that impacts a group of people and requires a policy change.
The candidate provides a plausible analysis, with adequate detail, of a health or nursing profession public policy issue that impacts a group of people and requires a policy change.
The candidate provides a plausible analysis, with substantial detail, of a health or nursing profession public policy issue that impacts a group of people and requires a policy change.
Criterion Score: 3.00
Printed on: 04/17/2016 05:26:23 PM (EST)
Comments on this criterion: 4/17/16 The submission identifies the policy issue for change as safe nursing staffing.
A1a. Issue Selection
(0) 0=Unsatisfactory/Not present
(1) 1=Does Not Meet Standard
(2) 2=Minimally Competent
(3) 3=Competent (4) 4=Highly Competent
The candidate does not provide a logical discussion of why the public policy issue was selected.
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with no detail, of why the public policy issue was selected.
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with limited detail, of why the public policy issue was selected.
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with adequate detail, of why the public policy issue was selected.
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with substantial detail, of why the public policy issue was selected.
Criterion Score: 3.00 Comments on this criterion: 4/17/16 The submission provides a detailed discussion suggesting that the policy was selected because with a high patient ratio, nurses are unable to provide proper, competent and safe care for patients, resulting in them receiving less care.
A1b. Issue Relevance
(0) 0=Unsatisfactory/Not present
(1) 1=Does Not Meet Standard
(2) 2=Minimally Competent
(3) 3=Competent (4) 4=Highly Competent
The candidate does not provide a logical discussion of the relevance of this public policy issue to health or the nursing profession, using 2 pieces of academically appropriate literature from the last five years.
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with no support, of the relevance of this public policy issue to health or the nursing profession, using 2 pieces of academically appropriate literature from the last five years.
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with limited support, of the relevance of this public policy issue to health or the nursing profession, using 2 pieces of academically appropriate literature from the last five years.
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with adequate support, of the relevance of this public policy issue to health or the nursing profession, using 2 pieces of academically appropriate literature from the last five years.
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with substantial support, of the relevance of this public policy issue to health or the nursing profession, using 2 pieces of academically appropriate literature from the last five years.
Criterion Score: 3.00 Comments on this criterion: 4/17/16 The submission provides a practical discussion regarding the relevance of the issue, such as how implementation of a safer staff nursing policy facilitates positive nursing and patient outcomes through competent, efficient, safe and adequate care. A long term benefit equates to increased patient and nursing satisfaction, a decrease in staff turnover and an increase in reimbursements for the healthcare institution.
A1c. Financial Impact
(0) 0=Unsatisfactory/Not present
(1) 1=Does Not Meet Standard
(2) 2=Minimally Competent
(3) 3=Competent (4) 4=Highly Competent
The candidate does not provide an accurate description of the financial impact of the public policy on an organization or on a community.
The candidate provides an accurate description, with no detail, of the financial impact of the public policy on an organization or on a community.
The candidate provides an accurate description, with limited detail, of the financial impact of the public policy on an organization or on a community.
The candidate provides an accurate description, with adequate detail, of the financial impact of the public policy on an organization or on a community.
The candidate provides an accurate description, with substantial detail, of the financial impact of the public policy on an organization or on a community.
Criterion Score: 3.00 Comments on this criterion: 4/17/16 The submission provides a practical discussion regarding the financial impact of the policy, including "improving the number of nurses in healthcare facilities will also increase the labor costs because of overtime pay, increasing number of employees, skill mix increase and increasing the market wages for nurses and other healthcare personnel."
A2. Personal Values
(0) 0=Unsatisfactory/Not
(1) 1=Does Not Meet Standard
(2) 2=Minimally Competent
(3) 3=Competent (4) 4=Highly Competent
Printed on: 04/17/2016 05:26:23 PM (EST)
present
The candidate does not provide a plausible analysis of how the candidate’s values impact the candidate’s position on the public policy issue.
The candidate provides a plausible analysis, with no detail, of how the candidate’s values impact the candidate’s position on the public policy issue.
The candidate provides a plausible analysis, with limited detail, of how the candidate’s values impact the candidate’s position on the public policy issue.
The candidate provides a plausible analysis, with adequate detail, of how the candidate’s values impact the candidate’s position on the public policy issue.
The candidate provides a plausible analysis, with substantial detail, of how the candidate’s values impact the candidate’s position on the public policy issue.
