Applied Sciences Health Care Job Analysis/ Health Care Accrediatation Assignment

Health Care Accreditation - Rubric Total 90 points

Criterion 1. Unsatisfactory 2. Less than

Satisfactory 3. Satisfactory 4. Good 5. Excellent

Accreditation

Accreditation

0 points

An explanation of whether or

not the accreditation is

mandatory, the purpose for

the accreditation, and how it

supports the organization is

absent, inappropriate, or

irrelevant.

5.85 points

An explanation of whether or

not the accreditation is

mandatory, the purpose for

the accreditation, and how it

supports the organization is

weak or marginal and

contains gaps.

6.75 points

An explanation of whether or

not the accreditation is

mandatory, the purpose for

the accreditation, and how it

supports the organization is

at the cursory level and

contains minimal gaps.

7.65 points

An explanation of whether or

not the accreditation is

mandatory, the purpose for

the accreditation, and how it

supports the organization is

clear and integrated and

contains no gaps.

9 points

An explanation of whether or

not the accreditation is

mandatory, the purpose for

the accreditation, and how it

supports the organization is

thorough and well integrated

and contains no gaps.

Importance of

Accreditation

Importance of Accreditation

0 points

A description of why this

accreditation is important to

the patient, to the

organization, to the

community, and to health

care is absent, inappropriate,

or irrelevant.

5.85 points

A description of why this

accreditation is important to

the patient, to the

organization, to the

community, and to health

care is weak or marginal and

contains gaps.

6.75 points

A description of why this

accreditation is important to

the patient, to the

organization, to the

community, and to health

care is at the cursory level

and contains minimal gaps.

7.65 points

A description of why this

accreditation is important to

the patient, to the

organization, to the

community, and to health

care is clear and integrated

and contains no gaps.

9 points

A description of why this

accreditation is important to

the patient, to the

organization, to the

community, and to health

care is thorough and well

integrated and contains no

gaps.

Requirements and

Accreditation

Requirements and

Accreditation

0 points

A description of accreditation

requirements for the

organization and resources

needed to maintain

accreditation is absent,

inappropriate, or irrelevant.

5.85 points

A description of accreditation

requirements for the

organization and resources

needed to maintain

accreditation is weak or

marginal and contains gaps.

6.75 points

A description of accreditation

requirements for the

organization and resources

needed to maintain

accreditation is at the

cursory level and contains

minimal gaps.

7.65 points

A description of accreditation

requirements for the

organization and resources

needed to maintain

accreditation is clear and

integrated and contains no

gaps.

9 points

A description of accreditation

requirements for the

organization and resources

needed to maintain

accreditation is thorough and

well integrated and contains

no gaps.

Initial Accreditation and

Reaccreditation

Initial Accreditation and

Reaccreditation

0 points

A description of the

accreditation process from

initial accreditation to

reaccreditation is unclear

and incorrect. A description

of the differences between

the two types of

accreditation is incorrect.

5.85 points

A description of the

accreditation process from

initial accreditation to

reaccreditation is unclear

and lacking details. A

description of the differences

between the two types of

accreditation is unclear.

6.75 points

A description of the

accreditation process from

initial accreditation to

reaccreditation is generic. A

basic description of the

differences between the two

types of accreditation is

included.

7.65 points

A description of the

accreditation process from

initial accreditation to

reaccreditation is detailed. A

skillful description of the

differences between the two

types of accreditation is

included.

9 points

A description of the

accreditation process from

initial accreditation to

reaccreditation is discussed

in extensive detail. A skillful

and thoughtful description of

the differences between the

two types of accreditation is

included.

Licensure

Licensure

0 points

A description of whether or

not the licensure is

mandatory and the purpose

for the licensure is absent,

inappropriate, or irrelevant.

5.85 points

A description of whether or

not the licensure is

mandatory and the purpose

for the licensure is weak or

marginal and contains gaps.

6.75 points

A description of whether or

not the licensure is

mandatory and the purpose

for the licensure is at the

cursory level and contains

minimal gaps.

