ppt

CATEGORY

EXCELLENT – above expectations

GOOD – met expectations

FAIR – below expectations

POOR – significantly below expectations or missing

SCORE

Introduction

(28 points possible)

The introduction shows depth, breadth, triangulation, and clarity in critical thinking concerning evidence-based decision making, defined problem, and types of HIT systems.

(25–28 points)

The introduction fully addresses evidence-based decision making defined problem, and types of HIT systems.

Triangulation was attempted but not fully addressed.

(22–24 points)

The introduction lacks depth, breadth, triangulation, and clarity in critical thinking concerning evidence-based decision making, defined problem, and types of HIT systems.

(20–21 points )

The introduction does not address (zero points) or poorly addresses evidence-based decision making defined problem, and types of HIT systems.

(0–19 points)

Recommendation and Rationale

(54 points possible)

The recommendations and rationale including graphic comparisons and impact statements, show depth, breadth, triangulation, and clarity in critical thinking when addressing the current and future state of the ICU

(49–54 points)

The recommendations and rationale including graphic comparisons and impact statements, fully address the current and future state of the ICU.

Triangulation was attempted but not fully addressed.

(43–48 points)

The recommendations and rationale including graphic comparisons and impact statements, lacks depth, breadth, triangulation, and clarity in critical thinking when addressing the current and future state of the ICU.

(38–42 points )

The recommendations and rationale including graphic comparisons and impact statements, do not address (zero points) or poorly addresses current and future state of the ICU.

(0–37points)

Evidence Evaluation

(54 points possible)

The evaluation of the evidence shows depth, breadth, triangulation, and clarity in critical thinking when addressing the quality, validity, and reliability of the data.

(49–54 points)

The evaluation of the evidence fully addresses the quality, validity, and reliability of the data.

Triangulation was attempted but not fully addressed.

(43–48 points)

The evaluation of the evidence lacks depth, breadth, triangulation, and clarity in critical thinking when addressing the quality, validity, and reliability of the data.

(38–42 points )

The evaluation of the evidence does not address (zero points) or poorly addresses the quality, validity and reliability of the data

(0–37points)

Presentation

(17 points possible)

Presentation follows the Presentation Guidelines and Tips and uses more than four of the following items: text, color contrasts, photos, graphs, maps, websites, or visual elements to convey the information.

Presenter notes support the information presented visually.

Presentation has the required minimum number of slides.

(15–17 points)

Presentation follows the Presentation Guidelines and Tips and uses three to four of the following items: text, color contrasts photos, graphs, maps, websites, or visual elements to convey the information.

Presenter notes support the information presented visually.

Presentation has the required minimum number of slides.

(13–14 points)

Presentation uses only one or two of the following items: text, color contrasts photos, graphs, maps, websites, or visual elements to convey the information.

Presenter notes somewhat support the information presented visually.

Presentation may have fewer than the required minimum number of slides.

(12 points)

Presentation does not use any graphs, color contrasts, photos, or visuals, and information on slides is inadequate and hard to follow.

Presenter notes do not support the information presented visually or the notes are missing.

Presentation has a minimal number of slides.

(0–11 points)

Writing

(17 points possible)

The presenter notes uses professional tone appropriate to the audience, contains original writing and proper paraphrasing, contains very few or no writing and/or spelling errors, and is fully consistent with graduate level writing style.

The work is supported by the Learning Resources and more than three additional scholarly sources.

(15–17 points)

The presenter notes are mostly consistent with graduate level writing style and may have some spelling, and writing errors. The tone is mostly professional and appropriate to the audience.

The work is supported by the Learning Resources and at least three additional scholarly sources.

(13–14 points)

The presenter notes are somewhat consistent with graduate level writing style and may have some spelling, and writing errors. The tone is somewhat professional, but may not be appropriate to the audience.

The work is supported by the Learning Resources and less than three additional scholarly sources.

(12 points)

The presenter notes are well below graduate level writing style expectations for organization, scholarly tone, and writing, or shows heavy reliance on quoting. The tone is not professional and not appropriate to the audience.

The work is not supported by the Learning Resources or additional scholarly sources.

(0–11 points)

Instructor comments:

Total Score (170 possible points):

      points