This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeIdentification of the problem/concern
|
10.0 pts
Exceptional- Comprehensively identifies the problem/concern.
|
9.0 pts
Exceeds- Adequately identifies the problem/concern.
|
8.0 pts
Meets- The reflection addresses the pre-determined program outcome in a generic manner without a specific example of exposure to or achievement of the outcome during this course/clinical.
|
4.0 pts
Needs Improvement- Identification of problem/concern is unclear.
|
0.0 pts
Developing- Identification of problem/concern is absent.
|
|
10.0 pts
|
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeBackground and significance of the disease (includes incidence or prevalence statistics)
|
25.0 pts
Exceptional- Background is complete, presents risks, disease impact and includes a review of incidence and prevalence of the disease within the student’s local area, state, and nationally. Evidence supports background.
|
22.0 pts
Exceeds- Background is complete, presents risk, disease impact and at least one set of incidence and prevalence statistics are presented and supported by evidence.
|
20.0 pts
Meets- Background missing one or more key points and at least one set of incidence and prevalence statistics are presented. Lack of evidence or limited presentation of the background.
|
10.0 pts
Needs Improvement- Background missing more than one key point and at least one set of incidence and prevalence statistics are presented, or there is no supported evidence. Unclear conclusions or presentation.
|
0.0 pts
Developing- Background and significance of the disease is not provided.
|
|
25.0 pts
|
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCurrent surveillance methods
|
25.0 pts
Exceptional- Current local, state, and national disease surveillance methods are reviewed, currently gathered types of statistics, and information on whether the disease is mandated for reporting, supported by evidence.
|
22.0 pts
Exceeds- More than one local, state, and national disease surveillance methods are reviewed, currently gathered types of statistics, and information on whether the disease is mandated for reporting, supported by evidence.
|
20.0 pts
Meets- One of either local, state, and national disease surveillance methods are reviewed, currently gathered types of statistics, and information on whether the disease is mandated for reporting, supported by evidence.
|
10.0 pts
Needs Improvement- One of either local, state, and national disease surveillance methods are reviewed, currently gathered types of statistics, or only information on whether the disease is mandated for reporting, or evidence is lacking to support this area. Unclear conclusions or presentation.
|
0.0 pts
Developing- Local, state, and national disease surveillance methods were not discussed.
|
|
25.0 pts
|
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeDescriptive epidemiological analysis (includes characteristics of the at-risk population and/or those affected by the disease and costs of the disease)
|
25.0 pts
Exceptional- Comprehensive review and analysis of descriptive epidemiological points of the identified disease and population most at risk, supported by scholarly evidence.
|
22.0 pts
Exceeds- Adequate review with some analysis of descriptive epidemiological points of the identified disease and population most at risk supported by scholarly evidence.
|
20.0 pts
Meets- Limited review and analysis of key descriptive epidemiological points of the identified disease and at-risk population.
|
10.0 pts
Needs Improvement- Minimal analysis of key descriptive epidemiological points of the identified disease and at-risk population.
|
0.0 pts
Developing- No analysis of key descriptive epidemiological points of the identified disease and at-risk population is provided.
|
|
25.0 pts
|
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeScreening and diagnosis (includes review of current guidelines for screening and diagnosis of the disease. In-depth review of statistics one screening or diagnostic test provided)
|
25.0 pts
Exceptional- Comprehensive review of current guidelines for screening, diagnosis, and statistics related to validity, predictive value, and reliability of screening tests is presented.
|
22.0 pts
Exceeds- Adequate review of guidelines for screening, diagnosis, and statistics related to validity, predictive value, and reliability of screening tests is presented.
|
20.0 pts
Meets- Limited review of guidelines for screening, diagnosis, and statistics related to validity, predictive value, and reliability of screening tests.
|
10.0 pts
Needs Improvement- Minimal or unclear review of guidelines for screening, diagnosis, and statistics related to validity, predictive value, and reliability of screening tests.
|
0.0 pts
Developing- Review of guidelines for screening, diagnosis, and statistics related to validity, predictive value, and reliability of screening tests not provided.
|
|
25.0 pts
|
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomePlan of action (includes at least three evidenced based actions, supported by literature, that the student will take in their own practice and how outcomes will be measured)
|
25.0 pts
Exceptional – A comprehensive plan of action specific to the student’s interests, the problem, and the geographic area is presented with 3 evidenced based actions that will be taken to address the impact, outcomes, or prevalence of the disease.
|
22.0 pts
Exceeds- An adequate, but not fully comprehensive, plan of action specific to the student’s interests, the problem, and the geographic area is presented with 3 evidenced based actions that will be taken to address the impact, outcomes, or prevalence of the disease.
|
20.0 pts
Meets- A limited plan of action specific to the student’s interests, the problem, and the geographic area is, outcomes, or prevalence of the disease. Three actions are presented with limited or little evidence.
|
10.0 pts
Needs Improvement- Actions are minimal or unclear, or lack specificity to geographic area, are not supported directly by evidence or are not direct actions the student can take in practice.
|
0.0 pts
Developing- Plan of action not provided.
|
|
25.0 pts
|
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeConclusion
|
10.0 pts
Exceptional- The conclusion thoroughly, clearly, succinctly, and logically presents major points of the paper with clear direction for action.
|
9.0 pts
Exceeds- The conclusion adequately and logically presents major points of the paper with clear direction for action, but lacks one major point or is not succinct.
|
8.0 pts
Meets- The conclusion is a limited review of key points of the paper, is not succinct, or lacks one or more major points of the paper or clear direction for action.
|
4.0 pts
Needs Improvement- Conclusion is unclear or significantly limited in overview of the paper.
|
0.0 pts
Developing- Conclusion not provided.
|
|
10.0 pts
|
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeGrammar, Syntax, APA
|
5.0 pts
Exceptional- APA format, grammar, spelling, and/or punctuation are accurate, or with zero to one errors.
|
4.0 pts
Exceeds- Two to four errors in APA format, grammar, spelling, and syntax noted.
|
3.0 pts
Meets- Five to seven errors in APA format, grammar, spelling, and syntax noted.
|
2.0 pts
Needs Improvement- Eight to nine errors in APA format, grammar, spelling, and syntax noted.
|
0.0 pts
Developing- Post contains greater than ten errors in APA format, grammar, spelling, and/or punctuation or repeatedly makes the same errors after faculty feedback.
|
|
5.0 pts
|
|
Total Points: 150.0
|