Tag: Homework Solution

  • [Solved] 20 sources

    ✓ Verified Academic Solution Available

    Executive Solution Overview

    In-depth study guidance and analytical solution covering 20 sources.

    Instant Solution Download

    $6.99

    Immediate access to the full model answer, formatted citations, and rubric breakdown.

    Need a Fresh Custom Paper?

    Have this question answered from scratch according to your specific instructions and deadline.

    Order on TutorsGallery →

    Assignment Prompt & Instructions

    Full assignment prompt and step-by-step guidance are included in the downloadable solution file.

  • [Solved] VMN

    ✓ Verified Academic Solution Available

    Executive Solution Overview

    [>Philosophy homework help](https://www.sweetstudy.com/fields/social-science-philosophy) 1½ page(s) per question. 8 pages in total and include a title and reference page. APA format, double spaced, references must be within 3 years. No grammatical errors. 1. The text authors state that although sha…

    Instant Solution Download

    $6.99

    Immediate access to the full model answer, formatted citations, and rubric breakdown.

    Need a Fresh Custom Paper?

    Have this question answered from scratch according to your specific instructions and deadline.

    Order on TutorsGallery →

    Assignment Prompt & Instructions

    [>Philosophy homework help](https://www.sweetstudy.com/fields/social-science-philosophy)

    1½ page(s) per question.

    8 pages in total and include a title and reference page.

    APA format, double spaced, references must be within 3 years. No grammatical errors.

    1. The text authors state that although sharing a cultural value may lead to a therapeutic working relationship between two different individuals of color, its expression may potentially cause misunderstandings in counseling as well. Provide an example of a shared cultural value and how its expression might lead to misunderstanding in counseling.

    2. In the case study of Daryl in Chapter 4, if Ms. Jones decided to act on Daryl’s behalf and intervene from a preventive, MCT and social justice perspective, in what specific ways would her traditional school counselor role and activities be altered? Also discuss who/whom would be targeted for intervention and the types of interventions that would be considered for each identified target.

    3. Many people view the concept of white supremacy, as being primarily historical, in nature, or as only currently related to certain extremist groups who live in particular regions of the United States. What is your definition of white supremacy? What is your comfort level in examining this concept and its relationship to your own worldview, biases, and experiences?

    4. Toward which specific marginalized groups are you at greatest risk to commit a microaggression? Discuss your answer from the perspective of your social conditioning, critical experiences, and current worldview. What could you do to minimize the likelihood of this happening?

    5. The text authors recommend that mental health professionals develop community liaisons and/or “partnerships” with indigenous healers. Under what circumstances and for what types of problems would you consider making a referral to, obtaining a professional consultation from, conducting group counseling with, or seeking services from a shaman or other indigenous healer, on behalf of a client, yourself or someone with whom you are personally close?

    6. The text authors state that “… white racism is a sickness in society and …white people are also victims who are in need of help.” What do they mean by this? Do you agree? Explain. How does their statement relate to White Identity Development? What are the types of “help” available to White counselors and counseling students as they reflect upon and proceed through their own process of racial identity development?

  • [Solved] TRq

    ✓ Verified Academic Solution Available

    Executive Solution Overview

    [>Anatomy homework help](https://www.sweetstudy.com/fields/biology-anatomy) – [\ \ 20260321_233740.jpg](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/20260321-233740-jpg "20260321_233740.jpg")

    Instant Solution Download

    $6.99

    Immediate access to the full model answer, formatted citations, and rubric breakdown.

    Need a Fresh Custom Paper?

    Have this question answered from scratch according to your specific instructions and deadline.

    Order on TutorsGallery →

    Assignment Prompt & Instructions

    [>Anatomy homework help](https://www.sweetstudy.com/fields/biology-anatomy)

    – [\
    \
    20260321_233740.jpg](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/20260321-233740-jpg "20260321_233740.jpg")

  • [Solved] Onsite Case Study

    ✓ Verified Academic Solution Available

    Executive Solution Overview

    Answer the questions in the provided Microsoft Word document and save your responses. Submit your assignment as a file upload. Microsoft Office: Word Criteria This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Question #1 **4** **ptsCompletely addresses the questions and the information is accurate.** Q…

    Instant Solution Download

    $6.99

    Immediate access to the full model answer, formatted citations, and rubric breakdown.

    Need a Fresh Custom Paper?

    Have this question answered from scratch according to your specific instructions and deadline.

    Order on TutorsGallery →

    Assignment Prompt & Instructions

    Answer the questions in the provided Microsoft Word document and save your responses.

    Submit your assignment as a file upload.

    Microsoft Office: Word

    Criteria

    This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome

    Question #1

    **4** **ptsCompletely addresses the questions and the information is accurate.**

    Question #2

    **4** **ptsCompletely addresses the questions and information is accurate**

    Question #3

    **4** **ptsCompletely addresses the questions and information is accurate**

    Question #4

    **4** **ptsCompletely addresses the questions and information is accurate**

    Question #5

    **4** **ptsCompletely addresses the questions and information is accurate**

    – [\
    \
    Week4_OnsiteCaseStudy.mhtml](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/week4-onsitecasestudy-mhtml "Week4_OnsiteCaseStudy.mhtml")
    – [\
    \
    Week4_OnsiteCaseStudy.RUBRIC](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/week4-onsitecasestudy-rubric "Week4_OnsiteCaseStudy.RUBRIC")

  • [Solved] ODH

    ✓ Verified Academic Solution Available

    Executive Solution Overview

    The entire vignette should be 10 pages total plus additional title and reference page. APA format. double-spaced with 6 references from 2023. Each vignette should be 2 ½-pages per vignette. Address the four vignettes presented below: 1. What are the ethical issues in the case? Identify the issue in…

    Instant Solution Download

    $6.99

    Immediate access to the full model answer, formatted citations, and rubric breakdown.

    Need a Fresh Custom Paper?

    Have this question answered from scratch according to your specific instructions and deadline.

    Order on TutorsGallery →

    Assignment Prompt & Instructions

    The entire vignette should be 10 pages total plus additional title and reference page. APA format. double-spaced with 6 references from 2023.

    Each vignette should be 2 ½-pages per vignette.

