Friday 3
ddiaz85
Rubric.docxRubric
Criteria Description
Project Topic for Focus of Change Proposal
5. Excellent
2.5 points
The problem or issue, intervention, quality initiative, educational need, or collaborative interprofessional team project that will be the focus of the change proposal is clearly and logically presented. Support and rationale are evident.
4. Good
2.23 points
The problem or issue, intervention, quality initiative, educational need, or collaborative interprofessional team project that will be the focus of the change proposal is presented. Minor aspects are unclear or require support.
3. Satisfactory
1.98 points
The problem or issue, intervention, quality initiative, educational need, or collaborative interprofessional team project that will be the focus of the change proposal is summarized. There are some omissions or inaccuracies. Some support is needed.
2. Less Than Satisfactory
1.88 points
The problem or issue, intervention, quality initiative, educational need, or collaborative interprofessional team project that will be the focus of the change proposal is presented but is largely incomplete.
1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
The problem or issue, intervention, quality initiative, educational need, or collaborative interprofessional team project that will be the focus of the change proposal is omitted.
Setting or Context Where Project Topic Is Observed
5 points
Criteria Description
Setting or Context Where Project Topic Is Observed
5. Excellent
5 points
The setting or context in which the problem or issue, intervention, quality initiative, educational need, or collaborative interprofessional team project can be observed is logically presented. Support and rationale are evident.
4. Good
4.45 points
The setting or context in which the problem or issue, intervention, quality initiative, educational need, or collaborative interprofessional team project can be observed is presented. Minor aspects are unclear or require support.
3. Satisfactory
3.95 points
The setting or context in which the problem or issue, intervention, quality initiative, educational need, or collaborative interprofessional team project can be observed is summarized. There are some omissions or inaccuracies. Some support is needed.
2. Less Than Satisfactory
3.75 points
The setting or context in which the problem or issue, intervention, quality initiative, educational need, or collaborative interprofessional team project can be observed is presented but is largely incomplete.
1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
The setting or context in which the problem or issue, intervention, quality initiative, educational need, or collaborative interprofessional team project can be observed is omitted.
Detailed Description of Project Topic
7.5 points
Criteria Description
Detailed Description of Project Topic
5. Excellent
7.5 points
A detailed description of the project topic is clearly and logically presented. Support and rationale are evident.
4. Good
6.68 points
A description of the project topic is presented. Minor aspects are unclear or require support.
3. Satisfactory
5.93 points
A description of the project topic is presented. There are some omissions or inaccuracies. Some support is needed.
2. Less Than Satisfactory
5.63 points
A description of the project topic is presented but is largely incomplete.
1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
A description of the project topic is omitted.
Effect of Identified Problem or Issue
7.5 points
Criteria Description
Effect of Identified Problem or Issue
5. Excellent
7.5 points
Effect of the identified problem or issue, intervention, quality initiative, educational need, or collaborative interprofessional team project is clearly and logically presented. Support and rationale are evident.
4. Good
6.68 points
Effect of the identified problem or issue, intervention, quality initiative, educational need, or collaborative interprofessional team project is presented. Minor aspects are unclear or require support.
3. Satisfactory
5.93 points
Effect of the identified problem or issue, intervention, quality initiative, educational need, or collaborative interprofessional team project is summarized. There are some omissions or inaccuracies. Some support is needed.
2. Less Than Satisfactory
5.63 points
Effect of the identified problem or issue, intervention, quality initiative, educational need, or collaborative interprofessional team project is presented but is largely incomplete.
1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
Effect of the identified problem or issue, intervention, quality initiative, educational need, or collaborative interprofessional team project is omitted.
Topic Significance and Implications for Nursing Practice
7.5 points
Criteria Description
Topic Significance and Implications for Nursing Practice
5. Excellent
7.5 points
Topic and criteria are clearly and logically presented. Support and rationale are evident.
4. Good
6.68 points
Topic and criteria are presented. Minor aspects are unclear or require support.
3. Satisfactory
5.93 points
Topic and most criteria are presented. There are some omissions or inaccuracies. Some support is needed.
2. Less Than Satisfactory
5.63 points
Topic is presented but criteria are incomplete.
1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
Significance of topic and its implications for nursing practice is omitted.
