Detailed Results (Rubric used: UUT Task 1 (1014))

Final Score:

Does not Meet

Overall comments:

8/10/16­ Please confer with a course mentor before working further on this assessment. The assessment discussed the ethical principle of beneficence as the principle that underpins the candidate's perspective. An explanation of why the public policy requires the decision maker's attention using relevant nursing research from the last five years to support the position could not be located. A discussion of the primary options for the decision maker including why they are tangible could not be identified. An appropriate proposal for a persuasive course of action for the decision maker including ways to avoid the challenges identified could not be located. A discussion of how to evaluate the success of the policy brief could not be identified. An explanation of how the approach and collaboration with the organization could not be located. A discussion of the action steps that need to be taken to achieve the noted goal could not be identified. A discussion of the actual roles and responsibilities of the organization members including problem solving and capacity building roles could not be located. A logical discussion of how the success of the organizational plan will be evaluated could not be identified.

change.

change.

change.

change.

Criterion Score: 3.00

A1a. Issue Selection

(0)

0=Unsatisfactory/Not present

(1) 1=Does Not Meet Standard

(2) 2=Minimally Competent

(3) 3=Competent

The candidate provides a logical discussion, with adequate detail, of why the public policy issue was selected.

(4) 4=Highly Competent

The candidate provides a logical discussion, with substantial detail, of why the public policy issue was selected.

The candidate does not provide a logical discussion of why the public policy issue was selected.

The candidate provides a logical discussion, with no detail, of why the public policy issue was selected.

The candidate provides a logical discussion, with limited detail, of why the public policy issue was selected.

Criterion Score: 3.00

A1b. Issue Relevance

(0)

0=Unsatisfactory/Not present

(1) 1=Does Not Meet Standard

(2) 2=Minimally Competent

(3) 3=Competent

(4) 4=Highly Competent

The candidate provides a logical discussion, with substantial support, of the relevance of this public policy issue to health or the nursing profession, using 2 pieces of academically appropriate literature from the last five years.

The candidate does not provide a logical discussion of the relevance of this public policy issue to health or the nursing profession, using 2 pieces of academically appropriate literature from the last five years.

The candidate provides a logical discussion, with no support, of the relevance of this public policy issue to health or the nursing profession, using 2 pieces of academically appropriate literature from the last five years.

The candidate provides a logical discussion, with limited support, of the relevance of this public policy issue to health or the nursing profession, using 2 pieces of academically appropriate literature from the last five years.

The candidate provides a logical discussion, with adequate support, of the relevance of this public policy issue to health or the nursing profession, using 2 pieces of academically appropriate literature from the last five years.

Criterion Score: 4.00

A1c. Financial Impact

(0)

0=Unsatisfactory/Not present

(1) 1=Does Not Meet Standard

(2) 2=Minimally Competent

(3) 3=Competent

The candidate provides an accurate description, with adequate detail, of the financial impact of the public policy on an organization or on a community.

(4) 4=Highly Competent

The candidate provides an accurate description, with substantial detail, of the financial impact of the public policy on an organization or on a community.

The candidate does not provide an accurate description of the financial impact of the public policy on an organization or on a community.

The candidate provides an accurate description, with no detail, of the financial impact of the public policy on an organization or on a community.

The candidate provides an accurate description, with limited detail, of the financial impact of the public policy on an organization or on a community.

Criterion Score: 3.00

A2. Personal Values

(0)

0=Unsatisfactory/Not present

(1) 1=Does Not Meet Standard

(2) 2=Minimally Competent

(3) 3=Competent

The candidate provides a plausible analysis, with adequate detail, of how the candidate’s values impact the candidate’s position on the public policy issue.

(4) 4=Highly Competent

The candidate provides a plausible analysis, with substantial detail, of how the candidate’s values impact the candidate’s position on the public policy issue.

The candidate does not provide a plausible analysis of how the candidate’s values impact the candidate’s position on the public policy issue.

The candidate provides a plausible analysis, with no detail, of how the candidate’s values impact the candidate’s position on the public policy issue.