    Address the four vignettes presented below:

    1. What are the ethical issues in the case? Identify the issue in the ethics code.

    2. Did the professional act in a manner consistent with current standards and principles? If not, what other courses of action would be more ethical?  Support your decision by identifying the standards and principles relevant to this case.

    3. Are there any indications of bias, stereotyping or marginalization present?

    4. If relevant did the professional advocate for the client?

    5. How can colleagues and supervisors help the professional to act ethically in this situation? Please be specific.

    Vignette 1. 2 ½ pages

    Madne is a certified school counselor and licensed clinical counselor specializing in a faith-based approach to healing. She has spent twenty years working with adolescents in a variety of school and clinical settings and has developed extensive competency in spiritual counseling of adolescents with developmental, educational, and mental health issues. She is known in her high school as the counselor "kids can trust". In the last year there have been numerous reports in the media about teenage girls who have hidden their pregnancies from their families, delivered babies alone, and had babies who died soon after birth, either because of the girl's actions or independent of them. In fact, one of the more notorious of these cases occurred in the town next to Madne's school. As a result, the school principal has mandated that all personnel who know of or suspect a student pregnancy should immediately notify parents and the school principal. Madne is disturbed by this edict and fears it will jeopardize her open-door policy with students. Therefore, she decides to ignore it.

    Vignette 2. 2 ½ pages

    Loa is a psychologist who works in the counseling center of a prestigious college with a large number of international students. She says that she could never really learn enough about the varied cultures from which many of her clients come, so she relies on the clients to teach her about their cultural background. When, for example, she had a client from Indonesia, she asked that young man directly about the ways in which he thought his culture affected his thoughts, feelings, and behavior. Loa says that because her clients are all gifted students, they have good insight into their culture and she relies heavily on their interpretation of the role of culture in their lives. She is content that she needs no other knowledge base.

    Vignette 3. 2 ½ pages

    Pia is a 27-year-old woman who is a recent immigrant from Iraq.  She lost three brothers during the war there.  She lives in the U.S. with her parents and she works as a meter-reader.  Over the last 6 months Pia has become increasingly depressed.  Her work performance has suffered and the employee assistance program at work has referred her to Jonathan for therapy. Jonathan is an experienced mental health professional who also conducts research on the effectiveness of psychotherapy for depression.  He has never worked with a recent immigrant, and he has little knowledge of the war in Iraq.  Jonathan decides to refer Pia to another clinician who is from Eastern Europe, but whose knowledge and experience in treating depression is not as extensive as his.

    Vignette 4. 2 ½ pages

    Mann, is 28-year-old war veteran. He was diagnosed with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) after he returned from military combat. In addition to PTSD, Mann suffers from occasional bouts of serious depression. Mann enters graduate school in counseling, hoping to provide therapy to other young veterans who have been traumatized. Although his academic performance in graduate school is satisfactory, he has been unable to provide competent therapy to his clients in internship. He cannot separate his own experiences and emotions from those of his clients and as a result, he sometimes misdiagnoses their problems and misinterprets their thoughts and feelings. Repeated efforts to help Mann develop better skills and insight are unsuccessful. Consequently, he fails internship and is dismissed from the program. Mann is frustrated and calls the actions of his supervisors unethical even though he does not disagree substantially with the faculty’s assessment of his clinical skills. He asserts that his compassion for clients and empathy for their pain should compensate for his deficiencies in other areas. Eventually, Mann finds an unaccredited degree program from which he successfully graduates after which he opens a private practice. In this practice, he offers professional services to survivors of childhood sexual abuse.

  • [Solved] Nursing Planning for a Cultural Interview Assignment

    ✓ Verified Academic Solution Available

    Executive Solution Overview

    – In preparation for your module three assignment, choose a cultural group that is different from your own background and plan to interview someone from this culture. – The goal is to explore a culture that you will likely encounter in your nurse practitioner role. – Using Module one’s mind map and …

    Instant Solution Download

    $6.99

    Immediate access to the full model answer, formatted citations, and rubric breakdown.

    Need a Fresh Custom Paper?

    Have this question answered from scratch according to your specific instructions and deadline.

    Order on TutorsGallery →

    Assignment Prompt & Instructions

    – In preparation for your module three assignment, choose a cultural group that is different from your own background and plan to interview someone from this culture.
    – The goal is to explore a culture that you will likely encounter in your nurse practitioner role.
    – Using Module one’s mind map and the textbook’s FIG. 1.1 and FIG. 1.2 in chapter 1, begin preparing a list of questions that will help you gain insights into the cultural aspects of healthcare for your selected interviewee.
    – Ensure your questions are respectful and culturally sensitive.

  • [Solved] Can this be done in 3 hours?

    ✓ Verified Academic Solution Available

    Executive Solution Overview

    use feedback and correct! Kenya Coleman at Sun Mar 22, 2026 7:35pmat Sun Mar 22, 2026 7:35pm Hello Kiara, Thank you for completing this assignment. You included information in each required domain, which shows good awareness of the structure of a full biopsychosocial‑spiritual assessment. To continu…

    Instant Solution Download

    $6.99

    Immediate access to the full model answer, formatted citations, and rubric breakdown.

    Need a Fresh Custom Paper?

    Have this question answered from scratch according to your specific instructions and deadline.

    Order on TutorsGallery →

    Assignment Prompt & Instructions

    use feedback and correct!

    Kenya Coleman at Sun Mar 22, 2026 7:35pmat Sun Mar 22, 2026 7:35pm

    Hello Kiara,

    Thank you for completing this assignment. You included information in each required domain, which shows good awareness of the structure of a full biopsychosocial‑spiritual assessment.

    To continue building your clinical writing skills, the next step is to provide much more depth and specificity. Most sections currently contain only very general or surface‑level statements, which makes it difficult to understand the client’s history, context, or needs. This level of detail is essential for creating an accurate assessment, developing a meaningful diagnosis, and forming effective intervention goals.

    As you complete future assessments, focus on:

    – Expanding each domain with concrete examples, relevant history, and descriptive information.
    – Showing connections between the client’s background and presenting concerns.
    – Adding depth to the assessment and diagnosis sections so your clinical reasoning is clear.
    – Strengthening goals by making them specific, measurable, and clearly linked to the client’s needs.

