This week, you examine cellular processes that are subject to alterations that can lead to disease. You evaluate the genetic environments within which these processes exist as well as the impact these environments have on disease. Scenario: An 83-year-old resident of a skilled nursing facility presents to the emergency department with generalized edema of extremities and abdomen. History obtained from staff reveals the patient has history of malabsorption syndrome and difficulty eating due to lack of dentures. The patient has been diagnosed with protein malnutrition Post an explanation of the disease highlighted in the scenario you were provided. Include the following in your explanation:  I suggest that each bullet point be a subject heading and submit in APA format.  Each bullet point should reflect a subject heading followed by subsequent content reflective of primary source(s) of reference published within the last 6 years. . The role genetics plays in the disease. . Why the patient is presenting with the specific symptoms described. . The physiologic response to the stimulus presented in the scenario and why you think this response occurred. . The cells that are involved in this process. . How another characteristic (e.g., gender, genetics) would change your response. 6 Training and Evaluation for Shell Company Name Department, Institutional Affiliation Course Instructor Date Training and Evaluation for Shell Company Training programs can sometimes be costly endeavor for modern firms. In the United States, for example, firms often allocate a total of approximately $170 billion in human resource development and professional courses. These investments are often necessary for attracting and retaining highly talented and qualified employees, and keeping up with contemporary technological requirements. Furthermore, employee participation in high-quality training increases their opportunities for advancements, skill development, as well as professional growth. During financial crises, however, firms often tend to cut the funds that are apportioned for training employees in new skills and competences. These decisions are often regarded as unaffordable luxuries. Thus, evaluation programs should be established to assess the success of training initiatives. Shell Company requires an elaborate and effective evaluation plan to determine if the training benefits justify the financial investments, and if the knowledge and skills that are gained in the training courses are indeed applied in real-work settings. Link to the first evaluation form https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1_ulhJ1Mf6OgxufxH5GG1YhK41C50hlRTsF247UAaKgY/edit Reasons for Selecting the first Evaluation Instrument There are various reasons why I selected the above evaluation instrument. This instrument was informed by the Kirkpatrick’s Taxonomy model, which provides a comprehensive framework for designing an efficacious assessment criteria. The model or example, provides a fo ...

1. This week, you examine cellular processes that are subject to
alterations that can lead to disease. You evaluate the genetic
environments within which these processes exist as well as the
impact these environments have on disease.
Scenario:
An 83-year-old resident of a skilled nursing facility presents to
the emergency department with generalized edema of
extremities and abdomen. History obtained from staff reveals
the patient has history of malabsorption syndrome and difficulty
eating due to lack of dentures. The patient has been diagnosed
with protein malnutrition
Post an explanation of the disease highlighted in the scenario
you were provided. Include the following in your explanation: I
suggest that each bullet point be a subject heading and submit in
APA format. Each bullet point should reflect a subject heading
followed by subsequent content reflective of primary source(s)
of reference published within the last 6 years.
. The role genetics plays in the disease.
. Why the patient is presenting with the specific symptoms
described.
. The physiologic response to the stimulus presented in the
scenario and why you think this response occurred.
. The cells that are involved in this process.
. How another characteristic (e.g., gender, genetics) would
change your response.
6
Training and Evaluation for Shell Company

2. Name
Department, Institutional Affiliation
Course
Instructor
Date
Training and Evaluation for Shell Company
Training programs can sometimes be costly endeavor for
modern firms. In the United States, for example, firms often
allocate a total of approximately $170 billion in human resource
development and professional courses. These investments are
often necessary for attracting and retaining highly talented and
qualified employees, and keeping up with contemporary
technological requirements. Furthermore, employee
participation in high-quality training increases their
opportunities for advancements, skill development, as well as
professional growth. During financial crises, however, firms
often tend to cut the funds that are apportioned for training
employees in new skills and competences. These decisions are
often regarded as unaffordable luxuries. Thus, evaluation
programs should be established to assess the success of training
initiatives. Shell Company requires an elaborate and effective
evaluation plan to determine if the training benefits justify the
financial investments, and if the knowledge and skills that are
gained in the training courses are indeed applied in real -work
settings.
Link to the first evaluation form
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1_ulhJ1Mf6OgxufxH5GG1YhK
41C50hlRTsF247UAaKgY/edit
Reasons for Selecting the first Evaluation Instrument
There are various reasons why I selected the above
evaluation instrument. This instrument was informed by the
Kirkpatrick’s Taxonomy model, which provides a
comprehensive framework for designing an efficacious