Criterion Score: 3.00 Comments on this criterion: 4/17/16 A discussion supporting the policy, indicating that "safe staff nursing helps in the improvement of quality care", is located.
A2a. Ethical Principle or Theory
(0) 0=Unsatisfactory/Not present
(1) 1=Does Not Meet Standard
(2) 2=Minimally Competent
(3) 3=Competent (4) 4=Highly Competent
The candidate does not provide a logical discussion of the ethical principle or theory that underpins the candidate’s perspective.
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with no detail, of the ethical principle or theory that underpins the candidate’s perspective.
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with limited detail, of the ethical principle or theory that underpins the candidate’s perspective.
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with adequate detail, of the ethical principle or theory that underpins the candidate’s perspective.
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with substantial detail, of the ethical principle or theory that underpins the candidate’s perspective.
Criterion Score: 3.00 Comments on this criterion: 4/17/16 The submission provides a discussion identifying the ethical principle theory underpinning the perspective as nonmaleficence.
B1. Decision Maker
(0) 0=Unsatisfactory/Not present
(1) 1=Does Not Meet Standard
(2) 2=Minimally Competent
(3) 3=Competent (4) 4=Highly Competent
The candidate does not identify the appropriate decision maker (name and title) who will receive the policy brief.
Not applicable. Not applicable. Not applicable. The candidate identifies the appropriate decision maker (name and title) who will receive the policy brief.
Criterion Score: 4.00 Comments on this criterion: 4/17/16 The submission identifies the decision maker as the healthcare human resources manager Dr. Donald Trumpet.
B1a. Explanation
(0) 0=Unsatisfactory/Not present
(1) 1=Does Not Meet Standard
(2) 2=Minimally Competent
(3) 3=Competent (4) 4=Highly Competent
The candidate does not provide a logical explanation of why the public policy requires the decision maker’s attention, using relevant nursing research from the last five years to support the position.
The candidate provides a logical explanation, with no detail, of why the public policy requires the decision maker’s attention, using no relevant nursing research from the last five years to support the position.
The candidate provides a logical explanation, with limited detail, of why the public policy requires the decision maker’s attention, using limited relevant nursing research from the last five years to support the position.
The candidate provides a logical explanation, with adequate detail, of why the public policy requires the decision maker’s attention, using adequate relevant nursing research from the last five years to support the position.
The candidate provides a logical explanation, with substantial detail, of why the public policy requires the decision maker’s attention, using substantial relevant nursing research from the last five years to support the position.
Criterion Score: 3.00
Printed on: 04/17/2016 05:26:23 PM (EST)
B2. Challenges
(0) 0=Unsatisfactory/Not present
(1) 1=Does Not Meet Standard
(2) 2=Minimally Competent
(3) 3=Competent (4) 4=Highly Competent
The candidate does not provide a logical discussion of the main challenges of addressing the selected public policy issue.
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with no detail, of the main challenges of addressing the selected public policy issue.
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with limited detail, of the main challenges of addressing the selected public policy issue.
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with adequate detail, of the main challenges of addressing the selected public policy issue.
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with substantial detail, of the main challenges of addressing the selected public policy issue.
Criterion Score: 3.00 Comments on this criterion: 4/17/16 The submission provides a reasonable discussion regarding the challenges of addressing the issue, including ineffective communication and collaboration of nursing needs and lack of professional organization support.
B3. Options/Interventions
(0) 0=Unsatisfactory/Not present
(1) 1=Does Not Meet Standard
(2) 2=Minimally Competent
(3) 3=Competent (4) 4=Highly Competent
The candidate does not provide a logical discussion of the primary options and/or interventions for the decision maker, including why they are tangible.
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with no detail, of the primary options and/or interventions for the decision maker, including why they are tangible.
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with limited detail, of the primary options and/or interventions for the decision maker, including why they are tangible.
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with adequate detail, of the primary options and/or interventions for the decision maker, including why they are tangible.
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with substantial detail, of the primary options and/or interventions for the decision maker, including why they are tangible.
Criterion Score: 1.00 Comments on this criterion: 4/17/16 The submission provides a discussion regarding simple ways of intervening in safe nurse staffing decisionmaking process; however an adequate discussion of the primary options or interventions for Dr. Trumpet and why they are tangible is not located.
B4. Course of Action
(0) 0=Unsatisfactory/Not present
(1) 1=Does Not Meet Standard
(2) 2=Minimally Competent
(3) 3=Competent (4) 4=Highly Competent
The candidate does not provide an appropriate proposal for a persuasive course of action for the decision maker, including ways to avoid the challenges identified in part B2.
