This is how the project is scored. i need 3 or 4 in each category

1. This is how the project is scored. I need 3 or 4 in each category
in order to pass the project.
Thanks,
Melissa
UUT Task 1 (1014)
Top of Form
value: 0.00
value: 1.00
value: 2.00
value: 3.00
value: 4.00
Score/Level
Articulation of Response (clarity, organization, mechanics)
The candidate provides unsatisfactory articulation of response.
The candidate provides weak articulation of response.
The candidate provides limited articulation of response.
The candidate provides adequate articulation of response.
The candidate provides substantial articulation of response.
A1. Public Policy Issue
The candidate does not provide a plausible analysis of a health
or nursing profession public policy issue that impacts a group of
people and requires a policy change.
The candidate provides a plausible analysis, with no detail, of a
health or nursing profession public policy issue that impacts a
group of people and requires a policy change.
The candidate provides a plausible analysis, with limited detail,
of a health or nursing profession public policy issue that
impacts a group of people and requires a policy change.
The candidate provides a plausible analysis, with adequate
detail, of a health or nursing profession public policy issue that
impacts a group of people and requires a policy change.
The candidate provides a plausible analysis, with substantial

2. detail, of a health or nursing profession public policy issue that
impacts a group of people and requires a policy change.
A1a. Issue Selection
The candidate does not provide a logical discussion of why the
public policy issue was selected.
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with no detail, of
why the public policy issue was selected.
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with limited detail,
of why the public policy issue was selected.
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with adequate
detail, of why the public policy issue was selected.
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with substantial
detail, of why the public policy issue was selected.
A1b. Issue Relevance
The candidate does not provide a logical discussion of the
relevance of this public policy issue to health or the nursing
profession, using 2 pieces of academically appropriate literature
from the last five years.
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with no support, of
the relevance of this public policy issue to health or the nursing
profession, using 2 pieces of academically appropriate literature
from the last five years.
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with limited
support, of the relevance of this public policy issue to health or
the nursing profession, using 2 pieces of academically
appropriate literature from the last five years.
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with adequate
support, of the relevance of this public policy issue to health or
the nursing profession, using 2 pieces of academically
appropriate literature from the last five years.
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with substantial
support, of the relevance of this public policy issue to health or
the nursing profession, using 2 pieces of academically
appropriate literature from the last five years.

3. A1c.
Financial Impact
The candidate does not provide an accurate description of the
financial impact of the public policy on an organization or on a
community.
The candidate provides an accurate description, with no detail,
of the financial impact of the public policy on an organization
or on a community.
The candidate provides an accurate description, with limited
detail, of the financial impact of the public policy on an
organization or on a community.
The candidate provides an accurate description, with adequate
detail, of the financial impact of the public policy on an
organization or on a community.
The candidate provides an accurate description, with substantial
detail, of the financial impact of the public policy on an
organization or on a community.
A2. Personal Values
The candidate does not provide a plausible analysis of how the
candidate’s values impact the candidate’s position on the public
policy issue.
The candidate provides a plausible analysis, with no detail, of
how the candidate’s values impact the candidate’s position on
the public policy issue.
The candidate provides a plausible analysis, with limited detail,
of how the candidate’s values impact the candidate’s position
on the public policy issue.
The candidate provides a plausible analysis, with adequate
detail, of how the candidate’s values impact the candidate’s
position on the public policy issue.
The candidate provides a plausible analysis, with substantial
detail, of how the candidate’s values impact the candidate’s
position on the public policy issue.

4. A2a. Ethical Principle or Theory
The candidate does not provide a logical discussion of the
ethical principle or theory that underpins the candidate’s
perspective.
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with no detail, of
the ethical principle or theory that underpins the candidate’s
perspective.
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with limited detail,
of the ethical principle or theory that underpins the candidate’s
perspective.
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with adequate
detail, of the ethical principle or theory that underpins the
candidate’s perspective.
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with substantial
detail, of the ethical principle or theory that underpins the
candidate’s perspective.
B1. Decision Maker
The candidate does not identify the appropriate decision maker
(name and title) who will receive the policy brief.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
The candidate identifies the appropriate decision maker (name
and title) who will receive the policy brief.
B1a. Explanation
The candidate does not provide a logical explanation of why the
public policy requires the decision maker’s attention, using
relevant nursing research from the last five years to support the
position.
The candidate provides a logical explanation, with no detail, of
why the public policy requires the decision maker’s attention,
using no relevant nursing research from the last five years to
support the position.
The candidate provides a logical explanation, with limited

