|
1
No Submission
0.00% |
2
Incomplete Submission
74.00% |
3
Nominal Submission
79.00% |
4
Satisfactory Submission
87.00% |
5
Exemplary Submission
100.00% |
9.0 %Outcome 1 |
|
5.0 %Apply Science-Based Theories and Concepts to Determine the Nature and Significance of Health and Health Care Delivery Phenomena. Benchmark (C: 1.2) |
No submission. |
Submission includes insufficient incorporation of the required criteria. |
Submission includes minimal evidence of the required outcome criteria. Support is vague or incomplete. |
Submission includes adequate evidence of the required outcome criteria. Discussion is thorough and defines specific elements but is not as complete as expected. |
Submission includes comprehensive and convincing evidence of the required outcome criteria. The submission further provides analysis of supporting evidence insightfully and provides specific examples with relevance. Level of detail is appropriate. |
4.0 %Employ Science-Based Theories and Concepts to Describe the Actions and Advanced Strategies to Enhance, Alleviate, and Ameliorate Health and Health Care Delivery Phenomena as Appropriate. Benchmark (C: 1.3) |
No submission. |
Submission includes insufficient incorporation of the required criteria. |
Submission includes minimal evidence of the required outcome criteria. Support is vague or incomplete. |
Submission includes adequate evidence of the required outcome criteria. Discussion is thorough and defines specific elements but is not as complete as expected. |
Submission includes comprehensive and convincing evidence of the required outcome criteria. The submission further provides analysis of supporting evidence insightfully and provides specific examples with relevance. Level of detail is appropriate. |
9.0 %Outcome 2 |
|
3.0 %Employ Principles of Business, Finance, Economics, and Health Policy to Develop and Implement Effective Plans for Practice-Level or System-Wide Practice Initiatives That Will Improve the Quality of Health Care Delivery. Benchmark (C: 2.1) |
No submission. |
Submission includes insufficient incorporation of the required criteria. |
Submission includes minimal evidence of the required outcome criteria. Support is vague or incomplete. |
Submission includes adequate evidence of the required outcome criteria. Discussion is thorough and defines specific elements but is not as complete as expected. |
Submission includes comprehensive and convincing evidence of the required outcome criteria. The submission further provides analysis of supporting evidence insightfully and provides specific examples with relevance. Level of detail is appropriate. |
3.0 %Demonstrate Leadership, Influence, and Advocacy in the Development and Implementation of Institutional, Local, State, Federal, or International Health Policy. Benchmark (C: 2.2) |
No submission. |
Submission includes insufficient incorporation of the required criteria. |
Submission includes minimal evidence of the required outcome criteria. Support is vague or incomplete. |
Submission includes adequate evidence of the required outcome criteria. Discussion is thorough and defines specific elements but is not as complete as expected. |
Submission includes comprehensive and convincing evidence of the required outcome criteria. The submission further provides analysis of supporting evidence insightfully and provides specific examples with relevance. Level of detail is appropriate. |
3.0 %Provide Leadership in the Evaluation and Resolution of Policy, Ethical, and Legal Issues Within Health Care Systems. Benchmark (C: 2.4) |
No submission. |
Submission includes insufficient incorporation of the required criteria. |
Submission includes minimal evidence of the required outcome criteria. Support is vague or incomplete. |
Submission includes adequate evidence of the required outcome criteria. Discussion is thorough and defines specific elements but is not as complete as expected. |
Submission includes comprehensive and convincing evidence of the required outcome criteria. The submission further provides analysis of supporting evidence insightfully and provides specific examples with relevance. Level of detail is appropriate. |
9.0 %Outcome 3 |
|
2.0 %Demonstrate the Conceptual Ability and Technical Skills to Develop and Execute an Evaluation Plan Involving Data Extraction From Practice Information Systems and Databases. Benchmark (C: 3.1) |
No submission. |
Submission includes insufficient incorporation of the required criteria. |
Submission includes minimal evidence of the required outcome criteria. Support is vague or incomplete. |
Submission includes adequate evidence of the required outcome criteria. Discussion is thorough and defines specific elements but is not as complete as expected. |