The candidate provides an appropriate proposal, with no support, for a persuasive course of action for the decision maker, including ways to avoid the challenges identified in part B2.
The candidate provides an appropriate proposal, with limited support, for a persuasive course of action for the decision maker, including ways to avoid the challenges identified in part B2.
The candidate provides an appropriate proposal, with adequate support, for a persuasive course of action for the decision maker, including ways to avoid the challenges identified in part B2.
The candidate provides an appropriate proposal, with substantial support, for a persuasive course of action for the decision maker, including ways to avoid the challenges identified in part B2.
Criterion Score: 3.00
B5. Success of Policy Brief
(0) 0=Unsatisfactory/Not present
(1) 1=Does Not Meet Standard
(2) 2=Minimally Competent
(3) 3=Competent (4) 4=Highly Competent
The candidate does not provide a logical discussion of how the candidate will evaluate the success of the
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with no detail, of how the candidate will evaluate the success of
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with limited detail, of how the candidate will evaluate the success of
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with adequate detail, of how the candidate will evaluate the success of
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with substantial detail, of how the candidate will evaluate the
Printed on: 04/17/2016 05:26:23 PM (EST)
the success of the policy brief (a topdown approach).
evaluate the success of the policy brief (a top down approach).
evaluate the success of the policy brief (a top down approach).
evaluate the success of the policy brief (a top down approach).
will evaluate the success of the policy brief (a topdown approach).
Criterion Score: 0.00 Comments on this criterion: 4/17/16 A clear discussion regarding how to evaluate the success of the policy brief is not located.
C1. Identified Organization or Community
(0) 0=Unsatisfactory/Not present
(1) 1=Does Not Meet Standard
(2) 2=Minimally Competent
(3) 3=Competent (4) 4=Highly Competent
The candidate does not identify an organization or community that has expressed interest in the selected health or nursing profession public policy issue.
Not applicable. Not applicable. Not applicable. The candidate identifies an organization or community that has expressed interest in the selected health or nursing profession public policy issue.
Criterion Score: 4.00 Comments on this criterion: 4/17/16 The submission identifies the International Council of Nurses (ICN) as the organization with interest in the policy issue.
C1a. Summary of Expressed Interest
(0) 0=Unsatisfactory/Not present
(1) 1=Does Not Meet Standard
(2) 2=Minimally Competent
(3) 3=Competent (4) 4=Highly Competent
The candidate does not provide a logical summary of evidence supporting why the organization or community has expressed interest in the selected public policy issue.
The candidate provides a logical summary, with no detail, of evidence supporting why the organization or community has expressed interest in the selected public policy issue.
The candidate provides a logical summary, with limited detail, of evidence supporting why the organization or community has expressed interest in the selected public policy issue.
The candidate provides a logical summary, with adequate detail, of evidence supporting why the organization or community has expressed interest in the selected public policy issue.
The candidate provides a logical summary, with substantial detail, of evidence supporting why the organization or community has expressed interest in the selected public policy issue.
Criterion Score: 3.00
C2. CBPR Principles
(0) 0=Unsatisfactory/Not present
(1) 1=Does Not Meet Standard
(2) 2=Minimally Competent
(3) 3=Competent (4) 4=Highly Competent
The candidate does not identify 3 CBPR principles the candidate could use to work with the organization or community to address a policy change for the public policy issue.
Not applicable. The candidate accurately identifies 12 CBPR principles the candidate could use to work with the organization or community to address a policy change for the public policy issue.
Not applicable. The candidate accurately identifies 3 CBPR principles the candidate could use to work with the organization or community to address a policy change for the public policy issue.
Criterion Score: 0.00 Comments on this criterion: 4/17/16 A clear discussion identifying 3 CBPR principles that could be uses to work with the organization or community to address a policy change for the public policy issue is not located.
C2a. Approach and Collaboration
(0) (1) 1=Does Not (2) 2=Minimally (3) 3=Competent (4) 4=Highly
Printed on: 04/17/2016 05:26:23 PM (EST)
0=Unsatisfactory/Not present
Meet Standard Competent Competent
The candidate does not provide a logical explanation of how the candidate could approach and collaborate with the organization or community.
The candidate provides a logical explanation, with no detail, of how the candidate could approach and collaborate with the organization or community.
