20 page Public Health SPSS(HIV/AIDS in low income communities)

Basic Content Checklist: Title

1 (.33%) - 1 (.33%)

Title is present in the paper.

0 (0%) - 0 (0%)

0 (0%) - 0 (0%)

0 (0%) - 0 (0%)

0 (0%) - 0 (0%)

Title is absent from the paper.

Basic Content Checklist: Abstract

1 (.33%) - 2 (.67%)

Abstract is present in the paper.

0 (0%) - 0 (0%)

0 (0%) - 0 (0%)

0 (0%) - 0 (0%)

0 (0%) - 0 (0%)

Abstract is absent from the paper.

Basic Content Checklist: Background Information

1 (.33%) - 3 (1%)

Background information is present and reflected within the paper.

0 (0%) - 0 (0%)

0 (0%) - 0 (0%)

0 (0%) - 0 (0%)

0 (0%) - 0 (0%)

Background information is absent from the paper.

Basic Content Checklist: Descriptive Epidemiology

1 (.33%) - 5 (1.67%)

Descriptive epidemiology is present and reflected within the paper.

0 (0%) - 0 (0%)

0 (0%) - 0 (0%)

0 (0%) - 0 (0%)

0 (0%) - 0 (0%)

Descriptive epidemiology is absent from the paper.

Basic Content Checklist: Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

1 (.33%) - 3 (1%)

Inclusion and exclusion criteria are presented and reflected within the paper.

0 (0%) - 0 (0%)

0 (0%) - 0 (0%)

0 (0%) - 0 (0%)

0 (0%) - 0 (0%)

Inclusion and exclusion criteria are absent from the paper.

Basic Content Checklist: Key Search Terms

1 (.33%) - 3 (1%)

Key search terms are present and reflected within the paper.

0 (0%) - 0 (0%)

0 (0%) - 0 (0%)

0 (0%) - 0 (0%)

0 (0%) - 0 (0%)

Key search terms are absent from the paper.

Basic Content Checklist: Findings on Relevant Theories

1 (.33%) - 5 (1.67%)

Findings on relevant theories are present and reflected within the paper.

0 (0%) - 0 (0%)

0 (0%) - 0 (0%)

0 (0%) - 0 (0%)

0 (0%) - 0 (0%)

Findings on relevant theories are absent from the paper.

Basic Content Checklist: Findings on Relevant Methodologies

1 (.33%) - 5 (1.67%)

Findings on relevant methodologies are present and reflected within the paper.

0 (0%) - 0 (0%)

0 (0%) - 0 (0%)

0 (0%) - 0 (0%)

0 (0%) - 0 (0%)

Findings on relevant methodologies are absent from the paper.

Basic Content Checklist: Synthesis of Research Findings

1 (.33%) - 5 (1.67%)

Synthesis of research findings is present and reflected within the paper.

0 (0%) - 0 (0%)

0 (0%) - 0 (0%)

0 (0%) - 0 (0%)

0 (0%) - 0 (0%)

Synthesis of research findings is absent from the paper.

Basic Content Checklist: Analysis of Strengths and Limitations of Research Studies

1 (.33%) - 5 (1.67%)

Analysis of strengths and limitations of research studies is present and reflected within the paper.

0 (0%) - 0 (0%)

0 (0%) - 0 (0%)

0 (0%) - 0 (0%)

0 (0%) - 0 (0%)

Analysis of strengths and limitations of research studies is absent from the paper.

Basic Content Checklist: Policy Implications

1 (.33%) - 5 (1.67%)

Policy implications are present and reflected within the paper.

0 (0%) - 0 (0%)

0 (0%) - 0 (0%)

0 (0%) - 0 (0%)

0 (0%) - 0 (0%)

Policy implications are absent from the paper.

Basic Content Checklist: Key Stakeholders

1 (.33%) - 2 (.67%)

Key stakeholders are identified and reflected within the paper.

0 (0%) - 0 (0%)

0 (0%) - 0 (0%)

0 (0%) - 0 (0%)

0 (0%) - 0 (0%)

Key stakeholders are identified are absent from the paper.

Basic Content Checklist: Recommendations for Future Research

1 (.33%) - 3 (1%)

Recommendations for future research are present and reflected within the paper.

0 (0%) - 0 (0%)

0 (0%) - 0 (0%)

0 (0%) - 0 (0%)

0 (0%) - 0 (0%)

Recommendations for future research are absent from the paper.

Basic Content Checklist: Conclusions

1 (.33%) - 2 (.67%)

Conclusions are present and reflected within the paper.

0 (0%) - 0 (0%)

0 (0%) - 0 (0%)

0 (0%) - 0 (0%)

0 (0%) - 0 (0%)

Conclusions are absent from the paper.

Basic Content Checklist: Reference List in APA Format

1 (.33%) - 1 (.33%)

Reference list in APA format is present in the paper.

