Current Regis Time
| Criteria | Exemplary Exceeds Expectations |
Advanced Meets Expectations |
Intermediate Needs Improvement |
Novice Inadequate |
Total Points |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Identify defendant. Use of legal standards when analyzing potential medical malpractice: duty, breach of duty, causation, damages and negligence | All components very well-demonstrated
30 points |
All components generally well demonstrated or some very well exhibited but not all elements included
26 points |
Components addressed to a more limited extent or some generally well described but others missing or minimally described
23 points |
Minimal discussion of each or many missing elements
20 points |
30 |
| Scholarly discussion of standard of care of the practice issues relevant to the case. If applicable differential diagnosis. | Thinks critically about relationship of legal issues and standard of care.
30 points |
Generally discusses relationship of legal issues and standard of care.
26 points |
Limited discussion and critical thinking about relationship of legal issues and standard of care.
23 points |
No or minimal critical thinking apparent. Incomplete discussion about legal issues and standard of care.
20 points |
30 |
| Demonstrates synthesis of legal issues as they apply to personal professional practice. | Describes complexity of legal issues as they apply to personal future practice
25 points |
Basically describes legal issues as they apply to personal future practice
22 points |
Does not clearly discuss legal issues as they apply to personal future practice
19 points |
Does not identify or discuss legal issues as they apply to personal future practice
17 points |
25 |
| Support prediction of case verdict with sound logic thread grounded by legal concepts | Consistently & accurately uses synthesis & evaluation
5 points |
Generally uses synthesis and evaluation
4 points |
Sometimes uses synthesis and evaluation
3 points |
Inaccurately or minimally uses synthesis & evaluation
2 points |
5 |
| Professional Application | Major elements of the paper are supported by evidence based articles/guidelines
5 points |
Elements only partially supported by evidence based articles/guidelines
4 points |
Poor quality or applicability of evidence based articles/guidelines
3 points |
Does not include evidence based reference
2 points |
5 |
| Technical aspects of paper: Grammar, spelling, Intelligible, Quality of writing/organization of paper; and use of APA | Consistently demonstrates appropriate format Easy to follow clear quality and organization of paper 5 points |
Generally demonstrates appropriate format Mostly easy to follow quality and organization of paper 4 points |
Occasionally follows appropriate format lacks organization and clarity
3 points |
Rarely uses appropriate format Ineffective organization and clarity 2 points |
5 |
| Total Points | 100 | ||||