3. assessment criteria. The model or example, provides a four -
level approach that can be employed to assess the success of
any training course. These levels include reaction, learning,
behavior, and results (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrickm, 2016). At
the reaction level, my assessment focused on gauging the degree
to which the participants respond to the training. This included
asking them to complete a short survey, which enabled them to
determine if the conditions for learning were met or were
present. In particular, feedback forms were created, which
utilized different tools, such as comment boxes and five-point
Likert scales.
Link to the second evaluation
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1j4ms_OlWx09OHB7dVUyqVl
e2c0vppjunpKZqSlpuWSE/edit
Reason for Selecting the Second Evaluation
The second instrument focused on determining the extent
to which the participants learned from the training exercise.
Most precisely, a few questions were provided, which required
them to state some of the areas that they learned. This was
particularly helpful in determining their level of skills
acquisition and retention. In particular, practical tests were
utilized to determine their levels of knowledge before, during,
and after the training programs. The assessment also placed
emphases on the behavioral aspects of the program. This was
initiated after the training. It utilizes various evaluation models,
which seek to examine whether the training courses that the
participants were administered can be translated into real -world
practice environment. To attain this objective, the employees
were asked to mention some of the concepts that they had
learned and how they are going to utilize them in the work
contexts. Additionally, they were given practical examination,
which involved the translation of their knowledge to practice.
Finally, the results aspect of the training and evaluation tool
explored whether the program met all the stakeholders’
expectations. In the firm, the stakeholders are often the
management executives who decided to allocate a lot of

4. financial resources towards implementing the training in the
first place. The purpose of determining the return on such
expectations, can be done by undertaking a cost-benefit
analysis.
Discussion
Many firms often allocate millions of dollars to fund
training courses, which may not be applied in the job settings.
This practice creates a large gap between learning outcomes and
the actual training transfer, such as the degree to which training
contents are applied to practice. Moreover, a lack of training
transfer can also increase the financial costs, and is highly time -
consuming. To determine the promising trainings, it is
important for Shell and its human resource team to assess and
document the potential training benefits.
The evaluation of training programs should not be based solely
on the participants’ responses, which are examined shortly after
a training course. This is because determining the actual
benefits is important in examining not just the short-term
effects, but also participants’ long term outcomes back at work
(Grohmann&Kauffeld, 2013). As such, future human resource
development professionals will be tasked with assessing the
benefits of trainings systematically since the purpose and
benefits of such initiatives are often continually questioned by
stakeholders.
In light of the above, the evaluation model that the firm will
embrace will be critical in meeting the practical demands of
employees. Additionally, it has high usability, because the
questionnaires can be well accepted by the respondents and
easily applicable to a wide range of training programs that the
company offers. Moreover, it is time-efficient, thus, important
for the company’s fast-moving business environment. There are
various benefits of the evaluation tool that has been designed
for the company. For instance, it is efficacious in justifying the
financial input made, and serves as quality management
instrument. Moreover, it can provide feedback to human
resource departments and trainers for enhancing their training

5. initiatives. In so doing, it helps to inform the process of making
more accurate decisions regarding the continuation of training
programs. The firm can also utilize the evaluation outcomes as
marketing tools for human resource departments and training
institutes to attract possible job candidates.
The company has made various steps to ensure that the
evaluation is effective. The questionnaires, for example,
illustrate a high usability in terms of time efficiency. Moreover,
it addresses broader issues, such as examining determinants of
successful training transfers. This aspect is especially important
in optimizing future training programs. The training courses
have also been evaluated with the utilization of standardized
assessment metrics and training-specific models.
References
Grohmann, A., &Kauffeld, S. (2013). Evaluating training
programs: development and correlates
of the Q questionnaire for Professional T raining E
valuation. International Journal of
Training and Development, 17(2), 135-155.
Kirkpatrick, J. D., & Kirkpatrick, W. K. (2016). Kirkpatrick's
four levels of training evaluation.
Association for Talent Development.
Rubric Detail
Select Grid View or List View to change the rubric's layout.
Content
Name: NURS_6501_Discussion_Rubric
Grid ViewList View
Excellent
Good
Fair

6. Poor
Main Posting
Points:
Points Range:
45 (45%) - 50 (50%)
Answers all parts of the Discussion question(s) with reflective
critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the
course readings for the module and current credible sources.
Supported by at least three current, credible sources.

