Apply Rubrics Coyne and Messina Articles, Part 1 Analysis 1 Unsatisfactory 0.00% 2 Less Than Satisfactory 65.00% 3 Satisfactory 75.00% 4 Good 85.00% 5 Excellent 100.00% 70.0 %Content 40.0 %Identification, Analysis, and Discussion of the Set of Elements Discussed in the Module as Applied to Two Studies. Assessment of how the Findings of the Two Studies are Supported Failure to demonstrate the ability to identify and analyze the set of elements in the studies. Failure to assess how the elements support the findings. Demonstrates only minimal ability to identify and analyze the set of elements of the studies. Demonstrates only minimal understanding of how the elements support the findings. Demonstrates ability to identify and analyze set of elements of the studies, but has some slight misunderstanding of the implications and meaning. Provides a basic understanding of how the elements support the findings. Demonstrates ability to identify and analyze the set of elements in the studies (in student's own words). Understands the ways the elements support the findings. Describes clearly the ability to identify and analyze the set of elements in the studies (in student's own words). Clearly describes a thorough understanding of how the elements support the findings. 30.0 %Integration of Information from Outside Resources into the Body of Paper Failure to use references, examples, or explanations. Provides some supporting examples, but minimal explanations used and no published references included. Supports main points with examples and explanations, but fails to include published references to support claims and ideas. Supports main points with references, explanations, and examples. Analysis and description is direct, competent, and appropriate of the criteria. Supports main points with references, examples, and full explanations of how they apply. Thoughtfully analyzes, evaluates, and describes major points of the criteria. 20.0 %Organization and Effectiveness 7.0 %Assignment Development and Purpose Paper lacks any discernible overall purpose or organizing claim. 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 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 ar.

1. Apply Rubrics
Coyne and Messina Articles, Part 1 Analysis
1
Unsatisfactory
0.00%
2
Less Than Satisfactory
65.00%
3
Satisfactory
75.00%
4
Good
85.00%
5
Excellent
100.00%
70.0 %Content
40.0 %Identification, Analysis, and Discussion of the Set of
Elements Discussed in the Module as Applied to Two Studies.
Assessment of how the Findings of the Two Studies are
Supported
Failure to demonstrate the ability to identify and analyze the set
of elements in the studies. Failure to assess how the elements
support the findings.
Demonstrates only minimal ability to identify and analyze the
set of elements of the studies. Demonstrates only minimal
understanding of how the elements support the findings.
Demonstrates ability to identify and analyze set of elements of
the studies, but has some slight misunderstanding of the
implications and meaning. Provides a basic understanding of
how the elements support the findings.

2. Demonstrates ability to identify and analyze the set of elements
in the studies (in student's own words). Understands the ways
the elements support the findings.
Describes clearly the ability to identify and analyze the set of
elements in the studies (in student's own words). Clearly
describes a thorough understanding of how the elements support
the findings.
30.0 %Integration of Information from Outside Resources into
the Body of Paper
Failure to use references, examples, or explanations.
Provides some supporting examples, but minimal explanations
used and no published references included.
Supports main points with examples and explanations, but fails
to include published references to support claims and ideas.
Supports main points with references, explanations, and
examples. Analysis and description is direct, competent, and
appropriate of the criteria.
Supports main points with references, examples, and full
explanations of how they apply. Thoughtfully analyzes,
evaluates, and describes major points of the criteria.
20.0 %Organization and Effectiveness
7.0 %Assignment Development and Purpose
Paper lacks any discernible overall purpose or organizing claim.
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.

3. 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.
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 and/or
sentence construction are used.
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

4. 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 %Research Citations (In-text citations for paraphrasing and
direct quotes, and reference page listing and formatting, as
appropriate to assignment and style)
No reference page is included. No citations are used.
Reference page is present. Citations are inconsistently used.
Reference page is included and lists sources used in the paper.
Sources are appropriately documented, although some errors
may be present
Reference page is present and fully inclusive of all cited
sources. Documentation is appropriate and citation style is
usually correct.
In-text citations and a reference page are complete and correct.
The documentation of cited sources is free of error.
100 %Total Weightage

5. Coyne and Messina Articles Analysis
As an example guideline, review the study components in the
left-side column of the table below. Read the study by Messina
et al., and build the data in the right-side column with the key
components in that study.
Research Question:
Coyne: Do size and ownership type make a difference in the
efficiency and cost results of hospitals in Washington state?
(Highlight p.164, second column, starting 15 lines from bottom
to seven lines from bottom.)
Messina:
How did the research question emerge from the review of
literature in the article?
Coyne: Built on an earlier study by Coyne on performance
differences between multi-facility systems and independent
hospitals using two cost measures. Cited studies that used a
range of variables to measure differences in hospital
performance, and noted that prior findings have been
inconclusive in regard to hospital size, although economies of
scale were found.
Messina:
Independent Variables
Type:
Coyne: Hospital size and hospital ownership structure.
Categorical
Messina:
Dependent Variables

6. Type:
Coyne: Efficiency measures – continuous variables.
Cost measures – continuous variables.
Messina:
Design Elements
1. Quantitative vs. Qualitative
2. Sample Size
3. Method of sample selection
4. Experimental vs. control group?
5. Reliable and valid data instruments?
Coyne:
Quantitative
96
Picked all hospitals in state, except investor owned hospitals.
No
Used data that are commonly used to measure hospital
efficiency and performance with high degrees of accuracy
(reliable), and data that are historically used and make sense to
other hospital users (valid).
Messina:
Describe analysis.
What statistics were used?
Coyne: Two-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)
Messina:
Did the researchers’ conclusions make sense, did they answer
the research question, and did they appear to flow from the

7. review of the literature?
Did they explore control of extraneous variables?
Coyne: They concluded that size and ownership type make a
difference in reported levels of efficiency. Not for profits seem
to achieve higher performance levels, and medium and large not
for profits operate more efficiently than industry average. The
same results were found for cost levels, in that size and
ownership type do make a difference, with medium sized
hospitals reporting lower costs than large or small hospitals.
Yes, when they called for national studies that controlled for
case mix, scope of services, and payer mix, all of which could
have affected the results in this study in an unmeasured way.
Messina:
Coyne and Messina Articles, Part 1 Analysis
View Rubric
Due Date: Sep 30, 2015 23:59:59 Max Points: 60
Details:
1) In a paper (1,000-1,250 words), compare and contrast the
major elements of the reports by Coyne et al. and Messina et al.,
listed in the Module 2 Readings.
2) Complete the "Coyne and Messina Articles Analysis." Study
the information in the right-side column related to the Coyne, et
al. study, which identifies the required elements as found in the
reading. Complete the information for the Messina et al. article
by identifying the required elements from the article.
3) Prepare this assignment according to the APA guidelines
found in the APA Style Guide, located in the Student Success
Center. An abstract is not required.
4) This assignment uses a grading rubric. Instructors will be
using the rubric to grade the assignment; therefore, students

8. should review the rubric prior to beginning the assignment to
become familiar with the assignment criteria and expectations
for successful completion of the assignment.
HLT540.v10R.CoyneanMessinaArticlesAnalysis_student.docx
© 2010. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.