The candidate provides a logical explanation, with limited detail, of how the candidate could approach and collaborate with the organization or community.
The candidate provides a logical explanation, with adequate detail, of how the candidate could approach and collaborate with the organization or community.
The candidate provides a logical explanation, with substantial detail, of how the candidate could approach and collaborate with the organization or community.
Criterion Score: 0.00 Comments on this criterion: 4/17/16 A clear discussion regarding how to approach and collaborate with the International Council of Nurses (ICN) is not located.
C2b. Goal Alignment
(0) 0=Unsatisfactory/Not present
(1) 1=Does Not Meet Standard
(2) 2=Minimally Competent
(3) 3=Competent (4) 4=Highly Competent
The candidate does not provide a logical discussion of how the goal of the community or organization aligns with the candidate’s goal for the selected public policy issue.
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with no detail, of how the goal of the community or organization aligns with the candidate’s goal for the selected public policy issue.
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with limited detail, of how the goal of the community or organization aligns with the candidate’s goal for the selected public policy issue.
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with adequate detail, of how the goal of the community or organization aligns with the candidate’s goal for the selected public policy issue.
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with substantial detail, of how the goal of the community or organization aligns with the candidate’s goal for the selected public policy issue.
Criterion Score: 2.00 Comments on this criterion: 4/17/16 The submission suggests that the ICN goal and objective of advocating for the rights of nurses is similar to the objective of safe nurse staffing policy advocacy. An adequately detailed discussion regarding how the goal of the ICN aligns with the goal for the policy issue is not located.
C2c. Action Steps
(0) 0=Unsatisfactory/Not present
(1) 1=Does Not Meet Standard
(2) 2=Minimally Competent
(3) 3=Competent (4) 4=Highly Competent
The candidate does not provide a logical discussion of the action steps that need to be taken to achieve the candidate’s goal from part C2b.
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with no detail, of the action steps that need to be taken to achieve the candidate’s goal from part C2b.
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with limited detail, of the action steps that need to be taken to achieve the candidate’s goal from part C2b.
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with adequate detail, of the action steps that need to be taken to achieve the candidate’s goal from part C2b.
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with substantial detail, of the action steps that need to be taken to achieve the candidate’s goal from part C2b.
Criterion Score: 0.00 Comments on this criterion: 4/17/16 Once a fully developed discussion is present regarding how the goal of the ICN aligns with the goal for the policy issue, then this aspect can be fairly assessed.
C2d. Roles/Responsibilities
(0) 0=Unsatisfactory/Not present
(1) 1=Does Not Meet Standard
(2) 2=Minimally Competent
(3) 3=Competent (4) 4=Highly Competent
The candidate does not provide a logical discussion of the possible roles/responsibilities of community or organization members,
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with no detail, of the possible roles/responsibilities of community or organization members,
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with limited detail, of the possible roles/responsibilities of community or organization members,
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with adequate detail, of the possible roles/responsibilities of community or organization members,
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with substantial detail, of the possible roles/responsibilities of community or organization members,
Printed on: 04/17/2016 05:26:23 PM (EST)
including problem solving and capacity building roles.
including problem solving and capacity building roles.
including problem solving and capacity building roles.
including problem solving and capacity building roles.
including problem solving and capacity building roles.
Criterion Score: 2.00 Comments on this criterion: 4/17/16 The submission suggests that persons possess varying skills and capabilities, individuals can choose to work independently or be required to help in the collection of data from patients and their families. Board members will draft participants willing to help in the policy implementation process, while capacity building activities and project capacity building team will include a variety of healthcare experts and partners. A detailed discussion of the possible roles/responsibilities of community or organization members, including problemsolving and capacitybuilding roles is not located.
C2e. Key Elements of Evaluation Plan
(0) 0=Unsatisfactory/Not present
(1) 1=Does Not Meet Standard
(2) 2=Minimally Competent
(3) 3=Competent (4) 4=Highly Competent
The candidate does not provide a logical discussion of key elements of developing a collaborative evaluation plan, using CBPR principles.
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with no detail, of key elements of developing a collaborative evaluation plan, using CBPR principles.
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with limited detail, of key elements of developing a collaborative evaluation plan, using CBPR principles.
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with adequate detail, of key elements of developing a collaborative evaluation plan, using CBPR principles.
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with substantial detail, of key elements of developing a collaborative evaluation plan, using CBPR principles.