The candidate provides a plausible analysis, with limited detail, of how the candidate’s values impact the candidate’s position on the public policy issue.

Criterion Score: 3.00

A2a. Ethical Principle or Theory

(0)

0=Unsatisfactory/Not present

(1) 1=Does Not Meet Standard

(2) 2=Minimally Competent

(3) 3=Competent

The candidate provides a logical discussion, with adequate detail, of the ethical principle or theory that underpins the candidate’s perspective.

(4) 4=Highly Competent

The candidate provides a logical discussion, with substantial detail, of the ethical principle or theory that underpins the candidate’s perspective.

The candidate does not provide a logical discussion of the ethical principle or theory that underpins the candidate’s perspective.

The candidate provides a logical discussion, with no detail, of the ethical principle or theory that underpins the candidate’s perspective.

The candidate provides a logical discussion, with limited detail, of the ethical principle or theory that underpins the candidate’s perspective.

Criterion Score: 3.00

Comments on this criterion: 8/10/16­ The assessment discussed the ethical principle of beneficence as the principle that underpins the candidate's perspective.

B1. Decision Maker

(0)

0=Unsatisfactory/Not present

(1) 1=Does Not Meet Standard

(2) 2=Minimally Competent

(3) 3=Competent

(4) 4=Highly Competent

The candidate identifies the appropriate decision maker (name and title) who will receive the policy brief.

The candidate does not identify the appropriate decision maker (name and title) who will receive the policy brief.

Not applicable.

Not applicable.

Not applicable.

Criterion Score: 4.00

B1a. Explanation

(0)

0=Unsatisfactory/Not present

The candidate does not provide a logical explanation of why the public policy requires the decision maker’s attention, using relevant nursing research from the last five years to support the position.

(1) 1=Does Not Meet Standard

(2) 2=Minimally Competent

(3) 3=Competent

(4) 4=Highly Competent

The candidate provides a logical explanation, with no detail, of why the public policy requires the decision maker’s attention, using no relevant nursing research from the last five years to support the position.

The candidate provides a logical explanation, with limited detail, of why the public policy requires the decision maker’s attention, using limited relevant nursing research from the last five years to support the position.

The candidate provides a logical explanation, with adequate detail, of why the public policy requires the decision maker’s attention, using adequate relevant nursing research from the last five years to support the position.

The candidate provides a logical explanation, with substantial detail, of why the public policy requires the decision maker’s attention, using substantial relevant nursing research from the last five years to support the position.

Criterion Score: 0.00

Comments on this criterion: 8/10/16­ The assessment discusses the role of the secretary of health and human services. An explanation of why the public policy requires the decision maker's attention using relevant nursing research from the last five years to support the position could not be located.

B2. Challenges

(0)

0=Unsatisfactory/Not present

(1) 1=Does Not Meet Standard

(2) 2=Minimally Competent

(3) 3=Competent

The candidate provides a logical discussion, with adequate detail, of

(4) 4=Highly Competent

The candidate provides a logical discussion, with substantial detail,

The candidate does not provide a logical discussion of the main

The candidate provides a logical discussion, with no detail, of the

The candidate provides a logical discussion, with limited detail, of

challenges of addressing the selected public policy issue.

main challenges of addressing the selected public policy issue.

the main challenges of addressing the selected public policy issue.

the main challenges of addressing the selected public policy issue.

of the main challenges of addressing the selected public policy issue.

Criterion Score: 3.00

B3. Options/Interventions

(0)

0=Unsatisfactory/Not present

The candidate does not provide a logical discussion of the primary options and/or interventions for the decision maker, including why they are tangible.

(1) 1=Does Not Meet Standard

The candidate provides a logical discussion, with no detail, of the primary options and/or interventions for the decision maker, including why they are tangible.

(2) 2=Minimally Competent

(3) 3=Competent

(4) 4=Highly Competent

The candidate provides a logical discussion, with limited detail, of the primary options and/or interventions for the decision maker, including why they are tangible.

The candidate provides a logical discussion, with adequate detail, of the primary options and/or interventions for the decision maker, including why they are tangible.