5. detail, of why the public policy requires the decision maker’s
attention, using limited relevant nursing research from the last
five years to support the position.
The candidate provides a logical explanation, with adequate
detail, of why the public policy requires the decision maker’s
attention, using adequate relevant nursing research from the last
five years to support the position.
The candidate provides a logical explanation, with substantial
detail, of why the public policy requires the decision maker’s
attention, using substantial relevant nursing research from the
last five years to support the position.
B2. Challenges
The candidate does not provide a logical discussion of the main
challenges of addressing the selected public policy issue.
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with no detail, of
the main challenges of addressing the selected public policy
issue.
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with limited detail,
of the main challenges of addressing the selected public policy
issue.
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with adequate
detail, of the main challenges of addressing the selected public
policy issue.
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with substantial
detail, of the main challenges of addressing the selected public
policy issue.
B3. Options/Interventions
The candidate does not provide a logical discussion of the
primary options and/or interventions for the decision maker,
including why they are tangible.
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with no detail, of
the primary options and/or interventions for the decision maker,
including why they are tangible.
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with limited detail,

6. of the primary options and/or interventions for the decision
maker, including why they are tangible.
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with adequate
detail, of the primary options and/or interventions for the
decision maker, including why they are tangible.
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with substantial
detail, of the primary options and/or interventions for the
decision maker, including why they are tangible.
B4. Course of Action
The candidate does not provide an appropriate proposal for a
persuasive course of action for the decision maker, including
ways to avoid the challenges identified in part B2.
The candidate provides an appropriate proposal, with no
support, for a persuasive course of action for the decision
maker, including ways to avoid the challenges identified in part
B2.
The candidate provides an appropriate proposal, with limited
support, for a persuasive course of action for the decision
maker, including ways to avoid the challenges identified in part
B2.
The candidate provides an appropriate proposal, with adequate
support, for a persuasive course of action for the decision
maker, including ways to avoid the challenges identified in part
B2.
The candidate provides an appropriate proposal, with
substantial support, for a persuasive course of action for the
decision maker, including ways to avoid the challenges
identified in part B2.
B5. Success of Policy Brief
The candidate does not provide a logical discussion of how the
candidate will evaluate the success of the policy brief (a top-
down approach).
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with no detail, of
how the candidate will evaluate the success of the policy brief

7. (a top-down approach).
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with limited detail,
of how the candidate will evaluate the success of the policy
brief (a top-down approach).
The candidate provides a logical discussion, w ith adequate
detail, of how the candidate will evaluate the success of the
policy brief (a top-down approach).
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with substantial
detail, of how the candidate will evaluate the success of the
policy brief (a top-down approach).
C1. Identified Organization or Community
The candidate does not identify an organization or community
that has expressed interest in the selected health or nursing
profession public policy issue.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
The candidate identifies an organization or community that has
expressed interest in the selected health or nursing profession
public policy issue.
C1a. Summary of Expressed Interest
The candidate does not provide a logical summary of evidence
supporting why the organization or community has expressed
interest in the selected public policy issue.
The candidate provides a logical summary, with no detail, of
evidence supporting why the organization or community has
expressed interest in the selected public policy issue.
The candidate provides a logical summary, with limited detail,
of evidence supporting why the organization or community has
expressed interest in the selected public policy issue.
The candidate provides a logical summary, with adequate detail,
of evidence supporting why the organization or community has
expressed interest in the selected public policy issue.
The candidate provides a logical summary, with substantial

8. detail, of evidence supporting why the organization or
community has expressed interest in the selected public policy
issue.
C2. CBPR Principles
The candidate does not identify 3 CBPR principles the
candidate could use to work with the organization or community
to address a policy change for the public policy issue.
Not applicable.
The candidate accurately identifies 1-2 CBPR principles the
candidate could use to work with the organization or community
to address a policy change for the public policy issue.
Not applicable.
The candidate accurately identifies 3 CBPR principles the
candidate could use to work with the organization or community
to address a policy change for the public policy issue.
C2a. Approach and Collaboration
The candidate does not provide a logical explanation of how the
candidate could approach and collaborate with the organization
or community.
The candidate provides a logical explanation, with no detail, of
how the candidate could approach and collaborate with the
organization or community.
The candidate provides a logical explanation, with limited
detail, of how the candidate could approach and collaborate
with the organization or community.
The candidate provides a logical explanation, with adequate
detail, of how the candidate could approach and collaborate
with the organization or community.
The candidate provides a logical explanation, with substantial
detail, of how the candidate could approach and collaborate
with the organization or community.
C2b. Goal Alignment
The candidate does not provide a logical discussion of how the