Criterion Score: 0.00 Comments on this criterion: 4/17/16 Once the CBPR principles are that can be used to work with the organization or community to address a policy change for the public policy issue are identified, then this aspect will be fairly assessed.
C2f. Community/Organization Plan
(0) 0=Unsatisfactory/Not present
(1) 1=Does Not Meet Standard
(2) 2=Minimally Competent
(3) 3=Competent (4) 4=Highly Competent
The candidate does not provide a logical discussion of how the success of the community or organization plan will be evaluated (bottomup approach).
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with no detail, of how the success the community or organization plan will be evaluated (bottomup approach).
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with limited detail, of how the success of the community or organization plan will be evaluated (bottom up approach).
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with adequate detail, of how the success of the community or organization plan will be evaluated (bottom up approach).
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with substantial detail, of how the success of the community or organization plan will be evaluated (bottomup approach).
Criterion Score: 0.00 Comments on this criterion: 4/17/16 The submission discusses how "people at the household level will be essential in delivering and producing more accurate and richer data that will help in establishing precise results of the inquiry process." An adequately detailed discussion regarding how the success of the community or organization plan will be evaluated (bottomup approach) is not clearly identified.
D1. Strengths of Each Approach
(0) 0=Unsatisfactory/Not present
(1) 1=Does Not Meet Standard
(2) 2=Minimally Competent
(3) 3=Competent (4) 4=Highly Competent
The candidate does not provide a logical discussion of the strengths of each approach to implement change for the selected policy issue.
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with no detail, of the strengths of each approach to implement change for the selected public policy issue.
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with limited detail, of the strengths of each approach to implement change for the selected public policy issue.
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with adequate detail, of the strengths ofeach approach to implement change for the selected public policy issue.
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with substantial detail, of the strengths of each approach to implement change for the selected public policy issue.
Criterion Score: 1.00
Printed on: 04/17/2016 05:26:23 PM (EST)
Comments on this criterion: 4/17/16 A discussion regarding the strengths of the top down and bottom up approach is not adequately represented or clearly located.
D2. Challenges of Each Approach
(0) 0=Unsatisfactory/Not present
(1) 1=Does Not Meet Standard
(2) 2=Minimally Competent
(3) 3=Competent (4) 4=Highly Competent
The candidate does not provide a logical discussion of the challenges of each approach to implement change for the selected public policy issue.
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with no detail, of the challenges of each approach to implement change for the selected public policy issue.
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with limited detail, of the challenges of each approach to implement change for the selected public policy issue.
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with adequate detail, of the challenges of each approach to implement change for the selected public policy issue.
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with substantial detail, of the challenges of each approach to implement change for the selected public policy issue.
Criterion Score: 1.00 Comments on this criterion: 4/17/16 A discussion regarding the challenges of the top down and bottom up approach is not adequately represented or clearly located.
D3. Most Effective Approach
(0) 0=Unsatisfactory/Not present
(1) 1=Does Not Meet Standard
(2) 2=Minimally Competent
(3) 3=Competent (4) 4=Highly Competent
The candidate does not provide a logical discussion of which approach the candidate would recommend as the most effective to address the selected public policy issue.
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with no detail, of the challenges which approach the candidate would recommend as the most effective to address the selected public policy issue.
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with limited detail, of which approach the candidate would recommend as the most effective to address the selected public policy issue.
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with adequate detail, of which approach the candidate would recommend as the most effective to address the selected public policy issue.
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with substantial detail, of which approach the candidate would recommend as the most effective to address the selected public policy issue.
Criterion Score: 3.00 Comments on this criterion: 4/17/16 The submission identifies the bottom up approach as the most effective approach.
E. Sources
(0) 0=Unsatisfactory/Not present
(1) 1=Does Not Meet Standard
(2) 2=Minimally Competent
(3) 3=Competent (4) 4=Highly Competent
When the candidate uses sources, the candidate does not provide intext citations and references.
When the candidate uses sources, the candidate provides only some intext citations and references.
When the candidate uses sources, the candidate provides appropriate intext citations and references with major deviations from APA style.
When the candidate uses sources, the candidate provides appropriate intext citations and references with minor deviations from APA style.
When the candidate uses sources, the candidate provides appropriate intext citations and references with no readily detectable deviations from APA style, OR the candidate does not use sources.
Criterion Score: 4.00 Comments on this criterion: 4/17/16 Sources and intext citations are located within the submission.
Printed on: 04/17/2016 05:26:23 PM (EST)