7.65 points

A description of whether or

not the licensure is

mandatory and the purpose

for the licensure is clear and

integrated and contains no

gaps.

9 points

A description of whether or

not the licensure is

mandatory and the purpose

for the licensure is thorough

and well integrated and

contains no gaps.

Consequences and

Licensure

Consequences and Licensure

0 points

A description of the

consequences for the

organization if it were to lose

the licensure is absent,

inappropriate, or irrelevant.

5.85 points

A description of the

consequences for the

organization if it were to lose

the licensure is weak or

marginal and contains gaps.

6.75 points

A description of the

consequences for the

organization if it were to lose

the licensure is at the cursory

level and contains minimal

gaps.

7.65 points

A description of the

consequences for the

organization if it were to lose

the licensure is clear and

integrated and contains no

gaps.

9 points

A description of the

consequences for the

organization if it were to lose

the licensure is thorough and

well integrated and contains

no gaps.

Consequences of

Accrediting Process and

Licensing

Consequences of Accrediting

Process and Licensing

0 points

A description of the

consequences associated

with both the accreditation

process and licensing is

absent, inappropriate, or

irrelevant.

5.85 points

A description of the

consequences associated

with both the accreditation

process and licensing is weak

or marginal and contains

gaps.

6.75 points

A description of the

consequences associated

with both the accreditation

process and licensing is at

the cursory level and

contains minimal gaps.

7.65 points

A description of the

consequences associated

with both the accreditation

process and licensing is clear

and integrated and contains

no gaps.

9 points

A description of the

consequences associated

with both the accreditation

process and licensing is

thorough and well integrated

and contains no gaps.© 2026. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.

Criterion 1. Unsatisfactory 2. Less than

Satisfactory 3. Satisfactory 4. Good 5. Excellent

Thesis Development and

Purpose

Thesis Development and

Purpose

0 points

Paper lacks any discernible

overall purpose or organizing

claim.

4.1 points

Thesis is insufficiently

developed or vague. Purpose

is not clear.

4.73 points

Thesis is apparent and

appropriate to purpose.

5.35 points

Thesis is clear and forecasts

the development of the

paper. Thesis is descriptive

and reflective of the

arguments and appropriate

to the purpose.

6.3 points

Thesis is comprehensive and

contains the essence of the

paper. Thesis statement

makes the purpose of the

paper clear.

Argument Logic and

Construction

Argument Logic and

Construction

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.

4.68 points

Sufficient justification of

claims is lacking. Argument

lacks consistent unity. There

are obvious flaws in the logic.

Some sources have

questionable credibility.

5.4 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.

6.12 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.

7.2 points

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)

Mechanics of Writing

(includes spelling,

punctuation, grammar,

language use)

0 points

Surface errors are pervasive

enough that they impede

communication of meaning.

Inappropriate word choice or

sentence construction is

used.

2.93 points

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.

3.38 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.

3.82 points

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.

4.5 points

Writer is clearly in command

of standard, written,

academic English.

Paper Format (use of

appropriate style for the

major and assignment)

Paper Format (use of

appropriate style for the

major and assignment)

0 points

appropriately, or

documentation format is

rarely followed correctly.

2.93 points

Appropriate template is

used, but some elements are

missing or mistaken. A lack

of control with formatting is

apparent.

3.38 points

Appropriate template is

used. Formatting is correct,

although some minor errors

may be present.

3.82 points

Appropriate template is fully

used. There are virtually no

errors in formatting style.

4.5 points

All format elements are

correct.

Documentation of Sources

Documentation of Sources

(citations, footnotes,

references, bibliography, etc.,

as appropriate to assignment

and style)

0 points

Sources are not documented.

2.93 points

Documentation of sources is

inconsistent or incorrect, as

appropriate to assignment

and style, with numerous

formatting errors.

3.38 points

Sources are documented, as

appropriate to assignment

and style, although some

formatting errors may be

present.

3.82 points

Sources are documented, as

appropriate to assignment

and style, and format is

mostly correct.

4.5 points

Sources are completely and

correctly documented, as

appropriate to assignment

and style, and format is free

of error.

© 2026. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.