    Your framework is in place — now work on adding the detail that transforms an outline into a comprehensive, professional assessment. Keep practicing; this skill will grow quickly with more elaboration and critical thinking in each section.

    – [\
    \
    week9.docx](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/week9-docx-10520607 "week9.docx")
    – [\
    \
    vh9.docx](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/vh9-docx "vh9.docx")
    – [\
    \
    form.docx](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/form-docx-10520793 "form.docx")
    – [\
    \
    2008597f787600-40a7-450a-8578-127111d6acbd.pdf](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/2008597f787600-40a7-450a-8578-127111d6acbd-pdf "2008597f787600-40a7-450a-8578-127111d6acbd.pdf")

  • [Solved] Crime scene

    ✓ Verified Academic Solution Available

    Executive Solution Overview

    [>Criminal homework help](https://www.sweetstudy.com/fields/law-criminal) – 1.Discuss the various types of physical evidence one might collect in a sexual assault investigation. When might the evidence not be of value (aka probative?) – 2. What training is required for the specialized nurses who wo…

    Instant Solution Download

    $6.99

    Immediate access to the full model answer, formatted citations, and rubric breakdown.

    Need a Fresh Custom Paper?

    Have this question answered from scratch according to your specific instructions and deadline.

    Order on TutorsGallery →

    Assignment Prompt & Instructions

    [>Criminal homework help](https://www.sweetstudy.com/fields/law-criminal)

    – 1.Discuss the various types of physical evidence one might collect in a sexual assault investigation.  When might the evidence not be of value (aka probative?)
    – 2. What training is required for the specialized nurses who work with sexual assault victims and what is their professional organization called?
    – 3. . Discuss some of the specialists that might be needed at the scene of a homicide.
    4. Who has authority over the decedent?

    5.  What is the role of the pathologist and what are the different manner/causes of death?

    6. Who are some forensic experts who may be called in to assist in homicide or death cases?

    – 7. What is the reconstruction process and what questions can be answered?

    8. What types of scenes would we reconstruct as experts or crime scene personnel?

  • [Solved] ART

    ✓ Verified Academic Solution Available

    Executive Solution Overview

    In-depth study guidance and analytical solution covering ART.

    Instant Solution Download

    $6.99

    Immediate access to the full model answer, formatted citations, and rubric breakdown.

    Need a Fresh Custom Paper?

    Have this question answered from scratch according to your specific instructions and deadline.

    Order on TutorsGallery →

    Assignment Prompt & Instructions

    Full assignment prompt and step-by-step guidance are included in the downloadable solution file.

  • [Solved] MEASURES USED IN EPIDEMIOLOGY

    ✓ Verified Academic Solution Available

    Executive Solution Overview

    find attached **files (2)** – ## wk5epidisc.docx – ## wk5epirubrics.docx **## wk5epidisc.docx** One important application of epidemiology is to identify factors that could increase the likelihood of a certain health problem occurring within a specific population. Epidemiologists use _measures of eff…

    Instant Solution Download

    $6.99

    Immediate access to the full model answer, formatted citations, and rubric breakdown.

    Need a Fresh Custom Paper?

    Have this question answered from scratch according to your specific instructions and deadline.

    Order on TutorsGallery →

    Assignment Prompt & Instructions

    find attached

    **files (2)**

    – ## wk5epidisc.docx

    – ## wk5epirubrics.docx

    **## wk5epidisc.docx**

    One important application of epidemiology is to identify factors that could increase the likelihood of a certain health problem occurring within a specific population. Epidemiologists use
    _measures of effect_  to examine the association or linkage in the relationship between risk factors and emergence of disease or ill health. For instance, they may use measures of effect to better understand the relationships between poverty and lead poisoning in children, smoking and heart disease, or low birth weight and future motor skills. The following are some common measures used in epidemiology:

    ·
    **Odds ratio**: The odds ratio quantifies the association between an independent variable (exposure) and a dependent variable (outcome). It is calculated as the odds that an effect will occur given the presence or exposure to a studied variable, compared to the odds when there is no exposure (e.g., lung cancer and smoking)

    ·
    **Risk ratio (also called relative risk)**: Also quantifies the association between an independent variable and a dependent variable. The risk of an effect occurring in one population versus another population (e.g., preeclampsia in women <35 versus >35). Risks greater than one suggest that exposure to a given variable is associated with an increase in the risk of the outcome, and a risk ratio of less than one indicates that the exposure is associated with a decrease in the risk of the outcome.

    ·
    **Mortality**: Measure of deaths in a particular population during a specified time interval. If this is attributed to a specific cause, it is referred to as cause-specific mortality.

    ·
    **Morbidity**: Measure of instances of illness or disability in a population from a given cause (e.g., heart disease) during a specified time interval

    ·
    **Incidence**: The occurrence of new cases of an effect or disease in a population over a defined time period relative to the size of the population at risk (e.g., new cases of COVID-19 in a population over a 7-day period/1000 people)

    ·
    **Prevalence**: The number of all cases of an effect or disease, not just new ones, in a population at a given time relative to the size of the population (e.g., number of people with autism/1000)

    What is the significance of these measures of effect for nursing practice? In this Discussion, you will consider this pivotal question.

    RESOURCES

    Be sure to review the Learning Resources before completing this activity.
    Click the weekly resources link to access the resources.

    [**WEEKLY RESOURCES**](https://waldenu.instructure.com/courses/215573/modules/items/9000066)

    TO PREPARE:

    · Select item 1, 2, or 3 to use for this Discussion. Consider the definitions, differences, and utility of the two terms listed under your item selection. Your response will need to include both terms in the item selected.

    1. Odds ratio and risk ratio

    2. Mortality and morbidity

    3. Incidence and prevalence

    · Consider how these epidemiologic measures strengthen and support nursing practice.

    · Assess practice limitations of not using these measures in nursing practice.

    · Conduct additional research in the Walden Library and other credible resources, and then locate two examples in the scholarly literature that support your insights.

    BY DAY 3 OF WEEK 5

    **Post** a cohesive scholarly response that addresses the following:

    · Explain how your selected measures of effect strengthen and support nursing practice. Provide at least two specific examples from the literature to substantiate your insights.

