Current Regis Time
Note: Scholarly resources are defined as evidence-based practice, peer-reviewed journals; textbook (do not rely solely on your textbook as a reference); and National Standard Guidelines. Review assignment instructions, as this will provide any additional requirements that are not specifically listed on the rubric.
| Criteria | Exemplary Exceeds Expectations |
Advanced Meets Expectations |
Intermediate Needs Improvement |
Novice Inadequate |
Total Points |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Content of Clinical Case Study | The writer demonstrates a well-articulated understanding of the case study subject matter in a clear, complex, and informative manner. The case study content and theories are well developed and linked to the course content, assignment requirements, and practical experience. The case study includes relevant material that fulfills all objectives of the assignment. Cites three or more references, using at least one new scholarly resource that was not provided in the course materials. all instruction requirements noted 30 points |
The writer demonstrates an understanding of the subject matter, and the components of the case study are accurately represented with evidence-based practice, ethics, theory, and/or role content. Course materials and scholarly resources are present to support required concepts. The paper includes relevant material that fulfills all objectives of the case study. Cites two references. Most instruction requirements are noted. 26 points |
The writer demonstrates a moderate understanding of the subject matter. as evidenced by components of the case study and use of evidence-based practice, theory, or role-development. Course content is present but missing depth and or development. Cites one reference. 23 points |
Absent application to evidence-based practice, theory, or role development. Demonstrates incomplete understanding of content and/or inadequate preparation. Significant content of case study is vague, inaccurately portrayed, or missing. No references cited. Submits assignment late. 20 points |
30 |
| Analysis and Synthesis of Case Study Content and Meaning with Content Related to Preventative Guidelines | Through critical analysis, the submitted case study provides an accurate, clear, concise, and complete summary of the scenario. Information from scholarly resources is synthesized, providing new information or insight related to the context of the assignment by providing both supportive and alternative information or viewpoints Includes all major and minor relevant risk factors based on standard preventative guidelines for age and gender and treatment/follow-up plans. all instruction requirements noted. 30 points |
Case study is complete, providing evidence of further synthesis of course content via scholarly resources. Information is synthesized to help fulfill the case study requirements. The content supports at least one viewpoint. Submission provides clarification of the assignment by correctly answering all posed questions within the instructions. Includes all major risk factors and most minor relevant risk factors based on standard preventative guidelines for age and gender (i.e.’ to two minor risk factors are missing and/or one incorrect treatment plan). Most instruction requirements are noted. 26 points |
Lacks clarification or new information. Scholarly reference supports the content without adding any new information or insight. Case study content may be confusing or unclear, and the summary may be incomplete. Risk factors are partially complete (i.e., missing one to two major risk factors or three to four minor risk factors, or two incorrect treatment plans). Missing some instruction requirements. 23 points |
Submission is primarily a summation of the assignment without further synthesis of course content or analysis of the scenario. Demonstrates incomplete understanding of content and/or inadequate preparation. Multiple risk factors missing (e.g., three major risk or five to six minor risk factors or three incorrect treatment plans, or four or more major risk factors or seven or more minor risk factors or four or more incorrect treatment plans). Scholarly reference(s) are incorrect or inappropriate for the topic case. Missing several instruction requirements. Submits assignment late. 20 points |
30 |
| Application of Knowledge To Clinical Aspect of Patient Encounter | The summary of the case study provides validated information via scholarly resources that offer a multidisciplinary approach to the scenario provided. The student’s application in practice is accurate and plausible, and additional scholarly resources supporting the application are provided. all questions posed within the assignment are answered correctly in a well-developed manner, applying knowledge with citations for validation. Includes all relevant subjective and objective data; diagnostic testing; routine care to be provided; patient education; anticipatory guidance; review of previous diagnostics; and follow-up of acute concern and chronic health issues, etc.—based on assignment instructions. all instruction requirements noted. 30 points |
A summary of the study, findings, and knowledge gained from the assignment is presented. Student indicates how the information will be used within their professional practice. all questions posed by the study are answered correctly. Includes most of the routine content (subjective and objective data; diagnostic testing; routine care to be provided; education; anticipatory guidance; review of previous diagnostics; and follow-up) (is missing two minor details or one major detail). Most instruction requirements are noted. 26 points |
Components of the case study are summarized with minimal application to evidence-based practice, theory, or role development, thus presenting a more superficial analysis of content between the assignment and the broader course content. Synthesis of course content is present but missing depth and or development. Student’s explanation of how the information will be used within their professional practice is vague or incomplete. One of the questions posed is not answered and/or one of the questions is answered incorrectly. Includes some of the routine content (subjective and objective data; diagnostic testing; routine care to be provided; education; anticipatory guidance; review of previous diagnostics; and follow-up) (is missing three minor details or two major details). Cited one reference. Missing some instruction requirements. 23 points |
Absent application to evidence-based practice, theory, or role development. Synthesis of course content is superficial. Demonstrates incomplete understanding of content and/or inadequate preparation. Content of case study is inaccurately portrayed or missing. Student’s explanation of how the information will be used within their professional practice is not feasible or appropriate, or student fails to explain how the information will be used within their personal practice. Omits routine content (subjective and objective data; diagnostic testing; routine care to be provided; education; anticipatory guidance; review of previous diagnostics; and follow-up) (is missing four to five minor details or three major details or six or more minor details or four or more major details. Two or more questions are not answered and/or are answered incorrectly. No references cited. Missing several instruction requirements. Submits post late. 20 points |
30 |
| Organization | Well-organized content with a clear and complex purpose statement and content argument. Writing is concise, with a logical flow of ideas. 5 points |
Organized content with an informative purpose statement, supportive content, and summary statement. Argument content is developed, with minimal issues in content flow. 4 points |
Poor organization and flow of ideas distract from content. Narrative is difficult to follow and frequently causes reader to reread work. Purpose statement is noted. 3 points |
Illogical flow of ideas. Prose rambles. Purpose statement is unclear or missing. Demonstrates incomplete understanding of content and/or inadequate preparation. No purpose statement. Submits assignment late. 2 points |
5 |
| APA, Grammar, and Spelling | Correct APA formatting with no errors. The writer correctly identifies reading audience, as demonstrated by appropriate language (avoids jargon and simplifies complex concepts appropriately). Writing is concise, in active voice, and avoids awkward transitions and overuse of conjunctions. There are no spelling, punctuation, or word-usage errors. 5 points |
Correct and consistent APA formatting of references and cites all references used. No more than two unique APA errors. The writer demonstrates correct usage of formal English language in sentence construction. Variation in sentence structure and word usage promotes readability. There are minimal to no grammar, punctuation, or word-usage errors. 4 points |
Three to four unique APA formatting errors. The writer occasionally uses awkward sentence construction or overuses/inappropriately uses complex sentence structure. Problems with word usage (evidence of incorrect use of thesaurus) and punctuation persist, often causing some difficulties with grammar. Some words, transitional phrases, and conjunctions are overused. Multiple grammar, punctuation, or word usage errors. 3 points |
Five or more unique formatting errors, or no attempt to format in APA. The writer demonstrates limited understanding of formal written language use; writing is colloquial (conforms to spoken language). The writer struggles with limited vocabulary and has difficulty conveying meaning such that only the broadest, most general messages are presented. Grammar and punctuation are consistently incorrect. Spelling errors are numerous. 2 points |
5 |
| Total Points | 100 | ||||