Submission includes comprehensive and convincing evidence of the required outcome criteria. The submission further provides analysis of supporting evidence insightfully and provides specific examples with relevance. Level of detail is appropriate. |
2.0 %Evaluate Current Consumer Health Information Sources for Accuracy, Timeliness, and Appropriateness.Benchmark (C: 3.2) |
No submission. |
Submission includes insufficient incorporation of the required criteria. |
Submission includes minimal evidence of the required outcome criteria. Support is vague or incomplete. |
Submission includes adequate evidence of the required outcome criteria. Discussion is thorough and defines specific elements but is not as complete as expected. |
Submission includes comprehensive and convincing evidence of the required outcome criteria. The submission further provides analysis of supporting evidence insightfully and provides specific examples with relevance. Level of detail is appropriate. |
2.0 %Analyze and communicate critical elements necessary to the selection, use, and evaluation of health information systems and patient care technology. Benchmark (C: 3.3) |
No submission. |
Submission includes insufficient incorporation of the required criteria. |
Submission includes minimal evidence of the required outcome criteria. Support is vague or incomplete. |
Submission includes adequate evidence of the required outcome criteria. Discussion is thorough and defines specific elements but is not as complete as expected. |
Submission includes comprehensive and convincing evidence of the required outcome criteria. The submission further provides analysis of supporting evidence insightfully and provides specific examples with relevance. Level of detail is appropriate. |
3.0 %Design, Select, Use, and Evaluate Programs That Monitor Outcomes of Care, Care Systems, and Quality Improvement, Including Consumer Use of Health Care Information Systems. Benchmark (C: 3.4) |
No submission. |
Submission includes insufficient incorporation of the required criteria. |
Submission includes minimal evidence of the required outcome criteria. Support is vague or incomplete. |
Submission includes adequate evidence of the required outcome criteria. Discussion is thorough and defines specific elements but is not as complete as expected. |
Submission includes comprehensive and convincing evidence of the required outcome criteria. The submission further provides analysis of supporting evidence insightfully and provides specific examples with relevance. Level of detail is appropriate. |
9.0 %Outcome 4 |
|
5.0 %Analyze Epidemiological, Biostatistical, Environmental, and Other Appropriate Scientific Data Related to Individual, Aggregate, and Population Health. Benchmark (C: 4.1) |
No submission. |
Submission includes insufficient incorporation of the required criteria. |
Submission includes minimal evidence of the required outcome criteria. Support is vague or incomplete. |
Submission includes adequate evidence of the required outcome criteria. Discussion is thorough and defines specific elements but is not as complete as expected. |
Submission includes comprehensive and convincing evidence of the required outcome criteria. The submission further provides analysis of supporting evidence insightfully and provides specific examples with relevance. Level of detail is appropriate. |
4.0 %Advocate for Social Justice, Equity, and Ethical Policies Within All Health Care Arenas. Benchmark (C: 4.4) |
No submission. |
Submission includes insufficient incorporation of the required criteria. |
Submission includes minimal evidence of the required outcome criteria. Support is vague or incomplete. |
Submission includes adequate evidence of the required outcome criteria. Discussion is thorough and defines specific elements but is not as complete as expected. |
Submission includes comprehensive and convincing evidence of the required outcome criteria. The submission further provides analysis of supporting evidence insightfully and provides specific examples with relevance. Level of detail is appropriate. |
9.0 %Outcome 5 |
|
5.0 %Design and Implement Processes/Strategies That Evaluate Outcomes of Practice, Practice Patterns, and Systems of Care For Individual, Aggregate, and Populations Against National Benchmarks. Benchmark (C: 5.2) |
No submission. |
Submission includes insufficient incorporation of the required criteria. |
Submission includes minimal evidence of the required outcome criteria. Support is vague or incomplete. |
Submission includes adequate evidence of the required outcome criteria. Discussion is thorough and defines specific elements but is not as complete as expected. |
Submission includes comprehensive and convincing evidence of the required outcome criteria. The submission further provides analysis of supporting evidence insightfully and provides specific examples with relevance. Level of detail is appropriate. |