    · Assess limitations of
    **not** using measures of effect in nursing practice.

    **## wk5epirubrics.docx**

    **NURS_8310_Week5_Discussion_Rubric**

    | | | |
    | — | — | — |
    | NURS_8310_Week5_Discussion_Rubric |
    | **Criteria** | **Ratings** | **Pts** |
    | This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeRESPONSIVENESS TO DISCUSSION QUESTION (20 possible points): Discussion posts minimum requirements: The original posting must be completed by Day 3 at 11:59pm ET. Two response postings to two different peer original posts, on two different days, are required by Day 6 at 11:59pm ET. Faculty member inquiries require responses, which are not included in the peer posts. Your Discussion Board postings should be written in Standard Academic English and follow APA 7 style for format and grammar as closely as possible given the constraints of the online platform. Be sure to support the postings with specific citations from this week's learning resources as well as resources available through the Walden University library and other credible online resources (guidelines, expert opinions etc.) | **20 to >19.0 ptsExcellent**• Discussion postings and responses are responsive to and exceed the requirements of the Discussion instructions. • The student responds to the question/s being asked or the prompt/s provided. Goes beyond what is required in some meaningful way (e.g., the post contributes a new dimension, unearths something unanticipated) • Demonstrates that the student has read, viewed, and considered a variety of learning resources, as well as resources available through the Walden University library and other credible online resources (guidelines, expert opinions etc.) • Detailed response to faculty.<br> <br>**19 to >15.0 ptsGood**• Discussion postings and responses are responsive to and meet the requirements of the Discussion instructions. • The student responds to the question/s being asked or the prompt/s provided. • Demonstrates that the student has read, viewed, and considered a variety of learning resources, as well as resources available through the Walden University library and other credible online resources (guidelines, expert opinions etc.) • Appropriate reply to faculty.<br> <br>**15 to >12.0 ptsFair**• Discussion postings and responses are somewhat responsive to the requirements of the Discussion instructions. • The student may not clearly address the objectives of the discussion or the question/s or prompt/s. • Minimally demonstrates that the student has read, viewed, and considered a variety of learning resources, as well as resources available through the Walden University library and other credible online resources (guidelines, expert opinions etc.) • Brief response to faculty with minimal effort.<br> <br>**12 to >0 ptsPoor**• Discussion postings and responses are unresponsive to the requirements of the Discussion instructions. • Does not clearly address the objectives of the discussion or the question/s or prompt/s. • Does not demonstrate that the student has read, viewed, and considered a variety of learning resources, as well as resources available through the Walden University library and other credible online resources (guidelines, expert opinions etc.) • Fails to respond to faculty inquiries. | 20 pts |
    | This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCONTENT REFLECTION and MASTERY: Initial Post (30 possible points) | **30 to >29.0 ptsExcellent** Initial Discussion posting: • Post demonstrates mastery and thoughtful/accurate application of content and/or strategies presented in the course. • Posts are substantive and reflective, with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings and current credible evidence. • Initial post is supported by 3 or more relevant examples and research/evidence from a variety of scholarly sources including course and outside readings.<br> <br>**29 to >23.0 ptsGood** Initial Discussion posting: • Posts demonstrate some mastery and application of content, applicable skills, or strategies presented in the course. • Posts are substantive and reflective, with analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings and current credible evidence. • Initial post is supported by 3 or more relevant examples and research/evidence from a variety of scholarly sources including course and outside readings.<br> <br>**23 to >18.0 ptsFair** Initial Discussion posting: • Post may lack in depth, reflection, analysis, or synthesis but rely more on anecdotal than scholarly evidence. • Posts demonstrate minimal understanding of concepts and issues presented in the course, and, although generally accurate, display some omissions and/or errors. • There is a lack of support from relevant scholarly research/evidence.<br> <br>**18 to >0 ptsPoor** Initial Discussion posting: • Post lacks in substance, reflection, analysis, or synthesis. • Posts do not generalize, extend thinking or evaluate concepts and issues within the topic or context of the discussion. • Relevant examples and scholarly resources are not provided. | 30 pts |
    | This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCONTRIBUTION TO THE DISCUSSION: First Response (20 possible points) | **20 to >19.0 ptsExcellent** Discussion response: • Significantly contributes to the quality of the discussion/interaction and thinking and learning. • Provides rich and relevant examples and thought-provoking ideas that demonstrates new perspectives, and synthesis of ideas supported by the literature. • Scholarly sources are correctly cited and formatted. • First response is supported by 2 or more relevant examples and research/evidence from a variety of scholarly sources including course and outside readings. • Posts on separate day.<br> <br>**19 to >15.0 ptsGood** Discussion response: • Contributes to the quality of the interaction/discussion and learning. • Provides relevant examples and/or thought-provoking ideas • Scholarly sources are correctly cited and formatted. • First response is supported by 2 or more relevant examples and research/evidence from a variety of scholarly sources including course and outside readings. • Posts on separate day.<br> <br>**15 to >12.0 ptsFair** Discussion response: • Minimally contributes to the quality of the interaction/discussion and learning. • Provides few examples to support thoughts. • Information provided lacks evidence of critical thinking or synthesis of ideas. • There is a lack of support from relevant scholarly research/evidence. • Posts on separate day.<br> <br>**12 to >0 ptsPoor** Discussion response: • Does not contribute to the quality of the interaction/discussion and learning. • Lacks relevant examples or ideas. • There is a lack of support from relevant scholarly research/evidence. • Posts on same day. | 20 pts |
    | This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCONTRIBUTION TO THE DISCUSSION: Second Response (20 possible points) | **20 to >19.0 ptsExcellent** Discussion response: • Significantly contributes to the quality of the discussion/interaction and thinking and learning. • Provides relevant examples and thought-provoking ideas that demonstrates new perspectives, and extensive synthesis of ideas supported by the literature. • Second response is supported by 2 or more relevant examples and research/evidence from a variety of scholarly sources including course and outside readings. • Scholarly sources are correctly cited and formatted. • Posts on separate day.<br> <br>**19 to >15.0 ptsGood** Discussion response: • Contributes to the quality of the interaction/discussion and learning. • Provides relevant examples and/or thought-provoking ideas • Second response is supported by 2 or more relevant examples and research/evidence from a variety of scholarly sources including course and outside readings. • Scholarly sources are correctly cited and formatted. • Posts on separate day.<br> <br>**15 to >12.0 ptsFair** Discussion response: • Minimally contributes to the quality of the interaction/discussion and learning. • Provides few examples to support thoughts. • Information provided lacks evidence of critical thinking or synthesis of ideas. • Minimal scholarly sources provided to support post. • Posts on separate day.<br> <br>**12 to >0 ptsPoor** Discussion response: • Does not contribute to the quality of the interaction/discussion and learning. • Lacks relevant examples or ideas. • No sources provided. • Posts on same day. | 20 pts |
    | This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeQUALITY OF WRITING (10 possible points) | **10 to >9.0 ptsExcellent** Discussion postings and responses exceed doctoral level writing expectations: • Use Standard Academic English that is clear, concise, and appropriate to doctoral level writing. • Make few if any errors in spelling, grammar, that does not affect clear communication. • Uses correct APA 7 format as closely as possible given the constraints of the online platform. • Are positive, courteous, and respectful when offering suggestions, constructive feedback, or opposing viewpoints.<br> <br>**9 to >8.0 ptsGood** Discussion postings and responses meet doctoral level writing expectations: • Use Standard Academic English that is clear and appropriate to doctoral level writing • Makes a few errors in spelling, grammar, that does not affect clear communication. • Uses correct APA 7 format as closely as possible given the constraints of the online platform. • Are courteous and respectful when offering suggestions, constructive feedback, or opposing viewpoints.<br> <br>**8 to >6.0 ptsFair** Discussion postings and responses are somewhat below doctoral level writing expectations: • Posts contains multiple spelling, grammar, and/or punctuation deviations from Standard Academic English that affect clear communication. • Numerous errors in APA 7 format • May be less than courteous and respectful when offering suggestions, feedback, or opposing viewpoints.<br> <br>**6 to >0 ptsPoor** Discussion postings and responses are well below doctoral level writing expectations: • Posts contains multiple spelling, grammar, and/or punctuation deviations from Standard Academic English that affect clear communication. • Uses incorrect APA 7 format • Are discourteous and disrespectful when offering suggestions, feedback, or opposing viewpoints. | 10 pts |

