Epidemiology Of Selected Health Problem

5

Identifies a creative, focused, and manageable topic that addresses potentially significant aspects of the topic.

4

Identifies a creative, focused and manageable topic that addresses important and notable aspects of the topic.

3

Identifies a focused and manageable/ doable topic that appropriately addresses relevant aspects of the topic.

2

Identifies a topic that while manageable/ doable, is too narrowly focused and leaves out relevant aspects of the topic.

1

Identifies a topic that is far too general and wide-ranging as to be manageable and doable.

0

Does not clearly identify a topics that is relative to the assignment.

5

Synthesizes in-depth information from relevant sources representing various points of view/ approaches.

4

Examines in-depth information from relevant sources representing various points of view/approaches.

3

Explains in-depth information from relevant sources representing various points of view/ approaches.

2

Relates information from relevant sources representing limited points of view/ approaches.

1

Relates information from irrelevant sources representing limited points of view/ approaches.

0

Information is irrelevant to the topic. No clear point of view/approaches.

5

All elements of the methodology or theoretical framework are skillfully developed. Appropriate methodology or theoretical frameworks may be synthesized from across disciplines or from relevant sub-disciplines.

4

Most critical elements of the methodology or theoretical framework are appropriately developed. Appropriate methodology or theoretical frameworks may be analyzed from across disciplines or from relevant sub-disciplines.

3

Some critical elements of the methodology or theoretical framework are appropriately developed, however, more subtle elements are ignored or unaccounted for.

2

Critical elements of the methodology or theoretical framework are missing, incorrectly developed, or unfocused.

1

Inquiry design demonstrates a misunderstanding of the methodology or theoretical framework.

0

The design of the paper is not based upon a clear methodology or framework.

5

Organizes and synthesizes evidence to reveal insightful patterns, differences, or similarities related to focus.

4

Organizes and analyzes evidence to reveal insightful patterns, differences, or similarities related to focus.

3

Organizes evidence to reveal important patterns, differences, or similarities related to focus.

2

Organizes evidence, but the organization is not effective in revealing important patterns, differences, or similarities.

1

Describes evidence, but it is not organized and/ or is unrelated to focus.

0

Lists evidence, but it is not organized and/ or is unrelated to focus.

5

States a conclusion that is a logical extrapolation from the inquiry findings.

4

States a conclusion that is a logical interpretation of the inquiry findings.

3

States a conclusion focused solely on the inquiry findings. The conclusion arises specifically from and responds specifically to the inquiry findings.

2

States a general conclusion that, because it is so general, also applies beyond the scope of the inquiry findings.

1

States an ambiguous or unsupportable conclusion from inquiry findings.

0

States an illogical conclusion from inquiry findings.

5

Insightfully discusses in detail relevant and supported limitations and implications.

4

Examines relevant and supported limitations and implications.

3

Discusses relevant and supported limitations and implications.

2

Presents relevant and supported limitations and implications.

1

Presents limitations and implications, but they are unsupported.

0

Presents limitations and implications, but they are irrelevant.

5

The paper exhibits a superior command of written English language conventions. The paper has no errors in mechanics, grammar, or spelling.

4

The paper exhibits a stronger command of written English language conventions. The paper has no errors in mechanics, grammar, or spelling that impair the flow of communication.

3

The paper exhibits command of written English language conventions. The paper has minor errors in mechanics, grammar, or spelling that impact the flow of communication.

2

The paper exhibits a limited command of written English language conventions. The paper has frequent errors in mechanics, grammar, or spelling that impede the flow of communication.

1

The paper exhibits little command of written English language conventions. The paper has errors in mechanics, grammar, or spelling that cause the reader to stop and reread parts of the writing to discern meaning.

0

The paper does not demonstrate command of written English language conventions. The paper has multiple errors in mechanics, grammar, or spelling that cause the reader difficulty discerning the meaning.

5

The required APA elements are all included with correct formatting, including in-text citations and references.

4

The required APA elements are all included with minor formatting errors, including in-text citations and references.

3

The required APA elements are all included with multiple formatting errors, including in-text citations and references.

2

The required APA elements are not all included. AND/OR there are major formatting errors, including in-text citations and references.

1

Several APA elements are missing. The errors in formatting demonstrate limited understanding of APA guidelines, in-text-citations, and references.

0

There is little to no evidence of APA formatting. AND/OR there are no in-text citations AND/OR references.