In this component of the white paper, you will review what you have written so far and provide evidence-based descriptions of what has been done so far to address your chosen topic. The

HSC517 M5.4 Rubric 2019.pdf Download Original Safe Download (PDF) File Info Search Share Print Help 0/0 × Information ×

Content scan completed. The original file can be downloaded by clicking the download button if permitted by your policy.

• Content scan completed

OK × Help ×

To enable safe viewing of documents and attachments, all active or risky content is executed away from the endpoint with a safe version rendered in the document viewer.

To download either the safe PDF version or original document, click on the download icon in the top right corner of the viewer. The download button may be greyed out, you will not be able to download the original version of a document if it has been found to contain malware or if your administrator has prevented it.

You may be able to download a Safe PDF version of the document.

File Info, Search, Share, and Print options can be accessed by clicking on the three dots in the top right hand corner of the document viewer.

File Info – File Info shows the properties of the document, including created date, modified date and author.

Search – Opens a search dialog bar. Upon entering a search term and clicking ‘Enter’ the UI reports the total number of hits and highlights the matching terms in the page. The user can navigate forward and backwards through the matching terms in the document. Pages are dynamically loaded in order to display the next matching search result.

Share – Displays a new dialog containing a link to the original URL of the document with a button to copy the URL. This option is not available for email attachments.

Print – selecting 'Print' opens the Print dialogue, showing a preview of the printed document, with the ability to scroll through all the pages of the document. Clicking the printer icon opens the printer settings for the selected printer.

