| Course Code | Class Code | Assignment Title | Total Points |
| HLT-490V | HLT-490V-O500 | Evidence-Based Practice Proposal – Final Paper | 200.0 |
| Criteria | Percentage | Unsatisfactory (0.00%) | Less Than Satisfactory (65.00%) | Satisfactory (75.00%) | Good (85.00%) | Excellent (100.00%) | Comments | Points Earned |
| Content | 60.0% |
| Evidence of Revision | 5.0% | Final paper does not demonstrate incorporation of feedback or evidence of revision on research critiques. | Incorporation of research critique feedback or evidence of revision is incomplete. | Incorporation of research critique feedback and evidence of revision are present. | Evidence of incorporation of research critique feedback and revision is clear. | Evidence of incorporation of research critique feedback and revision is comprehensive and thoroughly developed. |
| Topic, Introduction, Reference Page, and Appendices | 5.0% | More than one of the required documents is missing. Formatting guidelines are not followed for any of these documents. | One required document is missing. There are significant errors. | The topic, introduction, reference page, and any needed appendices are included. There are errors. | The topic, introduction, reference page, and any needed appendices are included. There are minor errors. | The topic, introduction, reference page, and any needed appendices are included and in compliance with formatting guidelines. |
| Problem or Issue (Health care problem or issue, issues based in discipline or specialty area, target population) | 5.0% | The health care issue or problem and affected target population selected are not discussed. | The health care issue or problem selected, the affected target population, and why this is an issue or problem in the discipline or specialty of the author are only partially discussed. The narrative lacks support. | The health care issue or problem selected, the affected target population, and why this is an issue or problem in the discipline or specialty of the author are generally discussed. Some areas are vague or inaccurate. Some support is needed. | The health care issue or problem selected, the affected target population, and why this is an issue or problem in the discipline or specialty area of the author are discussed and adequate support is provided. | The health care issue or problem selected, the affected target population, and why this is an issue or problem in the discipline or specialty area of the author are thoroughly discussed and well supported. |
| Questions from PICO | 3.0% | PICO questions are omitted. | The questions are vague or unrelated to the topic. It is unclear if the question is based on the PICO. | The questions are generally based on the PICO and appear to be relevant to the proposed topic. | The questions are based on the PICO. Overall, the questions are relevant to the proposed topic. | The questions are clearly based on the PICO and highly relevant to the proposed topic. |
| Literature Review (sufficient article support, summary of purpose, support for selected issue or problem) | 5.0% | The criteria for the literature review are incomplete. The articles fail to provide evidence in support of the selected problem or issue and proposed intervention. | The literature analysis of at least eight peer-reviewed, research-based articles is presented, but the articles provide little evidence to support the selected problem or issue and proposed intervention. | The literature analysis of 10 to 12 peer-reviewed articles, provide general evidence-based support for the selected problem or issue and proposed intervention. One or two more research-based articles are needed. | The literature analysis of 10 to 12 peer-reviewed articles, eight or more being research-based, provides evidence-based support for the selected problem or issue and proposed intervention. | The literature analysis of 10 to 12 peer-reviewed articles, eight or more being research-based, establishes strong evidence-based support for the selected problem or issue and proposed intervention. |
| Research Questions and Ethical Considerations | 2.0% | The criteria for the literature review are incomplete. The articles fail to provide evidence in support of the selected problem or issue and proposed intervention.Fewer than three research questions are presented. The narrative fails to identify the parameters and ethical aspects of developing research questions. | Two of the three proposed questions are vague and do not appear to encourage further study. The narrative vaguely identifies the parameters and ethical aspects of developing research questions. | At least two of the three research questions encourage further study on the selected health care problem or issue. The narrative demonstrates a general understanding of the necessary parameters and ethical aspects of developing research questions | The three research questions encourage further study on the selected health care problem or issue. The narrative demonstrates an understanding of the necessary parameters and ethical aspects of developing research questions. | The three research questions are well written and encourage further study on the selected health care problem or issue. The narrative demonstrates a clear understanding of the necessary parameters and ethical aspects of developing research questions. |
| Theory or Model and Application to Implementation | 5.0% | A theory or model and the application of it to the implementation of the evidence-based intervention is not discussed. | A theory or model is partially outlined and the application of it to the implementation of the evidence-based intervention is only partially discussed. | A theory or model is summarized and the application of it to the implementation of the evidence-based intervention is outlined. Some information or support is needed. | A theory or model is described and the application of it to the implementation of the evidence-based intervention is discussed. The narrative has adequate support and rationale. | An accurate and well described theory or model is described and the application of it to the implementation of the evidence-based intervention is discussed in a logical and well supported narrative. |
| Proposed Solution | 5.0% | A proposed solution is not presented. | A partial summary of the proposed solution is outlined. It is unclear whether the solution is supported by the findings in the literature review. | A summary of the proposed solution is presented. The solution is generally based on the support indicated in the literature review. | An explanation of the proposed solution is presented. Overall, the solution is based on the support indicated in the literature review. | A detailed explanation of the proposed solution is presented and is based on the support indicated in the literature review. |
| Implementation Plan | 5.0% | The implementation plan is omitted. The narrative fails to demonstrate an understanding of the implementation process. | The implementation plan is incomplete. The narrative demonstrates a minimal understanding of the implementation process. | An outline of the implementation plan is presented. The plan includes the required aspects, but some information or support is needed. The narrative demonstrates a general understanding of the implementation process. | An implementation plan is described. The plan includes the necessary resources, strategies, timeline, and stakeholders. The narrative demonstrates an understanding of the implementation process. Adequate rationale and support are provided. | A well-developed implementation plan is described. The plan includes the necessary resources, strategies, timeline, and stakeholders. The narrative is well supported, informative, and demonstrates a clear understanding of the implementation process. |
| Evaluation Plan | 5.0% | The evaluation plan, projected outcomes, and variables to be assessed are omitted. The evaluation plan is not supported by the findings in the literature analysis. | The evaluation plan is incomplete. The projected outcomes and the variables to be assessed are only partially discussed. | The evaluation plan outlines methods to evaluate the effectiveness of the proposed solution. The projected outcomes and the variables to be assessed are summarized. The narrative is generally supported by the findings in the literature analysis. | The evaluation plan discusses methods to evaluate the effectiveness of the proposed solution. The projected outcomes and the variables to be assessed are described. The narrative is supported by the findings in the literature analysis. | The evaluation plan details realistic and sound methods to evaluate the proposed solution. The projected outcomes and the variables to be assessed are thoroughly described. The narrative is strongly supported by the findings in the literature analysis. |
| Dissemination Plan | 10.0% | A plan to disseminate evidence and present findings is omitted. | A plan for to disseminate evidence and present findings is partially discussed. | A general plan for disseminating evidence is presented. The plan summarizes potential ways to present findings. | A plan for disseminating evidence is presented. The plan includes several potential ways to present findings. | A well-developed plan for disseminating evidence is presented. The plan details potential ways to present findings. |
| Conclusion/Summary | 5.0% | The conclusion is omitted. | The conclusion summarizes some aspects in the paper but does not give completeness to the paper. | The conclusion summarizes the main aspects in the paper and provides adequate closer. | The conclusion summarizes the main aspects in the paper and provides a final observation or insight. | The conclusion is well developed, summarizes the main aspects in the paper, and leaves the reader with a compelling observation or insight. |
| Organization, Effectiveness, and Format | 40.0% |
| Thesis Development and Purpose | 10.0% | 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 | 10.0% | 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) | 10.0% | 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% |
Drakejosh
rubricforwk5final.xlsx
