| Course Code | Class Code | Assignment Title | Total Points |
| HLT-490V | HLT-490V-O500 | Reviewing the Literature | 110.0 |
| Criteria | Percentage | Unsatisfactory (0.00%) | Less Than Satisfactory (65.00%) | Satisfactory (75.00%) | Good (85.00%) | Excellent (100.00%) | Comments | Points Earned |
| Content | 70.0% |
| Summary of Clinical Issue | 2.0% | Summary of clinical issue is omitted. | The clinical issue is only partially discussed. | The clinical issue is generally outlined. More information or support is needed. | The clinical issue is described. Minor detail is needed for accuracy or clarity. | The clinical issue is succinct and thoroughly described. |
| PICO Questions | 3.0% | The PICO question for the proposed topic is omitted. | NA | NA | NA | The PICO question for the proposed topic is stated. |
| Literature Evaluation Table | 15.0% | The table is incomplete or fails to meet the assignment criteria overall. | Fewer than 10 articles in support of the proposed topic are presented. Fewer than six articles are peer reviewed or research based. The criteria for this assignment are only partially met. | Ten to 12 articles in support of the proposed topic are presented. One or two articles are not peer reviewed. Only six or seven articles are research based. The criteria are generally met for each article. There are some omissions or inaccuracies. | Ten to 12 peer-reviewed articles in support of the proposed topic are presented. At least eight of the articles are research based. The criteria are adequate and met for each article. | Ten to 12 peer-reviewed articles in support of the proposed topic are presented. Eight or more of the articles are research based. The criteria are complete, informative, and fully met for each article. |
| Analysis of Literature: Summary of Purpose | 15.0% | The analysis of the literature is incomplete. | The appraisal of each article is inaccurate or contains omissions. The overall summary analysis presented does not demonstrate support for the PICO question. | Each article is appraised, and the purpose is generally summarized. Some aspects are vague. The overall summary analysis of the research demonstrates general support for the PICO question. More information or support is needed. | Each article is appraised, and the purpose is discussed. The summary is informative and concise for each article. The overall summary analysis of the research demonstrates support for the PICO question. Some detail is needed for support or accuracy. | Each article is clearly appraised, and the purpose is detailed and concise. The summary is informative and concise for each article. The overall summary analysis of the research demonstrates compelling support for the PICO question. |
| Analysis of Literature: Relation of Research to Proposed Project Topic | 15.0% | How each article or the research relates to the selected health care problem or issue is not discussed. The narrative does not support the selected problem or issue. | How each article or the research relates to the selected health care problem or issue is only partially discussed. The narrative only partially supports the selected problem or issue. | A summary for how each article or the research relates to the selected health care problem or issue is presented. Some aspects are vague. The narrative generally supports the selected problem or issue. More information or support is needed. | How each article or the research relates to the selected health care problem or issue is described. The narrative establishes support for the selected problem or issue. Some detail is needed for support or accuracy. | A description for how each article or the research relates to the selected health care problem or issue is detailed. The narrative is thorough, well supported, and establishes support for the selected problem or issue. |
| Analysis of Literature: Explanation of How Research Evidence Supports Proposed Intervention | 20.0% | An explanation for how the evidence in the article or the research supports the proposed intervention is not presented. The evidence does not support the proposed intervention | The explanation for how the evidence in the article or the research supports the proposed intervention is incomplete. The evidence only partially supports the proposed intervention. | A summary for how the evidence in the article or the research supports the proposed intervention is presented. The evidence generally supports the proposed intervention. | An explanation for how the evidence in the article or the research supports the proposed intervention is presented. The evidence supports the proposed intervention. | A well-supported explanation for how the evidence in the article or the research supports the proposed intervention is presented. The evidence demonstrates strong support for the proposed intervention. |
| Organization, Effectiveness, and Format | 30.0% |
| Thesis Development and Purpose | 7.0% | Paper lacks any discernible overall purpose or organizing claim. | Thesis is insufficiently developed or vague. Purpose is not clear. | Thesis is apparent and appropriate to purpose. | Thesis is clear and forecasts the development of the paper. Thesis is descriptive and reflective of the arguments and appropriate to the purpose. | Thesis is comprehensive and contains the essence of the paper. Thesis statement makes the purpose of the paper clear. |
| Argument Logic and Construction | 8.0% | Statement of purpose is not justified by the conclusion. The conclusion does not support the claim made. Argument is incoherent and uses noncredible sources. | Sufficient justification of claims is lacking. Argument lacks consistent unity. There are obvious flaws in the logic. Some sources have questionable credibility. | Argument is orderly but may have a few inconsistencies. The argument presents minimal justification of claims. Argument logically, but not thoroughly, supports the purpose. Sources used are credible. Introduction and conclusion bracket the thesis. | Argument shows logical progression. Techniques of argumentation are evident. There is a smooth progression of claims from introduction to conclusion. Most sources are authoritative. | Clear and convincing argument presents a persuasive claim in a distinctive and compelling manner. All sources are authoritative. |
| Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use) | 5.0% | Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice or sentence construction is used. | Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistencies in language choice (register) or word choice are present. Sentence structure is correct but not varied. | Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but they are not overly distracting to the reader. Correct and varied sentence structure and audience-appropriate language are employed. | Prose is largely free of mechanical errors, although a few may be present. The writer uses a variety of effective sentence structures and figures of speech. | Writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English. |
| Paper Format (use of appropriate style for the major and assignment) | 5.0% | Template is not used appropriately, or documentation format is rarely followed correctly. | Appropriate template is used, but some elements are missing or mistaken. A lack of control with formatting is apparent. | Appropriate template is used. Formatting is correct, although some minor errors may be present. | Appropriate template is fully used. There are virtually no errors in formatting style. | All format elements are correct. |
| Documentation of Sources (citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc., as appropriate to assignment and style) | 5.0% | Sources are not documented. | Documentation of sources is inconsistent or incorrect, as appropriate to assignment and style, with numerous formatting errors. | Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, although some formatting errors may be present. | Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is mostly correct. | Sources are completely and correctly documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is free of error. |
| Total Weightage | 100% |
Drakejosh
ReviewingliteratureRubric.xlsx
