| Course Code | Class Code | Assignment Title | Total Points |
| HCA-530 | HCA-530-O500 | Economic Evaluations | 75.0 |
| Criteria | Percentage | Unsatisfactory (0.00%) | Less Than Satisfactory (74.00%) | Satisfactory (79.00%) | Good (87.00%) | Excellent (100.00%) | Comments | Points Earned |
| Content | 70.0% |
| Importance of Evaluations in Health Economics | 20.0% | Importance of evaluation in health economics is not present. | Importance of evaluation in health economics is present but lacks detail or is incomplete. | Importance of evaluation in health economics is basic. | Importance of evaluation in health economics is detailed. | Importance of evaluation in health economics is thorough. |
| Comparison of the Four Types of Economic Analysis | 20.0% | Comparison of the four types of economic analysis is not present. | Comparison of the four types of economic analysis is present but lacks detail or is incomplete. | Comparison of the four types of economic analysis is basic. | Comparison of the four types of economic analysis is detailed. | Comparison of the four types of economic analysis is thorough. |
| Relation Between Economic Evaluations and Health Policy | 15.0% | Relation between economic evaluations and health policy is not present. | Relation between economic evaluations and health policy is present but lacks detail or is incomplete. | Relation between economic evaluations and health policy is basic. | Relation between economic evaluations and health policy is detailed. | Relation between economic evaluations and health policy is thorough. |
| Role of Technology in Economic Evaluations | 15.0% | Role of technology in economic evaluations is not present. | Role of technology in economic evaluations is present but lacks detail or is incomplete. | Role of technology in economic evaluations is basic. | Role of technology in economic evaluations is detailed. | Role of technology in economic evaluations is thorough. |
| Organization and Effectiveness | 20.0% |
| 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 progressions. Techniques of argumentation are evident. There is a smooth progression of claims from introduction to conclusion. Most sources are authoritative. | Clear and convincing argument that 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. |
| Format | 10.0% |
| 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% |
Gentle
Rubric_Print_Format.xlsx
