Rubic_Print_Format
Rubic_Print_Format
| Course Code | Class Code | Assignment Title | Total Points | |||||
| HLT-520 | HLT-520-O500 | EMTALA Scenario Analysis | 80.0 | |||||
| Criteria | Percentage | Unsatisfactory (0.00%) | Less Than Satisfactory (65.00%) | Satisfactory (75.00%) | Good (85.00%) | Excellent (100.00%) | Comments | Points Earned |
| Content | 70.0% | |||||||
| EMTALA Violations | 20.0% | A description of EMTALA violations if the patient was rejected is not included. | A description of EMTALA violations if the patient was rejected is incomplete or incorrect. | A description of EMTALA violations if the patient was rejected is included, but lacks supporting detail. | A description of EMTALA violations if the patient was rejected is complete and includes supporting detail. | A description of EMTALA violations if the patient was rejected is extremely thorough with substantial supporting detail | ||
| Administrator Decision | 20.0% | A description of the administrators decision is not included. | A description of the administrators decision is incomplete or incorrect. | A description of the administrators decision is included, but lacks supporting detail. | A description of the administrators decision is complete and includes supporting detail. | A description of the administrators decision is extremely thorough with substantial supporting detail. | ||
| Prevention Strategies | 15.0% | An explanation of potential prevention strategies is not included. | An explanation of potential prevention strategies is incomplete or incorrect. | An explanation of potential prevention strategies is included, but lacks supporting detail. | An explanation of potential prevention strategies is complete and includes supporting detail. | An explanation of potential prevention strategies is extremely thorough with substantial supporting detail. | ||
| EMTALA Concerns | 15.0% | A description of possible concerns related to EMTALA is not included | A description of possible concerns related to EMTALA is incomplete or incorrect. | A description of possible concerns related to EMTALA is included, but lacks supporting detail. | A description of possible concerns related to EMTALA is complete and includes supporting detail. | A description of possible concerns related to EMTALA is extremely thorough with substantial supporting detail. | ||
| Organization and Effectiveness | 20.0% | |||||||
| Thesis Development and Purpose | 7.0% | Paper lacks any discernible overall purpose or organizing claim.. | Thesis is insufficiently developed or vague. Purpose is not clear. | Thesis is apparent and appropriate to purpose. | Thesis is clear and forecasts the development of the paper. Thesis is descriptive and reflective of the arguments and appropriate to the purpose. | Thesis is comprehensive and contains the essence of the paper. Thesis statement makes the purpose of the paper clear. | ||
| Argument Logic and Construction | 8.0% | 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. | ||
| Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use) | 5.0% | Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice or sentence construction is used. | Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistencies in language choice (register) or word choice are present. Sentence structure is correct but not varied. | Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but they are not overly distracting to the reader. Correct and varied sentence structure and audience-appropriate language are employed. | Prose is largely free of mechanical errors, although a few may be present. The writer uses a variety of effective sentence structures and figures of speech. | Writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English. | ||
| Format | 10.0% | |||||||
| Paper Format (use of appropriate style for the major and assignment) | 5.0% | 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. | ||
| Documentation of Sources (citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc., as appropriate to assignment and style) | 5.0% | Sources are not documented. | Documentation of sources is inconsistent or incorrect, as appropriate to assignment and style, with numerous formatting errors. | Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, although some formatting errors may be present. | Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is mostly correct. | Sources are completely and correctly documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is free of error. | ||
| Total Weightage | 100% |