    Total Points: 100

    **## wk5epirubrics.docx**

    **NURS_8310_Week5_Discussion_Rubric**

    | | | |
    | — | — | — |
    | NURS_8310_Week5_Discussion_Rubric |
    | **Criteria** | **Ratings** | **Pts** |
    | This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeRESPONSIVENESS TO DISCUSSION QUESTION (20 possible points): Discussion posts minimum requirements: The original posting must be completed by Day 3 at 11:59pm ET. Two response postings to two different peer original posts, on two different days, are required by Day 6 at 11:59pm ET. Faculty member inquiries require responses, which are not included in the peer posts. Your Discussion Board postings should be written in Standard Academic English and follow APA 7 style for format and grammar as closely as possible given the constraints of the online platform. Be sure to support the postings with specific citations from this week's learning resources as well as resources available through the Walden University library and other credible online resources (guidelines, expert opinions etc.) | **20 to >19.0 ptsExcellent**• Discussion postings and responses are responsive to and exceed the requirements of the Discussion instructions. • The student responds to the question/s being asked or the prompt/s provided. Goes beyond what is required in some meaningful way (e.g., the post contributes a new dimension, unearths something unanticipated) • Demonstrates that the student has read, viewed, and considered a variety of learning resources, as well as resources available through the Walden University library and other credible online resources (guidelines, expert opinions etc.) • Detailed response to faculty.<br> <br>**19 to >15.0 ptsGood**• Discussion postings and responses are responsive to and meet the requirements of the Discussion instructions. • The student responds to the question/s being asked or the prompt/s provided. • Demonstrates that the student has read, viewed, and considered a variety of learning resources, as well as resources available through the Walden University library and other credible online resources (guidelines, expert opinions etc.) • Appropriate reply to faculty.<br> <br>**15 to >12.0 ptsFair**• Discussion postings and responses are somewhat responsive to the requirements of the Discussion instructions. • The student may not clearly address the objectives of the discussion or the question/s or prompt/s. • Minimally demonstrates that the student has read, viewed, and considered a variety of learning resources, as well as resources available through the Walden University library and other credible online resources (guidelines, expert opinions etc.) • Brief response to faculty with minimal effort.<br> <br>**12 to >0 ptsPoor**• Discussion postings and responses are unresponsive to the requirements of the Discussion instructions. • Does not clearly address the objectives of the discussion or the question/s or prompt/s. • Does not demonstrate that the student has read, viewed, and considered a variety of learning resources, as well as resources available through the Walden University library and other credible online resources (guidelines, expert opinions etc.) • Fails to respond to faculty inquiries. | 20 pts |
    | This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCONTENT REFLECTION and MASTERY: Initial Post (30 possible points) | **30 to >29.0 ptsExcellent** Initial Discussion posting: • Post demonstrates mastery and thoughtful/accurate application of content and/or strategies presented in the course. • Posts are substantive and reflective, with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings and current credible evidence. • Initial post is supported by 3 or more relevant examples and research/evidence from a variety of scholarly sources including course and outside readings.<br> <br>**29 to >23.0 ptsGood** Initial Discussion posting: • Posts demonstrate some mastery and application of content, applicable skills, or strategies presented in the course. • Posts are substantive and reflective, with analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings and current credible evidence. • Initial post is supported by 3 or more relevant examples and research/evidence from a variety of scholarly sources including course and outside readings.<br> <br>**23 to >18.0 ptsFair** Initial Discussion posting: • Post may lack in depth, reflection, analysis, or synthesis but rely more on anecdotal than scholarly evidence. • Posts demonstrate minimal understanding of concepts and issues presented in the course, and, although generally accurate, display some omissions and/or errors. • There is a lack of support from relevant scholarly research/evidence.<br> <br>**18 to >0 ptsPoor** Initial Discussion posting: • Post lacks in substance, reflection, analysis, or synthesis. • Posts do not generalize, extend thinking or evaluate concepts and issues within the topic or context of the discussion. • Relevant examples and scholarly resources are not provided. | 30 pts |
    | This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCONTRIBUTION TO THE DISCUSSION: First Response (20 possible points) | **20 to >19.0 ptsExcellent** Discussion response: • Significantly contributes to the quality of the discussion/interaction and thinking and learning. • Provides rich and relevant examples and thought-provoking ideas that demonstrates new perspectives, and synthesis of ideas supported by the literature. • Scholarly sources are correctly cited and formatted. • First response is supported by 2 or more relevant examples and research/evidence from a variety of scholarly sources including course and outside readings. • Posts on separate day.<br> <br>**19 to >15.0 ptsGood** Discussion response: • Contributes to the quality of the interaction/discussion and learning. • Provides relevant examples and/or thought-provoking ideas • Scholarly sources are correctly cited and formatted. • First response is supported by 2 or more relevant examples and research/evidence from a variety of scholarly sources including course and outside readings. • Posts on separate day.<br> <br>**15 to >12.0 ptsFair** Discussion response: • Minimally contributes to the quality of the interaction/discussion and learning. • Provides few examples to support thoughts. • Information provided lacks evidence of critical thinking or synthesis of ideas. • There is a lack of support from relevant scholarly research/evidence. • Posts on separate day.<br> <br>**12 to >0 ptsPoor** Discussion response: • Does not contribute to the quality of the interaction/discussion and learning. • Lacks relevant examples or ideas. • There is a lack of support from relevant scholarly research/evidence. • Posts on same day. | 20 pts |
    | This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCONTRIBUTION TO THE DISCUSSION: Second Response (20 possible points) | **20 to >19.0 ptsExcellent** Discussion response: • Significantly contributes to the quality of the discussion/interaction and thinking and learning. • Provides relevant examples and thought-provoking ideas that demonstrates new perspectives, and extensive synthesis of ideas supported by the literature. • Second response is supported by 2 or more relevant examples and research/evidence from a variety of scholarly sources including course and outside readings. • Scholarly sources are correctly cited and formatted. • Posts on separate day.<br> <br>**19 to >15.0 ptsGood** Discussion response: • Contributes to the quality of the interaction/discussion and learning. • Provides relevant examples and/or thought-provoking ideas • Second response is supported by 2 or more relevant examples and research/evidence from a variety of scholarly sources including course and outside readings. • Scholarly sources are correctly cited and formatted. • Posts on separate day.<br> <br>**15 to >12.0 ptsFair** Discussion response: • Minimally contributes to the quality of the interaction/discussion and learning. • Provides few examples to support thoughts. • Information provided lacks evidence of critical thinking or synthesis of ideas. • Minimal scholarly sources provided to support post. • Posts on separate day.<br> <br>**12 to >0 ptsPoor** Discussion response: • Does not contribute to the quality of the interaction/discussion and learning. • Lacks relevant examples or ideas. • No sources provided. • Posts on same day. | 20 pts |
    | This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeQUALITY OF WRITING (10 possible points) | **10 to >9.0 ptsExcellent** Discussion postings and responses exceed doctoral level writing expectations: • Use Standard Academic English that is clear, concise, and appropriate to doctoral level writing. • Make few if any errors in spelling, grammar, that does not affect clear communication. • Uses correct APA 7 format as closely as possible given the constraints of the online platform. • Are positive, courteous, and respectful when offering suggestions, constructive feedback, or opposing viewpoints.<br> <br>**9 to >8.0 ptsGood** Discussion postings and responses meet doctoral level writing expectations: • Use Standard Academic English that is clear and appropriate to doctoral level writing • Makes a few errors in spelling, grammar, that does not affect clear communication. • Uses correct APA 7 format as closely as possible given the constraints of the online platform. • Are courteous and respectful when offering suggestions, constructive feedback, or opposing viewpoints.<br> <br>**8 to >6.0 ptsFair** Discussion postings and responses are somewhat below doctoral level writing expectations: • Posts contains multiple spelling, grammar, and/or punctuation deviations from Standard Academic English that affect clear communication. • Numerous errors in APA 7 format • May be less than courteous and respectful when offering suggestions, feedback, or opposing viewpoints.<br> <br>**6 to >0 ptsPoor** Discussion postings and responses are well below doctoral level writing expectations: • Posts contains multiple spelling, grammar, and/or punctuation deviations from Standard Academic English that affect clear communication. • Uses incorrect APA 7 format • Are discourteous and disrespectful when offering suggestions, feedback, or opposing viewpoints. | 10 pts |

    Total Points: 100

    **## wk5epidisc.docx**

    One important application of epidemiology is to identify factors that could increase the likelihood of a certain health problem occurring within a specific population. Epidemiologists use
    _measures of effect_  to examine the association or linkage in the relationship between risk factors and emergence of disease or ill health. For instance, they may use measures of effect to better understand the relationships between poverty and lead poisoning in children, smoking and heart disease, or low birth weight and future motor skills. The following are some common measures used in epidemiology:

    ·
    **Odds ratio**: The odds ratio quantifies the association between an independent variable (exposure) and a dependent variable (outcome). It is calculated as the odds that an effect will occur given the presence or exposure to a studied variable, compared to the odds when there is no exposure (e.g., lung cancer and smoking)

    ·
    **Risk ratio (also called relative risk)**: Also quantifies the association between an independent variable and a dependent variable. The risk of an effect occurring in one population versus another population (e.g., preeclampsia in women <35 versus >35). Risks greater than one suggest that exposure to a given variable is associated with an increase in the risk of the outcome, and a risk ratio of less than one indicates that the exposure is associated with a decrease in the risk of the outcome.

    ·
    **Mortality**: Measure of deaths in a particular population during a specified time interval. If this is attributed to a specific cause, it is referred to as cause-specific mortality.

