UUT Task 1 (1014)
Export to Word link opens in new window
Top of Form
value: 0.00 value: 1.00 value: 2.00 value: 3.00 value: 4.00 Score/Level
Articulation of Response (clarity, organization, mechanics) The candidate provides unsatisfactory articulation of response. The candidate provides weak articulation of response. The candidate provides limited articulation of response. The candidate provides adequate articulation of response. The candidate provides substantial articulation of response.
A1. Public Policy Issue The candidate does not provide a plausible analysis of a health or nursing profession public policy issue that impacts a group of people and requires a policy change. The candidate provides a plausible analysis, with no detail, of a health or nursing profession public policy issue that impacts a group of people and requires a policy change. The candidate provides a plausible analysis, with limited detail, of a health or nursing profession public policy issue that impacts a group of people and requires a policy change. The candidate provides a plausible analysis, with adequate detail, of a health or nursing profession public policy issue that impacts a group of people and requires a policy change. The candidate provides a plausible analysis, with substantial detail, of a health or nursing profession public policy issue that impacts a group of people and requires a policy change.
A1a. Issue Selection 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. The candidate provides a logical discussion, with adequate detail, of why the public policy issue was selected. The candidate provides a logical discussion, with substantial detail, of why the public policy issue was selected.
A1b. Issue Relevance 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. 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.
A1c.
Financial Impact 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. The candidate provides an accurate description, with adequate detail, of the financial impact of the public policy on an organization or on a community. The candidate provides an accurate description, with substantial detail, of the financial impact of the public policy on an organization or on a community.
A2. Personal Values 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. 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. 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.
A2a. Ethical Principle or Theory 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. The candidate provides a logical discussion, with adequate detail, of the ethical principle or theory that underpins the candidate’s perspective. The candidate provides a logical discussion, with substantial detail, of the ethical principle or theory that underpins the candidate’s perspective.
B1. Decision Maker The candidate does not identify the appropriate decision maker (name and title) who will receive the policy brief. Not applicable. Not applicable. Not applicable. The candidate identifies the appropriate decision maker (name and title) who will receive the policy brief.
B1a. Explanation 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. 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.
B2. Challenges The candidate does not provide a logical discussion of the main challenges of addressing the selected public policy issue. The candidate provides a logical discussion, with no detail, of the main challenges of addressing the selected public policy issue. The candidate provides a logical discussion, with limited detail, of the main challenges of addressing the selected public policy issue. The candidate provides a logical discussion, with adequate detail, of the main challenges of addressing the selected public policy issue. The candidate provides a logical discussion, with substantial detail, of the main challenges of addressing the selected public policy issue.
B3. Options/Interventions The candidate does not provide a logical discussion of the primary options and/or interventions for the decision maker, including why they are tangible. 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. 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.
B4. Course of Action 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. 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.
B5. Success of Policy Brief The candidate does not provide a logical discussion of how the candidate will evaluate the success of the policy brief (a top-down approach). 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 top-down approach).
C1. Identified Organization or Community 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. The candidate identifies an organization or community that has expressed interest in the selected health or nursing profession public policy issue.
C1a. Summary of Expressed Interest 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. 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. 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.
C2. CBPR Principles 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 1-2 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 3 CBPR principles the candidate could use to work with the organization or community to address a policy change for the public policy issue.
C2a. Approach and Collaboration The candidate does not provide a logical explanation of how the candidate could approach and collaborate with the organization or community. 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.
C2b. Goal Alignment 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. 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. 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.
C2c. Action Steps 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. 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. 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.
C2d. Roles/Responsibilities 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. 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.
C2e. Key Elements of Evaluation Plan The candidate does not provide a logical discussion of key elements of developing a collaborative evaluation plan, using CBPR principles. The candidate provides a logical discussion, with no detail, of key elements of developing a collaborative evaluation plan, using CBPR principles. The candidate provides a logical discussion, with limited detail, of key elements of developing a collaborative evaluation plan, using CBPR principles. The candidate provides a logical discussion, with adequate detail, of key elements of developing a collaborative evaluation plan, using CBPR principles. The candidate provides a logical discussion, with substantial detail, of key elements of developing a collaborative evaluation plan, using CBPR principles.
C2f. Community/Organization Plan The candidate does not provide a logical discussion of how the success of the community or organization plan will be evaluated (bottom-up approach). The candidate provides a logical discussion, with no detail, of how the success the community or organization plan will be evaluated (bottom-up 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 (bottom-up approach).
D1. Strengths of Each Approach 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. The candidate provides a logical discussion, with adequate detail, of the strengths ofeach approach to implement change for the selected public policy issue. The candidate provides a logical discussion, with substantial detail, of the strengths of each approach to implement change for the selected public policy issue.
D2. Challenges of Each Approach 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. The candidate provides a logical discussion, with adequate detail, of the challenges of each approach to implement change for the selected public policy issue. The candidate provides a logical discussion, with substantial detail, of the challenges of each approach to implement change for the selected public policy issue.
D3. Most Effective Approach The candidate does not provide a logical discussion of which approach the candidate would recommend as the most effective to address the selected public policy issue. The candidate provides a logical discussion, with no detail, of which approach the candidate would recommend as the most effective to address the selected public policy issue. The candidate provides a logical discussion, with limited detail, of which approach the candidate would recommend as the most effective to address the selected public policy issue. The candidate provides a logical discussion, with adequate detail, of which approach the candidate would recommend as the most effective to address the selected public policy issue. The candidate provides a logical discussion, with substantial detail, of which approach the candidate would recommend as the most effective to address the selected public policy issue.
E. Sources When the candidate uses sources, the candidate does not provide in-text citations and references. When the candidate uses sources, the candidate provides only some in-text citations and references. When the candidate uses sources, the candidate provides appropriate in-text citations and references with major deviations from APA style. When the candidate uses sources, the candidate provides appropriate in-text citations and references with minor deviations from APA style. When the candidate uses sources, the candidate provides appropriate in-text citations and references with no readily detectable deviations from APA style, OR the candidate does not use sources.
Bottom of Form
