1Grading Rubric for Written Papers: HCM340 This rubric is adopted from the Association of American Colleges and Universities LEAP Initiative Strategy: Review the Scholarly Paper Guidelines in the “Resources for all Nursing and Healthcare Professions” document for preparing and writing your paper. Benchmark indicates the minimal level performance expectations. This assignment has 6 critical elements worth up to 2 points each, for a total of 12 points. Rubric Critical Elements Proficient 2 Accomplished 1.7 Benchmark 1.5 Below Benchmark 1 Explanation of Issues Development of a clear focused thesis statement Issue/problem to be considered critically is stated clearly and described comprehensively, delivering all relevant information necessary for full understanding. Issue/problem to be considered critically is stated, described, and clarified so that understanding is not seriously impeded by omissions. Issue/problem to be considered critically is stated but description leaves some terms undefined, ambiguities unexplored, boundaries undetermined, and/or backgrounds unknown. Issue/problem to be considered critically is stated without clarification or description. Evidence Selecting and using information to investigate a point of view or conclusion Information is taken from source(s) with enough interpretation/evaluation to develop a comprehensive analysis or synthesis. Viewpoints of experts are questioned thoroughly. Greater than 85% of the referenced articles are from discipline specific peer-reviewed journals and 15% of sources come from interdisciplinary peer-reviewed journals with synthesis from disciplines evident. Information is taken from source(s) with enough interpretation/evaluation to develop a coherent analysis or synthesis. Viewpoints of experts are subject to questioning, but not well developed. Greater than 20% of references come from discipline specific peer-reviewed journals and 10% of references come from interdisciplinary sources, with enough analysis to develop a coherent consensus. Information is taken from source(s) with some interpretation/evaluation, but not enough to develop a coherent analysis or synthesis. Viewpoints of experts are taken as mostly fact, with little questioning. 5-20% of the references come from discipline specific peer-reviewed journals. Information is taken from source(s) without any interpretation/evaluation. Viewpoints of experts are taken as fact, without question. Limited sources from peer-reviewed journals less than 5% from specific discipline, and > 5% for interdisciplinary peer-reviewed journals. Influence of Context and Assumptions Demonstrates an understanding of the intended audience. Thoroughly (systematically and methodically) analyzes own (if applicable) and others' assumptions and carefully evaluates the relevance of contexts when presenting a position. Is mindful of the contextual principles of the specific discipline for which the student is enrolled. Identifies own and others' assum ...

1. 1Grading Rubric for Written Papers: HCM340
This rubric is adopted from the Association of American
Colleges and Universities LEAP Initiative
Strategy: Review the Scholarly Paper Guidelines in the
“Resources for all Nursing and Healthcare Professions”
document for preparing and writing your paper.
Benchmark indicates the minimal level performance
expectations. This assignment has 6 critical elements worth up
to 2 points each, for a total of 12 points.
Rubric
Critical Elements
Proficient
2
Accomplished
1.7
Benchmark
1.5
Below Benchmark
1
Explanation of Issues
Development of a clear focused thesis statement
Issue/problem to be considered critically is stated clearly and
described comprehensively, delivering all relevant information
necessary for full understanding.
Issue/problem to be considered critically is stated, described,
and clarified so that understanding is not seriously impeded by
omissions.
Issue/problem to be considered critically is stated but
description leaves some terms undefined, ambiguities
unexplored, boundaries undetermined, and/or backgrounds
unknown.
Issue/problem to be considered critically is stated without
clarification or description.
Evidence

2. Selecting and using information to investigate a point of view
or conclusion
Information is taken from source(s) with enough
interpretation/evaluation to develop a comprehensive analysis
or synthesis.
Viewpoints of experts are questioned thoroughly. Greater than
85% of the referenced articles are from discipline specific peer-
reviewed journals and 15% of sources come from
interdisciplinary peer-reviewed journals with synthesis from
disciplines evident.
Information is taken from source(s) with enough
interpretation/evaluation to develop a coherent analysis or
synthesis.
Viewpoints of experts are subject to questioning, but not well
developed. Greater than 20% of references come from discipline
specific peer-reviewed journals and 10% of references come
from interdisciplinary sources, with enough analysis to develop
a coherent consensus.
Information is taken from source(s) with some
interpretation/evaluation, but not enough to develop a coherent
analysis or synthesis.
Viewpoints of experts are taken as mostly fact, with little
questioning. 5-20% of the references come from discipline
specific peer-reviewed journals.
Information is taken from source(s) without any
interpretation/evaluation.
Viewpoints of experts are taken as fact, without question.
Limited sources from peer-reviewed journals less than 5% from
specific discipline, and > 5% for interdisciplinary peer-
reviewed journals.
Influence of Context and Assumptions
Demonstrates an understanding of the intended audience.
Thoroughly (systematically and methodically) analyzes own (if
applicable) and others' assumptions and carefully evaluates the
relevance of contexts when presenting a position. Is mindful of
the contextual principles of the specific discipline for which the