The candidate provides a logical discussion, with substantial detail, of the primary options and/or interventions for the decision maker, including why they are tangible.

Criterion Score: 1.00

Comments on this criterion: 8/10/16­ The submission discusses how the health secretary can impact the national health system. A discussion of the primary options for the decision maker including why they are tangible could not be identified.

B4. Course of Action

(0)

0=Unsatisfactory/Not present

The candidate does not provide an appropriate proposal for a persuasive course of action for the decision maker, including ways to avoid the challenges identified in part B2.

(1) 1=Does Not Meet Standard

(2) 2=Minimally Competent

(3) 3=Competent

(4) 4=Highly Competent

The candidate provides an appropriate proposal, with no support, for a persuasive course of action for the decision maker, including ways to avoid the challenges identified in part B2.

The candidate provides an appropriate proposal, with limited support, for a persuasive course of action for the decision maker, including ways to avoid the challenges identified in part B2.

The candidate provides an appropriate proposal, with adequate support, for a persuasive course of action for the decision maker, including ways to avoid the challenges identified in part B2.

The candidate provides an appropriate proposal, with substantial support, for a persuasive course of action for the decision maker, including ways to avoid the challenges identified in part B2.

Criterion Score: 0.00

Comments on this criterion: 8/10/16­ The essay discusses how the affordable care act was not adequate in addressing the cost of healthcare. An appropriate proposal for a persuasive course of action for the decision maker including ways to avoid the challenges identified could not be located.

B5. Success of Policy Brief

(0)

0=Unsatisfactory/Not present

The candidate does not provide a logical discussion of how the candidate will evaluate the success of the policy brief (a top­down approach).

(1) 1=Does Not Meet Standard

(2) 2=Minimally Competent

(3) 3=Competent

(4) 4=Highly Competent

The candidate provides a logical discussion, with no detail, of how the candidate will evaluate the success of the policy brief (a top­ down approach).

The candidate provides a logical discussion, with limited detail, of how the candidate will evaluate the success of the policy brief (a top­ down approach).

The candidate provides a logical discussion, with adequate detail, of how the candidate will evaluate the success of the policy brief (a top­ down approach).

The candidate provides a logical discussion, with substantial detail, of how the candidate will evaluate the success of the policy brief (a top­down approach).

Criterion Score: 0.00

Comments on this criterion: 8/10/16­ The task describes how transparency and accountability are important for full support. A discussion of how to evaluate the success of the policy brief could not be identified.

C1. Identified Organization or Community

(0)

0=Unsatisfactory/Not present

(1) 1=Does Not Meet Standard

(2) 2=Minimally Competent

(3) 3=Competent

(4) 4=Highly Competent

The candidate identifies an organization or community that has expressed interest in the selected health or nursing profession public policy issue.

The candidate does not identify an organization or community that has expressed interest in the selected health or nursing profession public policy issue.

Not applicable.

Not applicable.

Not applicable.

Criterion Score: 4.00

C1a. Summary of Expressed Interest

(0)

0=Unsatisfactory/Not present

(1) 1=Does Not Meet Standard

(2) 2=Minimally Competent

(3) 3=Competent

The candidate provides a logical summary, with adequate detail, of evidence supporting why the organization or community has expressed interest in the selected public policy issue.

(4) 4=Highly Competent

The candidate provides a logical summary, with substantial detail, of evidence supporting why the organization or community has expressed interest in the selected public policy issue.

The candidate does not provide a logical summary of evidence supporting why the organization or community has expressed interest in the selected public policy issue.

The candidate provides a logical summary, with no detail, of evidence supporting why the organization or community has expressed interest in the selected public policy issue.

The candidate provides a logical summary, with limited detail, of evidence supporting why the organization or community has expressed interest in the selected public policy issue.

Criterion Score: 3.00

C2. CBPR Principles

(0)

0=Unsatisfactory/Not present

(1) 1=Does Not Meet Standard

(2) 2=Minimally Competent

(3) 3=Competent

(4) 4=Highly Competent

The candidate accurately identifies 3 CBPR principles the candidate could use to work with the organization or community to address a policy change for the public policy issue.

