Root Cause Analysis

Grading Rubric - Root Cause Analysis Paper Course: Fa21 Nursing Leadership 1 2950 10

Criteria Exemplary Proficient Developing Unacceptable Criterion Score

Criteria Exemplary Proficient Developing Unacceptable Criterion Score

Organization

and Clarity

/ 55 points

◻Includes clearly identified and

defined

introduction,

body, and

conclusion.

□Topic is introduced with

logical

progression of

ideas follows

toward the

conclusion

without

extraneous

information

included.

□Headings provide clarity

about the

competencies

addressed with

the assignment.

□Ideas are expressed clearly

and succinctly

using focused,

professional

language.

□Strong concluding

statements are

supported in the

body of the

paper.

4 points

□Includes introduction,

body, and

conclusion.

□Topic is introduced with

logical

progression of

ideas.

□Headings used help the flow of

content of the

paper.

□Relevant ideas are presented

clearly and

succinctly.

□Conclusions are clearly stated

but not always

supported in the

body of the

paper.

3 points

□Introduction, body, and

conclusion not

clearly identified

or defined.

□Requires some effort to follow

ideas across the

document.

□Headings are misleading or

lack relevance to

the content

presented

within.

□Relevant ideas are presented,

but the thinking

surrounding

them could be

more organized.

□Conclusions are limited or

lacking a link to

the body of the

paper.

2 points

□Introduction, body, and

conclusion not

clearly identified

or absent.

□Minimal evidence

of logical flow.

□Document contains no

headings.

□Ideas presented in

disorganized

manner

□Lacks clarity of purpose for

writing about the

topic.

Criteria Exemplary Proficient Developing Unacceptable Criterion Score

Evidence-

Based Sources

/ 66 points

□Exceeds required number

of relevant,

credible, and

scholarly

evidence-based

references.

□Those selected vary in type and

include

textbooks,

Websites, and

seminal sources

of evidence-

based, scholarly

works.

5 points

□Required number of

relevant,

credible, and

scholarly

evidence-based

references

□Those selected vary in type and

include

textbooks,

articles, and

Websites, but

sources of

evidence-based,

scholarly works

are limited.

4 points

□Cites minimum number of

required

references.

□Sources are only textbooks

and Websites.

No evidence-

based, scholarly

resources are

cited.

3 points

□Less than the required number

of references.

□Sources included are not

credible or valid,

scholarly

sources.

Criteria Exemplary Proficient Developing Unacceptable Criterion Score

Synthesis / 77 points

□ Integrated findings from 3

or more

references to

create a root

cause analysis.

□ Exceptional depth to root

cause analysis of

contributing

factors.

□ Clearly identified 3 root

causes that

demonstrated

obvious

connections to

the identified

problem/issue.

□ Root cause analysis tool was

correctly

formatted within

the document.

6 points

□ Integrated findings from 2

references to

create a root

cause analysis.

□ Root cause analysis has

sufficient depth

to contributing

factors.

□ 3 root causes identified.

Connection to

identified

problem/issue

can be inferred.

□ Root cause analysis tool was

in electronic

format,

professionally

created as a

separate

document.

5 points

□ Integrated findings from 1

reference to

create a root

cause analysis.

□ Root cause analysis has

minimal depth to

contributing

factors.

□ Root causes were not clearly

identified or did

not connect to

problem/issue

identified in the

analysis tool.

□ Root cause analysis tool was

in electronic

format. Diagram

was not

professionally

created. Separate

document.

4 points

□ Offered only opinions, no

exploration of

evidence base.

□ Root cause analysis not

completed.

□ Root causes were not

identified.

□ Root cause analysis tool was

hand-written in

paper format.

Criteria Exemplary Proficient Developing Unacceptable Criterion Score

Discussion/Po

sition

/ 66 points

□ Integrated findings from 3

or more

references to

create Action

Plan.

□ Synthesized evidence-based

findings on the

topic to nursing

practice.

□ In-depth Action Plan

included all three

components:

actions/

interventions,

responsible

person(s), and

timeline.

□ The plan for dissemination

was in-depth and

practical.

5 points

□ Integrated findings from 2

references to

create Action

Plan.

□ Thoughtful identification and

application of

evidence-based

findings on the

topic to nursing

practice.

□ Action Plan included all three

components:

actions/

interventions,

responsible

person(s), and

timeline.

□ The plan for dissemination

included

appropriate

strategies.

4 points

□ Integrated findings from 1

reference to

create Action

Plan.

□ Limited identification of

evidence-based

findings on the

topic to nursing

practice.

□ Action Plan included actions/

interventions

only.

□ The plan for dissemination

was vague and

impractical.

3 points

□ Offered only opinions to

create Action

Plan.

□ Unable to identify

evidence-based

findings on the

topic to nursing

practice.

□ There is no Action Plan.

□ The plan for dissemination

was unclear or

missing.

Criteria Exemplary Proficient Developing Unacceptable Criterion Score

Mechanics of

Writing

/ 33 points

□ Entire text flowed smoothly

with clear

transitions and

sentence

structure. Tone is

appropriate.

□ 3 or fewer unique errors in

grammar, spelling

or punctuation.

□Evidence that the paper was

proofread before

submission.

□Proofreader recommendation

s, if necessary,

were

incorporated.

2 points

□ Most text flowed smoothly.

A few awkward

transitions/

fragmented or

run-on

sentences. Tone

is appropriate.

□ 4-6 unique errors in

grammar,

spelling, or

punctuation.

□Evidence that the paper was

proofread before

submission.

□Proofreader recommendation

s were

incorporated.

1 point

□ Text did not flow well in

sections.

Awkward

transitions

/sentence

structure

present. Tone is

informal with

excessive use of

idioms and/or

colloquialisms.

□ 7-9 unique errors in

grammar,

spelling, or

punctuation.

□Evidence that the paper was

proofread before

submission.

□It's unclear that proofreader

recommendation

s were

incorporated.

0 points

□ Text did not flow throughout

paper.

Transitions are

not present.

□ Greater than 10 unique errors

in grammar,

spelling, or

punctuation.

□ No evidence that the paper

was proofread

before

submission.

Total / 30

Overall Score

Criteria Exemplary Proficient Developing Unacceptable Criterion Score

APA / 33 points

□ Document demonstrated

accurate APA

formatting.

□ 3 unique errors in APA

formatting of

citations and

references.

2 points

□ Document demonstrated a

couple errors in

APA formatting.

□ 4-5 unique errors in APA

formatting of

citations and

references.

1 point

□ Document demonstrated

several errors in

APA formatting.

□ 6-7 unique errors in APA

formatting of

citations and

references.

0 points

□ Document did not demonstrate

an attempt at

APA formatting.

□ Greater than 7 unique errors in

APA formatting

of citations and

references

Exemplary 27 points minimum

Proficient 24 points minimum

Developing 21 points minimum

Unacceptable 0 points minimum