| |
1
Unsatisfactory
59.00% |
2
Less Than Satisfactory
65.00% |
3
Satisfactory
75.00% |
4
Good
85.00% |
5
Excellent
100.00% |
| 70.0 %Content |
|
| 50.0 %Incorporation of Seven Steps of Policy Formation: a) Problem Definition; b) Assembly Of Evidence Of The Problem Or Need For A Policy; c) Construction Of Alternative Solutions To The Problem; d) Criteria Selection For Choosing The Correct Solution From The Alternatives; e) Outcomes Predictions; f) Discussion Of Trade-Offs; g) Recommendation. |
Not included. |
Submission incorporates some but not all seven required elements. The information provided is incomplete, inaccurate, or otherwise deficient. |
Submission incorporates all seven required elements but minimal detail or support is provided for one or more components. |
Submission incorporates all seven required elements in full. The submission encompasses essential details and provides appropriate support. |
Submission incorporates all seven required elements comprehensively. The submission further incorporates analysis of supporting evidence insightfully and provides specific examples with relevance. Level of detail is appropriate. |
|
| 20.0 %Explanation The Health Policy’s Intended Use With Evaluation Of The Effect The Policy May Have On Direct Patient Care In The U.S. |
Not included. |
An explanation of the health policy’s intended use and / or use an evaluation of the effect the policy may have on direct patient care in the U.S. is present, but the information provided is incomplete, inaccurate, or otherwise deficient. |
An explanation of the health policy’s intended use and an evaluation of the effect the policy may have on direct patient care in the U.S. is present, but minimal detail or support is provided for one or more components. |
An explanation of the health policy’s intended use and an evaluation of the effect the policy may have on direct patient care in the U.S. is present and incorporated in full. The submission encompasses essential details and provides appropriate support. |
An explanation of the health policy’s intended use and an evaluation of the effect the policy may have on direct patient care in the U.S. is present and comprehensive. The submission further incorporates analysis of supporting evidence insightfully and provides specific examples with relevance. Level of detail is appropriate. |
|
| 20.0 %Organization and Effectiveness |
|
| 7.0 %Thesis Development and Purpose |
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. |
|
| 20.0 %Organization and Effectiveness |
|
| 8.0 %Argument Logic and Construction |
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. |
|
| 20.0 %Organization and Effectiveness |
|
| 5.0 %Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use) |
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. |
|
| 10.0 %Format |
|
| 5.0 %Paper Format (use of appropriate style for the major and assignment) |
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. |
|
| 5.0 %Documentation of Sources (citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc., as appropriate to assignment and style) |
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. |
|
| 100 %Total Weightage |
|
|