The candidate does not identify 3 CBPR principles the candidate could use to work with the organization or community to address a policy change for the public policy issue.

Not applicable.

The candidate accurately identifies 1­2 CBPR principles the candidate could use to work with the organization or community to address a policy change for the public policy issue.

Not applicable.

Criterion Score: 4.00

C2a. Approach and Collaboration

(0)

0=Unsatisfactory/Not present

The candidate does not provide a logical explanation of how the candidate could approach and collaborate with the organization or community.

(1) 1=Does Not Meet Standard

(2) 2=Minimally Competent

(3) 3=Competent

(4) 4=Highly Competent

The candidate provides a logical explanation, with no detail, of how the candidate could approach and collaborate with the organization or community.

The candidate provides a logical explanation, with limited detail, of how the candidate could approach and collaborate with the organization or community.

The candidate provides a logical explanation, with adequate detail, of how the candidate could approach and collaborate with the organization or community.

The candidate provides a logical explanation, with substantial detail, of how the candidate could approach and collaborate with the organization or community.

Criterion Score: 0.00

Comments on this criterion: 8/10/16­ The assessment discusses the CBPR principles that will be utilized for policy change. An explanation of how the approach and collaboration with the organization could not be located.

C2b. Goal Alignment

(0)

0=Unsatisfactory/Not present

(1) 1=Does Not Meet Standard

(2) 2=Minimally Competent

(3) 3=Competent

The candidate provides a logical discussion, with adequate detail, of how the goal of the community or organization aligns with the candidate’s goal for the selected public policy issue.

(4) 4=Highly Competent

The candidate provides a logical discussion, with substantial detail, of how the goal of the community or organization aligns with the candidate’s goal for the selected public policy issue.

The candidate does not provide a logical discussion of how the goal of the community or organization aligns with the candidate’s goal for the selected public policy issue.

The candidate provides a logical discussion, with no detail, of how the goal of the community or organization aligns with the candidate’s goal for the selected public policy issue.

The candidate provides a logical discussion, with limited detail, of how the goal of the community or organization aligns with the candidate’s goal for the selected public policy issue.

Criterion Score: 3.00

C2c. Action Steps

(0)

0=Unsatisfactory/Not present

The candidate does not provide a logical discussion of the action steps that need to be taken to achieve the candidate’s goal from part C2b.

(1) 1=Does Not Meet Standard

The candidate provides a logical discussion, with no detail, of the action steps that need to be taken to achieve the candidate’s goal from part C2b.

(2) 2=Minimally Competent

(3) 3=Competent

(4) 4=Highly Competent

The candidate provides a logical discussion, with limited detail, of the action steps that need to be taken to achieve the candidate’s goal from part C2b.

The candidate provides a logical discussion, with adequate detail, of the action steps that need to be taken to achieve the candidate’s goal from part C2b.

The candidate provides a logical discussion, with substantial detail, of the action steps that need to be taken to achieve the candidate’s goal from part C2b.

Criterion Score: 1.00

Comments on this criterion: 8/10/16­ The submission discusses how the organization will need to identify the roles and responsibilities of all involved. A discussion of the action steps that need to be taken to achieve the noted goal could not be identified.

C2d. Roles/Responsibilities

(0)

0=Unsatisfactory/Not present

The candidate does not provide a logical discussion of the possible roles/responsibilities of community or organization members, including problem­ solving and capacity­ building roles.

(1) 1=Does Not Meet Standard

(2) 2=Minimally Competent

(3) 3=Competent

(4) 4=Highly Competent

The candidate provides a logical discussion, with no detail, of the possible roles/responsibilities of community or organization members, including problem­ solving and capacity­ building roles.

The candidate provides a logical discussion, with limited detail, of the possible roles/responsibilities of community or organization members, including problem­ solving and capacity­ building roles.

The candidate provides a logical discussion, with adequate detail, of the possible roles/responsibilities of community or organization members, including problem­ solving and capacity­ building roles.