    ·
    **Morbidity**: Measure of instances of illness or disability in a population from a given cause (e.g., heart disease) during a specified time interval

    ·
    **Incidence**: The occurrence of new cases of an effect or disease in a population over a defined time period relative to the size of the population at risk (e.g., new cases of COVID-19 in a population over a 7-day period/1000 people)

    ·
    **Prevalence**: The number of all cases of an effect or disease, not just new ones, in a population at a given time relative to the size of the population (e.g., number of people with autism/1000)

    What is the significance of these measures of effect for nursing practice? In this Discussion, you will consider this pivotal question.

    RESOURCES

    Be sure to review the Learning Resources before completing this activity.
    Click the weekly resources link to access the resources.

    [**WEEKLY RESOURCES**](https://waldenu.instructure.com/courses/215573/modules/items/9000066)

    TO PREPARE:

    · Select item 1, 2, or 3 to use for this Discussion. Consider the definitions, differences, and utility of the two terms listed under your item selection. Your response will need to include both terms in the item selected.

    1. Odds ratio and risk ratio

    2. Mortality and morbidity

    3. Incidence and prevalence

    · Consider how these epidemiologic measures strengthen and support nursing practice.

    · Assess practice limitations of not using these measures in nursing practice.

    · Conduct additional research in the Walden Library and other credible resources, and then locate two examples in the scholarly literature that support your insights.

    BY DAY 3 OF WEEK 5

    **Post** a cohesive scholarly response that addresses the following:

    · Explain how your selected measures of effect strengthen and support nursing practice. Provide at least two specific examples from the literature to substantiate your insights.

    · Assess limitations of
    **not** using measures of effect in nursing practice.

    **## wk5epirubrics.docx**

    **NURS_8310_Week5_Discussion_Rubric**

    | | | |
    | — | — | — |
    | NURS_8310_Week5_Discussion_Rubric |
    | **Criteria** | **Ratings** | **Pts** |
    | This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeRESPONSIVENESS TO DISCUSSION QUESTION (20 possible points): Discussion posts minimum requirements: The original posting must be completed by Day 3 at 11:59pm ET. Two response postings to two different peer original posts, on two different days, are required by Day 6 at 11:59pm ET. Faculty member inquiries require responses, which are not included in the peer posts. Your Discussion Board postings should be written in Standard Academic English and follow APA 7 style for format and grammar as closely as possible given the constraints of the online platform. Be sure to support the postings with specific citations from this week's learning resources as well as resources available through the Walden University library and other credible online resources (guidelines, expert opinions etc.) | **20 to >19.0 ptsExcellent**• Discussion postings and responses are responsive to and exceed the requirements of the Discussion instructions. • The student responds to the question/s being asked or the prompt/s provided. Goes beyond what is required in some meaningful way (e.g., the post contributes a new dimension, unearths something unanticipated) • Demonstrates that the student has read, viewed, and considered a variety of learning resources, as well as resources available through the Walden University library and other credible online resources (guidelines, expert opinions etc.) • Detailed response to faculty.<br> <br>**19 to >15.0 ptsGood**• Discussion postings and responses are responsive to and meet the requirements of the Discussion instructions. • The student responds to the question/s being asked or the prompt/s provided. • Demonstrates that the student has read, viewed, and considered a variety of learning resources, as well as resources available through the Walden University library and other credible online resources (guidelines, expert opinions etc.) • Appropriate reply to faculty.<br> <br>**15 to >12.0 ptsFair**• Discussion postings and responses are somewhat responsive to the requirements of the Discussion instructions. • The student may not clearly address the objectives of the discussion or the question/s or prompt/s. • Minimally demonstrates that the student has read, viewed, and considered a variety of learning resources, as well as resources available through the Walden University library and other credible online resources (guidelines, expert opinions etc.) • Brief response to faculty with minimal effort.<br> <br>**12 to >0 ptsPoor**• Discussion postings and responses are unresponsive to the requirements of the Discussion instructions. • Does not clearly address the objectives of the discussion or the question/s or prompt/s. • Does not demonstrate that the student has read, viewed, and considered a variety of learning resources, as well as resources available through the Walden University library and other credible online resources (guidelines, expert opinions etc.) • Fails to respond to faculty inquiries. | 20 pts |