0 (0%) - 0 (0%)

0 (0%) - 0 (0%)

0 (0%) - 0 (0%)

0 (0%) - 0 (0%)

Reference list in APA format is absent from the paper.

Writing Quality and Clarity

75 (25%) - 75 (25%)

Writing always professional and appropriate, including correct spelling and sentence structure, clear, concise, to the point, and written with excellent scholarly tone AND Statements normally requiring references or citations were always validated with the source AND APA format was followed for all content, citations, and headers

65 (21.67%) - 74 (24.67%)

Occasional minor spelling or sentence structure errors that did not detract from the professional appearance, clarity, and scholarly tone AND/OR Infrequent and minor APA format errors, but citations, references, and headers were present

57 (19%) - 64 (21.33%)

Occasional spelling or sentence structure or clarity errors/issues that somewhat detracted from the professional appearance AND/OR Writing was sometimes not completely clear or to the point, or sometimes did not use appropriate scholarly tone AND/OR Citations, references, and headers were present with some errors in APA format

50 (16.67%) - 56 (18.67%)

Frequent spelling or sentence structure errors that detracted from the professional appearance AND/OR Writing was frequently unclear, or rambled, or did not use scholarly tone AND/OR Statements normally requiring references or citations were sometimes not validated with the source AND/OR Frequent errors with APA format of citations, headers, or references

0 (0%) - 49 (16.33%)

Writing inappropriate or unprofessional AND/OR Writing unclear and difficult to follow AND/OR Statements normally requiring references or citations were frequently not validated with the source AND/OR APA format was not followed

Content Relevance and Accuracy

75 (25%) - 75 (25%)

Content was well chosen, extremely supportive to each specific section, and always very relevant to the overarching topic AND Content was always accurately described, demonstrating complete understanding of the topics

65 (21.67%) - 74 (24.67%)

Content was supportive to each section and relevant to the overarching topic AND Content was accurately described, demonstrating good understanding of the topics

57 (19%) - 64 (21.33%)

Content was occasionally not supportive to the section or occasionally not relevant to the overarching topic AND/OR Content was occasionally inaccurate, reflecting a limited or incomplete understanding of some topics

50 (16.67%) - 56 (18.67%)

Content was frequently not supportive to the sections or frequently not relevant to the overarching topic AND/OR Content was frequently inaccurate, reflecting a limited understanding of multiple topics

0 (0%) - 49 (16.33%)

Content was not supportive to the sections, or irrelevant to the overarching topic AND/OR Content was inaccurate, reflecting a poor understanding of multiple topics

Critical Thinking and Analysis

100 (33.33%) - 100 (33.33%)

Paper demonstrated excellent critical thinking and analysis Specifically, Strong reliance on facts and validated opinions. Points were always well supported and based on scholarly evidence. Arguments were coherent, organized, and logical. Connections were frequently made between ideas, and conclusions always flowed from evidence. AND Strong reliance on primary research articles and authoritative sources for facts. Resources were always scholarly and very well chosen to support the points being made AND Excellent application of new insights and facts to ideas and problem solving/recommendations

87 (29%) - 99 (33%)

Paper demonstrated good critical thinking and analysis Specifically, Reliance on facts and validated opinions. Points were usually well supported and based on scholarly evidence. Arguments were usually coherent, organized, and logical. Connections were made between ideas, and conclusions flowed from evidence AND Good reliance on primary research articles and authoritative sources for facts AND Good application of new insights and facts to ideas and problem solving/recommendations

74 (24.67%) - 86 (28.67%)

Paper demonstrated some critical thinking and analysis with an occasional deficiency of one or two areas of critical thinking. Specifically, Occasional reliance on assumptions and unsubstantiated opinions rather than facts, or occasional use of less scholarly or less appropriate resources, or sometimes unorganized or less logical arguments, or some lack of connection between ideas, or conclusions occasionally did not flow from the evidence AND/OR Points were not always supported with resources or were often supported with secondary sources AND/OR Limited application of new insights and facts to ideas and problem solving/recommendations

65 (21.67%) - 73 (24.33%)

Limited critical thinking and analysis, with a deficiency of several areas of critical thinking or frequent issues in one area. Specifically, Reliance on assumptions and unsubstantiated opinions rather than facts, frequently used less scholarly or less appropriate resources, frequently incoherent, disorganized, or illogical arguments, often a lack of connection between ideas, or conclusions often did not flow from the evidence AND/OR Points often not supported with resources or often supported with low quality resources AND/OR Problem solving/recommendations relied upon original author’s ideas rather than new insights

0 (0%) - 64 (21.33%)

Articles/topics were not analyzed and/or critical thinking was not demonstrated AND/OR Points were not supported with appropriate resources AND/OR No application of ideas to problem solving/recommendations