Benchmark assignment – spiritual needs assessment and reflection

 

2
Less Than Satisfactory
65.00%

3
Satisfactory
75.00%

4
Good
85.00%

5
Excellent
100.00%

70.0 %Content

 

40.0 % Tool for Assessing the Spiritual Needs of Patients CONHCP: 5.2

Tool for assessing the spiritual needs of patients show little to no relevance to the experiences of patients. A transcript of the interview is either missing or not relevant.

Tool for assessing the spiritual needs of patients is present but lacks focus on experiences of patients. A clear transcript of the interview is provided.

Tool for assessing the spiritual needs of patients is present and focuses on experiences of patients. A clear transcript of the interview is provided.

Tool for assessing the spiritual needs of patients is present and focuses on experiences of patient. The tool uses reliable methods for gathering data. A clear transcript of the interview is provided.

Tool for assessing the spiritual needs of patients is present and focuses on experiences of patients. The tool uses effective methods for gathering data that produces the results intended. A clear transcript of the interview is provided.

30.0 % Analysis of Interview Experience

An analysis of the interview experience shows little to no relevance to the assignment instructions.

An analysis of the interview experience is included but addresses a few of the points included in the assignment instructions.

An analysis of the interview experience is included and addresses most of the points included in the assignment instructions.

An analysis of the interview experience is included and addresses all of the points included in the assignment instructions.

An analysis of the interview experience is included and addresses all of the points included in the assignment instructions. The analysis shows a deep understanding of the connections.

20.0 %Organization and Effectiveness

 

7.0 % Thesis Development and Purpose

Paper lacks any discernible overall purpose or organizing claim.

Thesis and/or main claim are insufficiently developed and/or vague; purpose is not clear.

Thesis and/or main claim are apparent and appropriate to purpose.

Thesis and/or main claim are clear and forecast the development of the paper. They are descriptive and reflective of the arguments and appropriate to the purpose.

Thesis and/or main claim are comprehensive. The essence of the paper is contained within the thesis. Thesis statement makes the purpose of the paper clear.

8.0 % Argument Logic and Construction

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 progression. Techniques of argumentation are evident. There is a smooth progression of claims from introduction to conclusion. Most sources are authoritative.

Clear and convincing argument presents a persuasive claim in a distinctive and compelling manner. All sources are authoritative.

5.0 % Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use)

Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice and/or sentence construction are used.

Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistencies in language choice (register) and/or word choice are present. Sentence structure is correct but not varied.

Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but 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.

10.0 %Format

 

5.0 % Paper Format (use of appropriate style for the major and assignment)

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.

5.0 % Documentation of Sources (citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc., as appropriate to assignment and style)

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.

100 % Total Weightage