Application of Concept Analysis to Clinical Practice

1
Unsatisfactory
0.00%

2
Less Than Satisfactory
80.00%

3
Satisfactory
88.00%

4
Good
92.00%

5
Excellent
100.00%

70.0 %Content

5.0 %Introduction

Introduction is either not present or not evident to the reader.

Introduction is insufficiently developed and/or vague. Purpose is not clear, and paper lacks any discernible overall purpose or organizing claim.

Introduction is present but lacks clarity and/or depth.

Introduction is clear, forecasting development of paper.

Introduction is comprehensive; reader knows exactly what to expect.

30.0 %Description of method, steps in process, and results using the chosen article and chapter 3 of the textbook.

Description of method, steps in process, and results using the chosen article and chapter 3 of the textbook is either not present or not evident to the reader.

Description of method, steps in process, and results using the chosen article and chapter 3 of the textbook is present, but is vague or insufficiently developed.

Addresses the primary elements of the concept but fails to paint a clear picture of the concept analysis.

Primary elements of the concept are present and evident to the reader. Clear picture of concept analysis can be easily detected by the reader.

Thoroughly presents all of the information to portray a clear chronology as well as richness of detail.

30.0 %Application to Practice

Application to practice is either not present or not evident to the reader.

Application to practice is present but insufficiently developed.

Application to practice is present but development is cursory and lacks depth.

Application to practice is evident to the reader. Arguments are cogent to thesis and support claims.

Thoroughly presents the application to practice with rich detail and supporting arguments.

5.0 %Conclusion

Conclusion is either not present or not evident to the reader.

Conclusion is insufficiently developed and/or vague and lacks any discernible purpose.

Conclusion is present, but statements lack depth of understanding.

Conclusion is clear and identifies key ideas regarding application of the concept to practice.

Conclusion is comprehensive and paints a clear picture of the application concept to practice.

20.0 %Organization and Effectiveness

7.0 %Thesis 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 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)

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 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