OK Please use the "Print" button to print the document. HSC517 M5.4 Literature Review Program Outcomes Assessed: MHS SLPO 2: Apply research findings to direct the resolution of policy and practice-related issues and challenges. MHCA SLPO 6: Analyze contemporary issues impacting the healthcare environment. Criteria Critique of Prior Interventions (MHS SLPO2, MHCA SLPO6) Recommen- dation * (MHS SLPO2, MHCA SLPO6) Exemplary 30 points You use your literature findings to provide a thoughtful critique of efforts to address the issue, with a succinct and highly evidence- backed critique of success and failings of these efforts (including why they succeeded or failed). Your critique is based exclusively on the evidence, not opinion. Proficient 26 points You use your literature findings to provide a critique of efforts to address the issue, with a succinct and highly evidence-backed critique of success and failings of these efforts (including why they succeeded or failed). Minor points need further development, or may periodically insert opinion into the discussion . 30 points Your recommendation is clearly conveyed; it is realistic, actionable, based on the literature, and seamlessly aligned with the chosen issue, prior efforts, and what we know of service needs and stakeholders. The recommendation is persuasively delivered, using compelling statements that spur action. 26 points Your recommendation is clearly conveyed; it is realistic, based on the literature, and aligned with the chosen issue, prior efforts, and what we know of service needs and stakeholders. The recommendation is fairly persuasive. Minor points need further development . Progressing 23 points Your critique generally speaks to efforts to address the issue, with a succinct and highly evidence-backed critique of success and failings of these efforts (including why they succeeded or failed). The literature is not well integrated into the critique. Areas need further development; may insert own opinion into the discussion. 23 points Your recommendation is somewhat realistic, and aligns on a superficial level with the literature, chosen issue, prior efforts, and what we know of service needs and stakeholders. The recommendation is somewhat vague and does not easily inspire action. Areas need further development to improve the strength of the recommendation. Needs Improvement 20 points Your description of efforts to address the issue is not reliant on your literature findings. There is minimal discussion of the success or failings of these efforts (including why they succeeded or failed). Major areas are missing or inadequately or inaccurately described , or own opinion is heavily inserted into discussion. 20 points Your recommendation is not readily realistic, actionable, or persuasive. It is only indirectly related to with the literature, chosen issue, prior efforts, and what we know of service needs and stakeholders. Major areas are missing or inadequately or inaccurately described. R evisions are required to improve the strength of recommendation . Not Acceptable 17 points There is an attempt to identify past issues to address this issue; however, serious errors, inaccuracies, biases, or assumptions leave the reader unable to identify or understand these efforts. Or, the attempt is based on personal opinion and not the literature. 17 points Your recommendation is not literature-based or realistic. There are hints of alignment with the chosen issue, prior efforts, and what we know of service needs and stakeholders, but the connections are not made . Serious inaccuracies, biases, or assumptions are introduced in the recommendation, and a rewriteisneeded. Zero 0 points Criterion not addressed. No submission. Does not adhere to Academic Honesty Policy. 0 points Criterion not addressed. No submission. Does not adhere to Academic Honesty Policy. Sources & Evidence Audience and Organization Syntax & Mechanics 10 points Clearly identifies and integrates external scholarly, credible, and relevant sources of evidence (in addition to course materials per assignment directions) to develop ideas related to topic . Student clearly and consistently differentiates own thoughts from those of others at all times. 15 points Communication style and word choice is appropriate (e.g., professional, uses third person and disciplinary language) . 8 points Identifies and integrates external scholarly, credible, and relevant sources of evidence (in addition to course materials and per assignment directions) to develop ideas related to the topic . In general, student differentiates own thoughts from those of others. Paragraphs are logical and well-developed; transitions are seamless. Introduction and conclusion are well organized, insightful, and reflect your problem analysis . 10 points Clearly and consistently uses proper grammar, spelling, and punctuation. Sophisticated sentence structure (e.g., verb tense, passive vs. active) 8 points Uses proper grammar, spelling, and punctuation. There are a few minor errors, which do not interfere with meaning. Appropriate sentence structure (e.g., verb tense, 7 points In general, uses credible and relevant sources of evidence (in addition to course materials and per assignment directions). AND/OR Student does not clearly differentiate own thoughts from those of others in several places . 6 points In general, mentions sources, but at least some are not credible (in addition to course materials and per assignment directions) . AND Student does not clearly differentiate own thoughts from those of others in several places. 5 points Any sources of evidence used a re not credible (in addition to course materials and per assignment directions). AND Student does not differentiate own thoughts from those of others in several places. 0 points Criterion not addressed. No submission. Does not adhere to Academic Honesty Policy. 11 points Communication style and word choice is generally appropriate (e.g., professional, uses third person and disciplinary language) with occasional use of informal language or terminology. Paragraphs are not consistently cohesive ; however, reader can follow the flow. Introduction and conclusion are logical and reflect your analysis. However, some details are missing that would strengthen the connections between introduction, analysis, and conclusion. 7 points Generally, uses proper grammar, spelling, and punctuation. There are a few errors that interfere with meaning. Limited sentence structure (e.g., verb tense, passive vs. active) and 6 points There are many grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors that interfere with meaning. Limited sentence structure (e.g., verb tense, passive vs. active) 8 points Attempts appropriate (e.g., professional, uses third person and disciplinary language) communication style and word choice ; there is frequent use of informal language or terminology. 0 points Criterion not addressed. No submission. Does not adhere to Academic Honesty Policy. Transitions are often missing or incomplete . Lack of cohesion within paragraphs makes it difficult to follow flow. Introduction and conclusion need additional clarification to show understanding of the issue and align with the analysis. 5 points There are major grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors that make it extremely difficult to read and understand . Little to no sentence structure (e.g., verb tense, passive 0 points No submission. Does not adhere to Academic Honesty Policy. APA Formatting* *Requirements are assignment specific. Check directions. and variation are used (e.g. sentence lengths, subject & verb placement). passive vs. active) and variation are used (e.g. sentence lengths, subject & verb placement). variation are used (e.g. sentence lengths, subject & verb placement). A few sentence structure errors interfere with meaning. 5 points Correct APA formatting, per assignment directions, is used in all aspects of the paper. 3 points APA formatting, per assignment directions, is used; however, there are minor formatting errors (e.g., reference page, in-text citations, cover page, etc.). and variation are used (e.g. sentence lengths, subject & verb placement). Sentence structure errors interfere with meaning. vs. active) and variation are used (e.g. sentence lengths, subject & verb placement). Sentence structure errors interfere with meaning. 1 point APA formatting is seldom used correctly. 0 points No submission. Does not adhere to Academic Honesty Policy. * Note: If you are recommending a health app, this will be the foundation of your recommendation. Be very specific about what your proposed app or innovation will do to address the issue, who the app’s target user group will be, and any other information that will help to explain how your app will make a difference. Page /  3 -100%+ Safe Document Download × Safe Document Download: HSC517 M5.4 Rubric 2019.pdf Complete OK Document Properties

• Printed Page Count: 3
• Title: HSC517 M5A1: Literature Review
• author: Anna Zendell
• Creator: Microsoft® Word for Microsoft 365
• CreationDate: 2022/02/04 15:43:44-05'00'
• ModDate: 2022/02/04 15:43:44-05'00'
• Producer: Microsoft® Word for Microsoft 365

Input value altered × The website Javascript has altered an input field value, please confirm accuracy.

Collepals.com Plagiarism Free Papers

Are you looking for custom essay writing service or even dissertation writing services? Just request for our write my paper service, and we'll match you with the best essay writer in your subject! With an exceptional team of professional academic experts in a wide range of subjects, we can guarantee you an unrivaled quality of custom-written papers.

Get ZERO PLAGIARISM, HUMAN WRITTEN ESSAYS

Why Hire Collepals.com writers to do your paper?

Quality- We are experienced and have access to ample research materials.

We write plagiarism Free Content

Confidential- We never share or sell your personal information to third parties.

Support-Chat with us today! We are always waiting to answer all your questions.