9. goal of the community or organization aligns with the
candidate’s goal for the selected public policy issue.
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with no detail, of
how the goal of the community or organization aligns with the
candidate’s goal for the selected public policy issue.
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with limited detail,
of how the goal of the community or organization aligns with
the candidate’s goal for the selected public policy issue.
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with adequate
detail, of how the goal of the community or organization aligns
with the candidate’s goal for the selected public policy issue.
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with substantial
detail, of how the goal of the community or organization aligns
with the candidate’s goal for the selected public policy issue.
C2c. Action Steps
The candidate does not provide a logical discussion of the
action steps that need to be taken to achieve the candidate’s
goal from part C2b.
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with no detail, of
the action steps that need to be taken to achieve the candidate’s
goal from part C2b.
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with limited detail,
of the action steps that need to be taken to achieve the
candidate’s goal from part C2b.
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with adequate
detail, of the action steps that need to be taken to achieve the
candidate’s goal from part C2b.
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with substantial
detail, of the action steps that need to be taken to achieve the
candidate’s goal from part C2b.
C2d. Roles/Responsibilities
The candidate does not provide a logical discussion of the
possible roles/responsibilities of community or organization
members, including problem-solving and capacity-building

10. roles.
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with no detail, of
the possible roles/responsibilities of community or organization
members, including problem-solving and capacity-building
roles.
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with limited detail,
of the possible roles/responsibilities of community or
organization members, including problem-solving and capacity-
building roles.
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with adequate
detail, of the possible roles/responsibilities of community or
organization members, including problem-solving and capacity-
building roles.
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with substantial
detail, of the possible roles/responsibilities of communi ty or
organization members, including problem-solving and capacity-
building roles.
C2e. Key Elements of Evaluation Plan
The candidate does not provide a logical discussion of key
elements of developing a collaborative evaluation plan, using
CBPR principles.
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with no detail, of
key elements of developing a collaborative evaluation plan,
using CBPR principles.
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with limited detail,
of key elements of developing a collaborative evaluation plan,
using CBPR principles.
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with adequate
detail, of key elements of developing a collaborative evaluation
plan, using CBPR principles.
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with substantial
detail, of key elements of developing a collaborative evaluation
plan, using CBPR principles.
C2f. Community/Organization Plan

11. The candidate does not provide a logical discussion of how the
success of the community or organization plan will be evaluated
(bottom-up approach).
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with no detail, of
how the success the community or organization plan will be
evaluated (bottom-up approach).
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with limited detail,
of how the success of the community or organization plan will
be evaluated (bottom-up approach).
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with adequate
detail, of how the success of the community or organization
plan will be evaluated (bottom-up approach).
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with substantial
detail, of how the success of the community or organization
plan will be evaluated (bottom-up approach).
D1. Strengths of Each Approach
The candidate does not provide a logical discussion of the
strengths of each approach to implement change for the selected
policy issue.
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with no detail, of
the strengths of each approach to implement change for the
selected public policy issue.
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with limited detail,
of the strengths of each approach to implement change for the
selected public policy issue.
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with adequate
detail, of the strengths ofeach approach to implement change for
the selected public policy issue.
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with substantial
detail, of the strengths of each approach to implement change
for the selected public policy issue.
D2. Challenges of Each Approach
The candidate does not provide a logical discussion of the
challenges of each approach to implement change for the

12. selected public policy issue.
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with no detail, of
the challenges of each approach to implement change for the
selected public policy issue.
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with limited detail,
of the challenges of each approach to implement change for the
selected public policy issue.
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with adequate
detail, of the challenges of each approach to implement change
for the selected public policy issue.
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with substantial
detail, of the challenges of each approach to implement change
for the selected public policy issue.
D3. Most Effective Approach
The candidate does not provide a logical discussion of which
approach the candidate would recommend as the most effective
to address the selected public policy issue.
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with no detail, of
the challenges which approach the candidate would recommend
as the most effective to address the selected public policy issue.
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with limited detail,
of which approach the candidate would recommend as the most
effective to address the selected public policy issue.
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with adequate
detail, of which approach the candidate would recommend as
the most effective to address the selected public policy issue.
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with substantial
detail, of which approach the candidate would recommend as
the most effective to address the selected public policy issue.
E. Sources
When the candidate uses sources, the candidate does not provide
in-text citations and references.
When the candidate uses sources, the candidate provides only
some in-text citations and references.

13. When the candidate uses sources, the candidate provides
appropriate in-text citations and references with major
deviations from APA style.
When the candidate uses sources, the candidate provides
appropriate in-text citations and references with minor
deviations from APA style.
When the candidate uses sources, the candidate provides
appropriate in-text citations and references with no readily
detectable deviations from APA style, OR the candidate does
not use sources.
Bottom of Form