Proposed Solution for Identified Project Topic and Implications for Nursing Practice
7.5 points
Criteria Description
Proposed Solution for Identified Project Topic and Implications for Nursing Practice
5. Excellent
7.5 points
Topic and criteria are clearly and logically presented. Support and rationale are evident.
4. Good
6.68 points
Topic and criteria are presented. Minor aspects are unclear or require support.
3. Satisfactory
5.93 points
Topic and most criteria are presented. There are some omissions or inaccuracies. Some support is needed.
2. Less Than Satisfactory
5.63 points
Topic is presented but criteria are incomplete.
1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
A proposed solution to the identified project topic with an explanation of how it will affect nursing practice is omitted.
Peer-Reviewed Articles
2.5 points
Criteria Description
Peer-Reviewed Articles
5. Excellent
2.5 points
Eight peer-reviewed articles are presented, and each article clearly meets the assignment criteria.
4. Good
2.23 points
Eight peer-reviewed articles are presented. Overall, only seven articles meet the assignment criteria.
3. Satisfactory
1.98 points
Eight peer-reviewed articles are presented. Overall, only six articles meet the assignment criteria.
2. Less Than Satisfactory
1.88 points
Fewer than seven peer-reviewed articles are presented. Overall, only five articles meet the assignment criteria.
1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
Fewer than six peer-reviewed articles are presented.
Thesis Development and Purpose
2.5 points
Criteria Description
Thesis Development and Purpose
5. Excellent
2.5 points
Thesis is comprehensive and contains the essence of the paper. Thesis statement makes the purpose of the paper clear.
4. Good
2.23 points
Thesis is clear and forecasts the development of the paper. Thesis is descriptive and reflective of the arguments and appropriate to the purpose.
3. Satisfactory
1.98 points
Thesis is apparent and appropriate to purpose.
2. Less Than Satisfactory
1.88 points
Thesis is insufficiently developed or vague. Purpose is not clear.
1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
Paper lacks any discernible overall purpose or organizing claim.
Argument Logic and Construction
2.5 points
Criteria Description
Argument Logic and Construction
5. Excellent
2.5 points
Clear and convincing argument presents a persuasive claim in a distinctive and compelling manner. All sources are authoritative.
4. Good
2.23 points
Argument shows logical progression. Techniques of argumentation are evident. There is a smooth progression of claims from introduction to conclusion. Most sources are authoritative.
3. Satisfactory
1.98 points
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.
2. Less Than Satisfactory
1.88 points
Sufficient justification of claims is lacking. Argument lacks consistent unity. There are obvious flaws in the logic. Some sources have questionable credibility.
1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
Statement of purpose is not justified by the conclusion. The conclusion does not support the claim made. Argument is incoherent and uses noncredible sources.
Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use)
2.5 points
Criteria Description
Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use)
5. Excellent
2.5 points
Writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English.
4. Good
2.23 points
Prose is largely free of mechanical errors, although a few may be present. A variety of sentence structures and effective figures of speech are used.
3. Satisfactory
1.98 points
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.
2. Less Than Satisfactory
1.88 points
Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistencies in language choice (register), sentence structure, or word choice are present.
1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice or sentence construction is used.
Paper Format (use of appropriate style for the major and assignment)
1 points
Criteria Description
Paper Format (use of appropriate style for the major and assignment)
5. Excellent
1 points
All format elements are correct.
4. Good
0.89 points
Template is fully used; There are virtually no errors in formatting style.
3. Satisfactory
0.79 points
Template is used, and formatting is correct, although some minor errors may be present.
2. Less Than Satisfactory
0.75 points
Template is used, but some elements are missing or mistaken; lack of control with formatting is apparent.
1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
Template is not used appropriately, or documentation format is rarely followed correctly.
Documentation of Sources
1.5 points
Criteria Description
Documentation of Sources (citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc., as appropriate to assignment and style)
5. Excellent
1.5 points
Sources are completely and correctly documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is free of error.
4. Good
1.34 points
Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is mostly correct.
3. Satisfactory
1.19 points
Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, although some formatting errors may be present.
2. Less Than Satisfactory
1.13 points
Documentation of sources is inconsistent or incorrect, as appropriate to assignment and style, with numerous formatting errors.
1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
Sources are not documented.
