| Course Code | Class Code |
| HLT-555 | HLT-555-O500 | Health Impact Assessment (Benchmark Assignment) | 100.0 |
| 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% |
| Overview and description of HIA | 15.0% | Overview of an HIA is either not present or not evident to the reader. | Overview is insufficiently developed and/or vague. Purpose is not clear, and paper lacks any discernible overall purpose or organizing claim. | Overview is present but lacks clarity and/or depth. Does not provide a comprehensive description of an HIA. | Overview and description of HIA is clear, forecasting development of paper. | Overview is comprehensive and provides sufficient description of an HIA. A clear analysis regarding how an HIA differs from other assessments is provided. |
| Explains the information needed to estimate the effects of the proposed project on population health | 30.0% | Analysis of the criteria is not outlined or outlined poorly. Fails to describe the information needed. | Minimally describes the information needed of the project and/or of the community. | Provides some description of the information needed, but lacks sufficient rationale and/or justification. | Analysis of information needed is competent and appropriate for the criteria. Clear descriptions and rationale of the information needed is evident. | Thoughtfully analyzes and evaluates the information that needs to be researched to determine the effects of the proposed project and the health of the population. |
| Recommendations for action | 15.0% | No recommendations were provided or are not made evident. | Few recommendations were outlined to support the assignment. | The recommendations stated are adequate and standard in relevance and/or quality, but lacking in sufficient rationale and/or justification. | Recommendations for action are clearly described and rationale is evident. Recommendations are relevant to the issues stated in the assignment criteria. | Recommendations to mitigate adverse health effects and promote positive health effects are well-described and include justification and purpose. Addresses all of the issues stated in the assignment criteria. |
| Conclusion: Dissemination to decision makers | 10.0% | Conclusion is either not present or not evident to the reader. | Conclusion is insufficiently developed and/or vague and lacks any discernible purpose. | Conclusion is present and some decision makers are identified, but justification and support is lacking. | Conclusion is clear and identifies key decision makers who would need this information. Rationale is sufficient and relevant to the assignment criteria. | Conclusion is comprehensive and clearly articulated. A strong description and justification for the decision makers who would need the information from the HIA is incorporated. |
| Organization and Effectiveness | 20.0% |
| Thesis Development and Purpose | 7.0% | Paper lacks any discernible overall purpose or organizing claim. | Thesis and/or main claim are insufficiently developed and/or vague; purpose is not clear. | Thesis and/or main claim are apparent and appropriate to purpose. | Thesis and/or main claim are clear and forecast the development of the paper. It is descriptive and reflective of the arguments and appropriate to the purpose. | Thesis and/or main claim are comprehensive. The essence of the paper is contained within the thesis. 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 and/or sentence construction are used. | Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistencies in language choice (register), sentence structure, and/or word choice are present. | Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but are not overly distracting to the reader. Correct sentence structure and audience-appropriate language are used. | 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. | 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. |
| Research Citations (In-text citations for paraphrasing and direct quotes, and reference page listing and formatting, as appropriate to assignment and style) | 5.0% | No reference page is included. No citations are used. | Reference page is present. Citations are inconsistently used. | Reference page is included and lists sources used in the paper. Sources are appropriately documented, although some errors may be present. | Reference page is present and fully inclusive of all cited sources. Documentation is appropriate and citation style is usually correct. | In-text citations and a reference page are complete and correct. The documentation of cited sources is free of error. |
| Total Weightage | 100% |
bttk20032004
Rubric_Print_FormatForhealthassessemt.xlsx
