APA

Value-Based Purchasing Presentation - Rubric

Value-Based Care 16 points

Criteria Description

Value-Based Care

5. Target 16 points

The presentation explains value-based care in a substantial and thought-provoking

manner.

4. Acceptable 14.72 points

The presentation explains value-based care in a substantial manner.

3. Approaching 14.08 points

The presentation clearly explains value-based care.

2. Insufficient 12.8 points

The presentation vaguely explains value-based care.

1. Unsatisfactory 0 points

The presentation does not sufficiently explain value-based care.

Di�erences in Value-Based Care 16 points

Criteria Description

Differences in Value-Based Care

5. Target 16 points

The presentation explains how value-based care differs from a fee-for-service or a

capitated approach in a substantial and thought-provoking manner.

4. Acceptable 14.72 points

The presentation explains how value-based care differs from a fee-for-service or a

capitated approach in a substantial manner.

3. Approaching 14.08 points

Collapse All

The presentation clearly explains how value-based care differs from a fee-for-

service or a capitated approach.

2. Insufficient 12.8 points

The presentation vaguely explains how value-based care differs from a fee-for-

service or a capitated approach.

Financial Advantages to Value-Based Purchasing 16 points

Criteria Description

Financial Advantages to Value-Based Purchasing

5. Target 16 points

The presentation thoroughly and substantially describes why adopting a value-

based purchasing arrangement would be financially advantageous for the physician

groups and to the health plan.

4. Acceptable 14.72 points

The presentation thoroughly describes why adopting a value-based purchasing

arrangement would be financially advantageous for the physician groups and to the

health plan.

3. Approaching 14.08 points

The presentation clearly describes why adopting a value-based purchasing

arrangement would be financially advantageous for the physician groups and to the

health plan.

2. Insufficient 12.8 points

The presentation vaguely describes why adopting a value-based purchasing

arrangement would be financially advantageous for the physician groups and to the

health plan.

1. Unsatisfactory 0 points

Presentation of Content 8 points

Criteria Description

Presentation of Content

5. Target 8 points

The content is written clearly and concisely. Ideas universally progress and relate to

each other. The project includes motivating questions and advanced organizers.

The project gives the audience a clear sense of the main idea.

4. Acceptable 7.36 points

The content is written with a logical progression of ideas and supporting

information exhibiting a unity, coherence, and cohesiveness. Includes persuasive

information from reliable sources.

3. Approaching 7.04 points

The presentation slides are generally competent, but ideas may show some

inconsistency in organization or in their relationships to each other.

2. Insufficient 6.4 points

The content is vague in conveying a point of view and does not create a strong

sense of purpose. Includes some persuasive information.

1. Unsatisfactory 0 points

The content lacks a clear point of view and logical sequence of information Includes

Layout 8 points

Criteria Description

Layout

5. Target 8 points

The layout is visually pleasing and contributes to the overall message with

appropriate use of headings, subheadings, and white space. Text is appropriate in

length for the target audience and to the point. The background and colors enhance

the readability of the text.

4. Acceptable 7.36 points

The layout background and text complement each other and enable the content to

be easily read. The fonts are easy to read and point size varies appropriately for

headings and text.

3. Approaching 7.04 points

The layout uses horizontal and vertical white space appropriately. Sometimes the

fonts are easy to read, but in a few places the use of fonts, italics, bold, long

paragraphs, color, or busy background detracts and does not enhance readability.

2. Insufficient 6.4 points

The layout shows some structure, but appears cluttered and busy or distracting

with large gaps of white space or a distracting background. Overall readability is

difficult due to lengthy paragraphs, too many different fonts, dark or busy

background, overuse of bold, or lack of appropriate indentations of text.

1. Unsatisfactory 0 points

Language Use and Audience Awareness 8 points

Criteria Description

Language Use and Audience Awareness (includes sentence construction, word choice,

etc.)

5. Target 8 points

The writer uses a variety of sentence constructions, figures of speech, and word

choice in distinctive and creative ways that are appropriate to purpose, discipline,

and scope.

4. Acceptable 7.36 points

The writer is clearly aware of audience, uses a variety of appropriate vocabulary for

the targeted audience, and uses figures of speech to communicate clearly.

3. Approaching 7.04 points

Language is appropriate to the targeted audience for the most part.

2. Insufficient 6.4 points

Some distracting inconsistencies in language choice (register) or word choice are

present. The writer exhibits some lack of control in using figures of speech

appropriately.

1. Unsatisfactory 0 points

Mechanics of Writing 4 points

Criteria Description

Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use)

5. Target 4 points

Writer is clearly in control of standard, written, academic English.

4. Acceptable 3.68 points

Slides are largely free of mechanical errors, although a few may be present.

3. Approaching 3.52 points

Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but they are not overly distracting to

the reader.

2. Insufficient 3.2 points

Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader.

1. Unsatisfactory 0 points

Documentation of Sources 4 points

Criteria Description

Documentation of Sources (citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc., as

appropriate to assignment and style)

5. Target 4 points

Sources are completely and correctly documented, as appropriate to assignment

and style, and format is free of error.

4. Acceptable 3.68 points

Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is

mostly correct.

3. Approaching 3.52 points

Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, although some

formatting errors may be present.

2. Insufficient 3.2 points

Documentation of sources is inconsistent or incorrect, as appropriate to

assignment and style, with numerous formatting errors.

Total 80 points