The candidate provides a logical discussion, with substantial detail, of the possible roles/responsibilities of community or organization members, including problem­ solving and capacity­ building roles.

Criterion Score: 0.00

Comments on this criterion: 8/10/16­ The essay states the need to identify the roles and responsibilities of the team. A discussion of the actual roles and responsibilities of the organization members including problem solving and capacity building roles could not be located.

C2e. Key Elements of Evaluation Plan

(0)

0=Unsatisfactory/Not present

(1) 1=Does Not Meet Standard

(2) 2=Minimally Competent

(3) 3=Competent

The candidate provides a logical discussion,

(4) 4=Highly Competent

The candidate provides a logical discussion,

The candidate does not provide a logical

The candidate provides a logical discussion,

The candidate provides a logical discussion,

discussion of key elements of developing a collaborative evaluation plan, using CBPR principles.

with no detail, of key elements of developing a collaborative evaluation plan, using CBPR principles.

with limited detail, of key elements of developing a collaborative evaluation plan, using CBPR principles.

with adequate detail, of key elements of developing a collaborative evaluation plan, using CBPR principles.

with substantial detail, of key elements of developing a collaborative evaluation plan, using CBPR principles.

Criterion Score: 3.00

C2f. Community/Organization Plan

(0)

0=Unsatisfactory/Not present

The candidate does not provide a logical discussion of how the success of the community or organization plan will be evaluated (bottom­up approach).

(1) 1=Does Not Meet Standard

(2) 2=Minimally Competent

(3) 3=Competent

(4) 4=Highly Competent

The candidate provides a logical discussion, with no detail, of how the success the community or organization plan will be evaluated (bottom­up approach).

The candidate provides a logical discussion, with limited detail, of how the success of the community or organization plan will be evaluated (bottom­ up approach).

The candidate provides a logical discussion, with adequate detail, of how the success of the community or organization plan will be evaluated (bottom­ up approach).

The candidate provides a logical discussion, with substantial detail, of how the success of the community or organization plan will be evaluated (bottom­up approach).

Criterion Score: 0.00

Comments on this criterion: 8/10/16­ The task states that members need to understand the process of implementation. A logical discussion of how the success of the organizational plan will be evaluated could not be identified.

D1. Strengths of Each Approach

(0)

0=Unsatisfactory/Not present

(1) 1=Does Not Meet Standard

(2) 2=Minimally Competent

(3) 3=Competent

The candidate provides a logical discussion, with adequate detail, of the strengths ofeach approach to implement change for the selected public policy issue.

(4) 4=Highly Competent

The candidate provides a logical discussion, with substantial detail, of the strengths of each approach to implement change for the selected public policy issue.

The candidate does not provide a logical discussion of the strengths of each approach to implement change for the selected policy issue.

The candidate provides a logical discussion, with no detail, of the strengths of each approach to implement change for the selected public policy issue.

The candidate provides a logical discussion, with limited detail, of the strengths of each approach to implement change for the selected public policy issue.

Criterion Score: 3.00

D2. Challenges of Each Approach

(0)

0=Unsatisfactory/Not present

(1) 1=Does Not Meet Standard

(2) 2=Minimally Competent

(3) 3=Competent

The candidate provides a logical discussion, with adequate detail, of the challenges of each approach to implement change for the selected public policy issue.

(4) 4=Highly Competent

The candidate provides a logical discussion, with substantial detail, of the challenges of each approach to implement change for the selected public policy issue.

The candidate does not provide a logical discussion of the challenges of each approach to implement change for the selected public policy issue.

The candidate provides a logical discussion, with no detail, of the challenges of each approach to implement change for the selected public policy issue.

The candidate provides a logical discussion, with limited detail, of the challenges of each approach to implement change for the selected public policy issue.

Criterion Score: 3.00

D3. Most Effective Approach

(0)

0=Unsatisfactory/Not present

(1) 1=Does Not Meet Standard

(2) 2=Minimally Competent

(3) 3=Competent

The candidate provides

(4) 4=Highly Competent

The candidate provides

The candidate does not

The candidate provides

The candidate provides