4.0 %Design, Direct, and Evaluate Quality Improvement Methodologies to Promote Safe, Timely, Effective, Efficient, Equitable, and Patient-Centered Care. Benchmark (C: 5.3) |
No submission. |
Submission includes insufficient incorporation of the required criteria. |
Submission includes minimal evidence of the required outcome criteria. Support is vague or incomplete. |
Submission includes adequate evidence of the required outcome criteria. Discussion is thorough and defines specific elements but is not as complete as expected. |
Submission includes comprehensive and convincing evidence of the required outcome criteria. The submission further provides analysis of supporting evidence insightfully and provides specific examples with relevance. Level of detail is appropriate. |
25.0 %Self-Reflection |
|
25.0 %Assessment of Readiness to Undertake the DPI Project Based on Self-Evaluation of Program Content Learning |
No submission. |
Submission includes a partial or incomplete assessment of the readiness of learner to undertake the DPI project, or the submission does not incorporate self-evaluation of program content learning. |
Submission includes minimal assessment of the readiness of learner to undertake the DPI project and insufficient self-evaluation of program content learning. |
Submission includes an adequate assessment of the readiness of learner to undertake the DPI project which incorporates a sufficient self-evaluation of program content learning. Discussion is thorough and defines specific elements but is not as complete as expected. |
Submission includes a comprehensive and thorough assessment of the readiness of learner to undertake the DPI project. The self-evaluation of program content learning component is robust. The submission provides insightful analysis of supporting evidence with specific, relevant examples. Level of detail is appropriate. |
20.0 %Organization and Effectiveness |
|
7.0 %Thesis Development and Purpose |
No submission. |
Thesis and/or main claim are insufficiently developed and/or vague; purpose is not clear. |
Thesis and/or main claim are apparent and appropriate to purpose. |
Thesis and/or main claim are clear and forecast the development of the paper. It is descriptive and reflective of the arguments and appropriate to the purpose. |
Thesis and/or main claim are comprehensive. The essence of the paper is contained within the thesis. Thesis statement makes the purpose of the paper clear. |
8.0 %Argument Logic and Construction |
No submission. |
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 progressions. Techniques of argumentation are evident. There is a smooth progression of claims from introduction to conclusion. Most sources are authoritative. |
Clear and convincing argument that presents a persuasive claim in a distinctive and compelling manner. All sources are authoritative. |
5.0 %Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use) |
No submission. |
Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistencies in language choice (register), sentence structure, and/or word choice are present. |
Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but are not overly distracting to the reader. Correct sentence structure and audience-appropriate language are used. |
Prose is largely free of mechanical errors, although a few may be present. A variety of sentence structures and effective figures of speech are used. |
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 the assignment) |
No submission. |
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 %APA Format |
No submission. |
Required format is attempted, but some elements are missing or mistaken. A lack of control with formatting is apparent. Some sources are not scholarly research or topic-related. Reference page is present. Citations are inconsistently used. |
Required format is used correctly, although some minor errors may be present. Scholarly research sources are present and topic-related, but the source and quality of some references is questionable. Reference page is included and lists sources used in the paper. Sources are appropriately documented, although some errors may be present. |
Required format is fully used. There are virtually no errors in formatting. Scholarly research accounts for the majority of sources presented and is topic-related and obtained from reputable professional sources. Reference page is present and fully inclusive of all cited sources. Documentation is appropriate and citation style is usually correct. |
The document is correctly formatted to publication standards. All research presented is scholarly, topic-related, and obtained from highly respected, professional, original sources. In-text citations and a reference page are complete and correct. The documentation of cited sources is free of error. |
100 %Total Weightage |
|