    | This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCONTENT REFLECTION and MASTERY: Initial Post (30 possible points) | **30 to >29.0 ptsExcellent** Initial Discussion posting: • Post demonstrates mastery and thoughtful/accurate application of content and/or strategies presented in the course. • Posts are substantive and reflective, with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings and current credible evidence. • Initial post is supported by 3 or more relevant examples and research/evidence from a variety of scholarly sources including course and outside readings.<br> <br>**29 to >23.0 ptsGood** Initial Discussion posting: • Posts demonstrate some mastery and application of content, applicable skills, or strategies presented in the course. • Posts are substantive and reflective, with analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings and current credible evidence. • Initial post is supported by 3 or more relevant examples and research/evidence from a variety of scholarly sources including course and outside readings.<br> <br>**23 to >18.0 ptsFair** Initial Discussion posting: • Post may lack in depth, reflection, analysis, or synthesis but rely more on anecdotal than scholarly evidence. • Posts demonstrate minimal understanding of concepts and issues presented in the course, and, although generally accurate, display some omissions and/or errors. • There is a lack of support from relevant scholarly research/evidence.<br> <br>**18 to >0 ptsPoor** Initial Discussion posting: • Post lacks in substance, reflection, analysis, or synthesis. • Posts do not generalize, extend thinking or evaluate concepts and issues within the topic or context of the discussion. • Relevant examples and scholarly resources are not provided. | 30 pts |
    | This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCONTRIBUTION TO THE DISCUSSION: First Response (20 possible points) | **20 to >19.0 ptsExcellent** Discussion response: • Significantly contributes to the quality of the discussion/interaction and thinking and learning. • Provides rich and relevant examples and thought-provoking ideas that demonstrates new perspectives, and synthesis of ideas supported by the literature. • Scholarly sources are correctly cited and formatted. • First response is supported by 2 or more relevant examples and research/evidence from a variety of scholarly sources including course and outside readings. • Posts on separate day.<br> <br>**19 to >15.0 ptsGood** Discussion response: • Contributes to the quality of the interaction/discussion and learning. • Provides relevant examples and/or thought-provoking ideas • Scholarly sources are correctly cited and formatted. • First response is supported by 2 or more relevant examples and research/evidence from a variety of scholarly sources including course and outside readings. • Posts on separate day.<br> <br>**15 to >12.0 ptsFair** Discussion response: • Minimally contributes to the quality of the interaction/discussion and learning. • Provides few examples to support thoughts. • Information provided lacks evidence of critical thinking or synthesis of ideas. • There is a lack of support from relevant scholarly research/evidence. • Posts on separate day.<br> <br>**12 to >0 ptsPoor** Discussion response: • Does not contribute to the quality of the interaction/discussion and learning. • Lacks relevant examples or ideas. • There is a lack of support from relevant scholarly research/evidence. • Posts on same day. | 20 pts |
    | This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCONTRIBUTION TO THE DISCUSSION: Second Response (20 possible points) | **20 to >19.0 ptsExcellent** Discussion response: • Significantly contributes to the quality of the discussion/interaction and thinking and learning. • Provides relevant examples and thought-provoking ideas that demonstrates new perspectives, and extensive synthesis of ideas supported by the literature. • Second response is supported by 2 or more relevant examples and research/evidence from a variety of scholarly sources including course and outside readings. • Scholarly sources are correctly cited and formatted. • Posts on separate day.<br> <br>**19 to >15.0 ptsGood** Discussion response: • Contributes to the quality of the interaction/discussion and learning. • Provides relevant examples and/or thought-provoking ideas • Second response is supported by 2 or more relevant examples and research/evidence from a variety of scholarly sources including course and outside readings. • Scholarly sources are correctly cited and formatted. • Posts on separate day.<br> <br>**15 to >12.0 ptsFair** Discussion response: • Minimally contributes to the quality of the interaction/discussion and learning. • Provides few examples to support thoughts. • Information provided lacks evidence of critical thinking or synthesis of ideas. • Minimal scholarly sources provided to support post. • Posts on separate day.<br> <br>**12 to >0 ptsPoor** Discussion response: • Does not contribute to the quality of the interaction/discussion and learning. • Lacks relevant examples or ideas. • No sources provided. • Posts on same day. | 20 pts |
    | This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeQUALITY OF WRITING (10 possible points) | **10 to >9.0 ptsExcellent** Discussion postings and responses exceed doctoral level writing expectations: • Use Standard Academic English that is clear, concise, and appropriate to doctoral level writing. • Make few if any errors in spelling, grammar, that does not affect clear communication. • Uses correct APA 7 format as closely as possible given the constraints of the online platform. • Are positive, courteous, and respectful when offering suggestions, constructive feedback, or opposing viewpoints.<br> <br>**9 to >8.0 ptsGood** Discussion postings and responses meet doctoral level writing expectations: • Use Standard Academic English that is clear and appropriate to doctoral level writing • Makes a few errors in spelling, grammar, that does not affect clear communication. • Uses correct APA 7 format as closely as possible given the constraints of the online platform. • Are courteous and respectful when offering suggestions, constructive feedback, or opposing viewpoints.<br> <br>**8 to >6.0 ptsFair** Discussion postings and responses are somewhat below doctoral level writing expectations: • Posts contains multiple spelling, grammar, and/or punctuation deviations from Standard Academic English that affect clear communication. • Numerous errors in APA 7 format • May be less than courteous and respectful when offering suggestions, feedback, or opposing viewpoints.<br> <br>**6 to >0 ptsPoor** Discussion postings and responses are well below doctoral level writing expectations: • Posts contains multiple spelling, grammar, and/or punctuation deviations from Standard Academic English that affect clear communication. • Uses incorrect APA 7 format • Are discourteous and disrespectful when offering suggestions, feedback, or opposing viewpoints. | 10 pts |