3. student is enrolled.
Identifies own and others' assumptions and several relevant
contexts when presenting a position.
Questions some assumptions. Identifies several relevant
contexts when presenting a position. May be more aware of
others' assumptions than one's own (or vice versa).
May make assumptions about contexts, without identifying
influence on position. Begins to identify some contexts when
presenting a position.
Conclusions and Related Outcomes (Implications and
Consequences)
Conclusions and related outcomes (consequences and
implications) are logical and reflect student’s informed
evaluation and ability to place evidence and perspectives
discussed in priority order.
Conclusion is logically tied to a range of information, including
opposing viewpoints; related outcomes (consequences and
implications) are identified clearly.
Conclusion is logically tied to information (because information
is chosen to fit the desired conclusion); some related outcomes
(consequences and implications) are identified clearly.
Conclusion is inconsistently tied to some of the information
discussed; related outcomes (consequences and implications)
are oversimplified.
Writing Mechanics
Paper is well organized with a compelling introduction, and
well-developed body with analysis, and conclusion. Flow of
Syntax is effective paragraph-to-paragraph, sentence-to-
sentence.
Paper is well-organized and has a strong introduction, body,
analysis, and conclusion.
Few syntactical errors that do not affect clarity.
Paper is organized and has an introduction, body, and a
conclusion. Flow of syntax may be choppy, with slight
distraction of readability.

4. Paper has an elementary organization with introduction, body,
and conclusion; Several syntax errors that distract from
readability.
APA Formatting
Demonstrates greater than 95% compliance with APA format
and spelling and grammar rules. Attribution is well documented,
indicates synthesis of several authors.
Paper is within page-length criteria
Demonstrates 85%-95% compliance with APA format and
spelling and grammar rules. Appropriately and accurately
paraphrases and summarizes sources without distorting original
meaning.
Paper is within page-length criteria
Demonstrates 80-85% compliance with APA format and spelling
and grammar rules. Distinguishes between common
knowledge and information requiring attribution.
Paper is within page-length criteria
Demonstrates less than 80% compliance with APA format and
spelling and grammar rules.
Ineffective attribution; may have 20% or more direct quotations,
might not distinguish common knowledge from information
requiring attribution.
Paper is less than 3 or more than 4 pages of writing
Total:
Comments:
5/2013 cma
ME 116 Project

5. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All rights reserved.
Ex_12-4c
Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All rights reserved.
Ex_12-4d
Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All rights reserved.
Fig_12-16
Bibliography
Bethall, C. D., Kogan, M. D., & Strickland, B. B. (2011,
May/June). A National and State Profile of Leading Health
Problems and Health Care Quality for US Children: Key
Insurance Disparities and Across-State Variations. Retrieved
May 11, 2016, from
http://www.academicpedsjnl.net/article/S1876-2859(10)00250-
0/abstract?cc=y=
Chassin, M. R., & Galvin, R. W. (998, September 16). The
Urgent Need to Improve Health Care Quality. Retrieved May
12, 2016, from
http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=187987
Crone, M. R., & Vogals, A. G. (2008, April 04). BMC Public
Health. Retrieved May 10, 2016, from
http://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/147
1-2458-8-106
Hyman, D. A., & Silver, C. (2004). 90 Cornell Law Review
2004-2005. Retrieved May 16, 2016, from
http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/cl

6. qv90
Retchin, W. R., S M. (1999, May). Global Health Education in a
Changing World: The Next New C... : Academic Medicine.
Retrieved May 11, 2016, from
http://journals.lww.com/academicmedicine/pages/articleviewer.
aspx?moblie=0
Rubin, H. R., Pronovost, P., & Diette, G. B. (2001, September
28). The Advantages and Disadvantages of Process‐based
Measures of Health Care Quality. Retrieved May 10, 2016, from
http://m.intqhc.oxfordjournals.org/content/13/6/469.abstract