| Course Code | Class Code | Assignment Title | Total Points |
| CNL-605 | CNL-605-O500 | CNL-605 Benchmark – Treating Schizophrenia (Obj. 5.1) | 110.0 |
| 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% |
| Schizophrenia Symptoms | 20.0% | Explanation of the symptoms a client with schizophrenia would exhibit and what symptoms Ted displays in the case study is not present or discernable to the reader. | Explanation of the symptoms a client with schizophrenia would exhibit and what symptoms Ted displays in the case study is incomplete or contains some flaws, though the content provided is generally accurate. | Explanation of the symptoms a client with schizophrenia would exhibit and what symptoms Ted displays in the case study is complete and accurate. | Explanation of the symptoms a client with schizophrenia would exhibit and what symptoms Ted displays in the case study is thorough and well-reasoned. | Explanation of the symptoms a client with schizophrenia would exhibit and what symptoms Ted displays in the case study is complete, accurate, well-reasoned, and fully supported. Student illustrates advanced understanding of the symptoms. |
| Possible Secondary Diagnoses | 20.0% | Explanation of potential secondary diagnoses and evidence needed to support the diagnoses and why is not present or not discernible to the reader. | Explanation of potential secondary diagnoses and evidence needed to support the diagnoses and why is incomplete or contains some flaws, though the content provided is generally accurate. | Explanation of potential secondary diagnoses and evidence needed to support the diagnoses and why is complete and accurate. | Explanation of potential secondary diagnoses and evidence needed to support the diagnoses and why is thorough and well-reasoned. | Explanation of potential secondary diagnoses and evidence needed to support the diagnoses and why is complete, accurate, well-reasoned, and fully supported. Student illustrates advanced understanding of how a client may be misdiagnosed. |
| Theories for Treating Ted's Schizophrenia | 10.0% | Explanation of theories that might be most effective and least effective for treating Ted's schizophrenia is not present or not discernible to the reader. | Explanation of theories that might be most effective and least effective for treating Ted's schizophrenia is incomplete or contains some flaws, though the content provided is generally accurate. | Explanation of theories that might be most effective and least effective for treating Ted's schizophrenia is complete and accurate. | Explanation of theories that might be most effective and least effective for treating Ted's schizophrenia is thorough and well-reasoned. | Explanation of theories that might be most effective and least effective for treating Ted's schizophrenia is complete, accurate, well-reasoned, and fully supported. Student illustrates advanced understanding of the importance of evaluating theories for treating a client's symptoms. |
| Treatment Goals and Objectives (C1.4) | 20.0% | Discussion identifying three treatment goals and three objectives is not present or not discernible to the reader. | Discussion identifying three treatment goals and three objectives is incomplete or contains some flaws, though the content provided is generally accurate. | Discussion identifying three treatment goals and three objectives is complete and accurate. | Discussion identifying three treatment goals and three objectives is thorough and well-reasoned. | Discussion identifying three treatment goals and three objectives is thorough, well-reasoned, and fully supported. Student illustrates advanced understanding of treatment options for addressing all of a client's symptoms during the treatment process. |
| 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 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. |
| 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% |
olhutto
Rubric_Print_Format4.xlsx