7. Written clearly and concisely with no grammatical or spelling
errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules
and style.
Feedback:
Points:
Points Range:
40 (40%) - 44 (44%)

8. Responds to the Discussion question(s) and is reflective with
critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the
course readings for the module.
At least 75% of post has exceptional depth and breadth.
Supported by at least three credible sources.
Written clearly and concisely with one or no grammatical or
spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual wri ting
rules and style.
Feedback:
Points:

9. Points Range:
35 (35%) - 39 (39%)
Responds to some of the Discussion question(s).
One or two criteria are not addressed or are superficially
addressed.
Is somewhat lacking reflection and critical analysis and
synthesis.
Somewhat represents knowledge gained from the course
readings for the module.
Post is cited with two credible sources.

10. Written somewhat concisely; may contain more than two
spelling or grammatical errors.
Contains some APA formatting errors.
Feedback:
Points:
Points Range:
0 (0%) - 34 (34%)

11. Does not respond to the Discussion question(s) adequately.
Lacks depth or superficially addresses criteria.
Lacks reflection and critical analysis and synthesis.
Does not represent knowledge gained from the course readings
for the module.
Contains only one or no credible sources.
Not written clearly or concisely.
Contains more than two spelling or grammatical errors.
Does not adhere to current APA manual writing rules and style.

12. Feedback:
Main Post: Timeliness
Points:
Points Range:
10 (10%) - 10 (10%)
Posts main post by Day 3.

13. Feedback:
Points:
Points Range:
0 (0%) - 0 (0%)
N/A

14. Feedback:
Points:
Points Range:
0 (0%) - 0 (0%)
N/A

15. Feedback:
Points:
Points Range:
0 (0%) - 0 (0%)
Does not post main post by Day 3.
Feedback:

16. First Response
Points:
Points Range:
17 (17%) - 18 (18%)
Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application
to practice settings.
Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by

17. at least two scholarly sources.
Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of Learning
Objectives.
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.
Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed.
Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.
Feedback:
Points:

18. Points Range:
15 (15%) - 16 (16%)
Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice
settings.
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.
Responses to faculty questions are answered, if posed.
Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by
two or more credible sources.
Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.

19. Feedback:
Points:
Points Range:
13 (13%) - 14 (14%)
Response is on topic and may have some depth.
Responses posted in the Discussion may lack effective

20. professional communication.
Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if
posed.
Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few
or no credible sources are cited.
Feedback:
Points:
Points Range:
0 (0%) - 12 (12%)

21. Response may not be on topic and lacks depth.
Responses posted in the Discussion lack effective professional
communication.
Responses to faculty questions are missing.
No credible sources are cited.
Feedback:
Second Response

22. Points:
Points Range:
16 (16%) - 17 (17%)
Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application
to practice settings.
Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by
at least two scholarly sources.
Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of Learning
Objectives.

23. Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.
Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed.
Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.
Feedback:
Points:
Points Range:
14 (14%) - 15 (15%)

24. Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice
settings.
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.
Responses to faculty questions are answered, if posed.
Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by
two or more credible sources.
Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.
Feedback:

25. Points:
Points Range:
12 (12%) - 13 (13%)
Response is on topic and may have some depth.
Responses posted in the Discussion may lack effective
professional communication.
Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if
posed.

26. Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few
or no credible sources are cited.
Feedback:
Points:
Points Range:
0 (0%) - 11 (11%)

27. Response may not be on topic and lacks depth.
Responses posted in the Discussion lack effective professional
communication.
Responses to faculty questions are missing.
No credible sources are cited.
Feedback:
Participation
Points:

28. Points Range:
5 (5%) - 5 (5%)
Meets requirements for participation by posting on 3 different
days.
Feedback:
Points:

29. Points Range:
0 (0%) - 0 (0%)
N/A
Feedback:
Points:

30. Points Range:
0 (0%) - 0 (0%)
N/A
Feedback:
Points:
Points Range:

31. 0 (0%) - 0 (0%)
Does not meet requirements for participation by posting on 3
different days.
Feedback:
Show Descriptions
Show Feedback
Main Posting--

32. Levels of Achievement:
Excellent
45 (45%) - 50 (50%)
Answers all parts of the Discussion question(s) with reflective
critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the
course readings for the module and current credible sources.
Supported by at least three current, credible sources.
Written clearly and concisely with no grammatical or spelling
errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules
and style.
Good
40 (40%) - 44 (44%)
Responds to the Discussion question(s) and is reflective with
critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the
course readings for the module.

33. At least 75% of post has exceptional depth and breadth.
Supported by at least three credible sources.
Written clearly and concisely with one or no grammatical or
spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing
rules and style.
Fair
35 (35%) - 39 (39%)
Responds to some of the Discussion question(s).
One or two criteria are not addressed or are superficially
addressed.
Is somewhat lacking reflection and critical analysis and
synthesis.
Somewhat represents knowledge gained from the course

34. readings for the module.
Post is cited with two credible sources.
Written somewhat concisely; may contain more than two
spelling or grammatical errors.
Contains some APA formatting errors.
Poor
0 (0%) - 34 (34%)
Does not respond to the Discussion question(s) adequately.
Lacks depth or superficially addresses criteria.
Lacks reflection and critical analysis and synthesis.
Does not represent knowledge gained from the course readings

35. for the module.
Contains only one or no credible sources.
Not written clearly or concisely.
Contains more than two spelling or grammatical errors.
Does not adhere to current APA manual writing rules and style.
Feedback:
Main Post: Timeliness--
Levels of Achievement:
Excellent

36. 10 (10%) - 10 (10%)
Posts main post by Day 3.
Good
0 (0%) - 0 (0%)
N/A
Fair
0 (0%) - 0 (0%)
N/A
Poor
0 (0%) - 0 (0%)
Does not post main post by Day 3.

37. Feedback:
First Response--
Levels of Achievement:
Excellent
17 (17%) - 18 (18%)
Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application
to practice settings.
Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by
at least two scholarly sources.
Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of Learning
Objectives.

38. Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.
Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed.
Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.
Good
15 (15%) - 16 (16%)
Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice
settings.
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.
Responses to faculty questions are answered, if posed.
Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by
two or more credible sources.

39. Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.
Fair
13 (13%) - 14 (14%)
Response is on topic and may have some depth.
Responses posted in the Discussion may lack effective
professional communication.
Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if
posed.
Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few
or no credible sources are cited.
Poor
0 (0%) - 12 (12%)

40. Response may not be on topic and lacks depth.
Responses posted in the Discussion lack effective professional
communication.
Responses to faculty questions are missing.
No credible sources are cited.
Feedback:
Second Response--
Levels of Achievement:
Excellent
16 (16%) - 17 (17%)

41. Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application
to practice settings.
Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by
at least two scholarly sources.
Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of Learning
Objectives.
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.
Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed.
Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.
Good
14 (14%) - 15 (15%)

42. Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice
settings.
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.
Responses to faculty questions are answered, if posed.
Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by
two or more credible sources.
Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.
Fair
12 (12%) - 13 (13%)
Response is on topic and may have some depth.
Responses posted in the Discussion may lack effective
professional communication.

43. Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if
posed.
Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few
or no credible sources are cited.
Poor
0 (0%) - 11 (11%)
Response may not be on topic and lacks depth.
Responses posted in the Discussion lack effective professional
communication.
Responses to faculty questions are missing.
No credible sources are cited.

44. Feedback:
Participation--
Levels of Achievement:
Excellent
5 (5%) - 5 (5%)
Meets requirements for participation by posting on 3 different
days.
Good
0 (0%) - 0 (0%)
N/A
Fair

45. 0 (0%) - 0 (0%)
N/A
Poor
0 (0%) - 0 (0%)
Does not meet requirements for participation by posting on 3
different days.
Feedback:

46. Total Points:
100
Name: NURS_6501_Discussion_Rubric