    Total Points: 100

    **## wk5epidisc.docx**

    One important application of epidemiology is to identify factors that could increase the likelihood of a certain health problem occurring within a specific population. Epidemiologists use
    _measures of effect_  to examine the association or linkage in the relationship between risk factors and emergence of disease or ill health. For instance, they may use measures of effect to better understand the relationships between poverty and lead poisoning in children, smoking and heart disease, or low birth weight and future motor skills. The following are some common measures used in epidemiology:

    ·
    **Odds ratio**: The odds ratio quantifies the association between an independent variable (exposure) and a dependent variable (outcome). It is calculated as the odds that an effect will occur given the presence or exposure to a studied variable, compared to the odds when there is no exposure (e.g., lung cancer and smoking)

    ·
    **Risk ratio (also called relative risk)**: Also quantifies the association between an independent variable and a dependent variable. The risk of an effect occurring in one population versus another population (e.g., preeclampsia in women <35 versus >35). Risks greater than one suggest that exposure to a given variable is associated with an increase in the risk of the outcome, and a risk ratio of less than one indicates that the exposure is associated with a decrease in the risk of the outcome.

    ·
    **Mortality**: Measure of deaths in a particular population during a specified time interval. If this is attributed to a specific cause, it is referred to as cause-specific mortality.

    ·
    **Morbidity**: Measure of instances of illness or disability in a population from a given cause (e.g., heart disease) during a specified time interval

    ·
    **Incidence**: The occurrence of new cases of an effect or disease in a population over a defined time period relative to the size of the population at risk (e.g., new cases of COVID-19 in a population over a 7-day period/1000 people)

    ·
    **Prevalence**: The number of all cases of an effect or disease, not just new ones, in a population at a given time relative to the size of the population (e.g., number of people with autism/1000)

    What is the significance of these measures of effect for nursing practice? In this Discussion, you will consider this pivotal question.

    RESOURCES

    Be sure to review the Learning Resources before completing this activity.
    Click the weekly resources link to access the resources.

    [**WEEKLY RESOURCES**](https://waldenu.instructure.com/courses/215573/modules/items/9000066)

    TO PREPARE:

    · Select item 1, 2, or 3 to use for this Discussion. Consider the definitions, differences, and utility of the two terms listed under your item selection. Your response will need to include both terms in the item selected.

    1. Odds ratio and risk ratio

    2. Mortality and morbidity

    3. Incidence and prevalence

    · Consider how these epidemiologic measures strengthen and support nursing practice.

    · Assess practice limitations of not using these measures in nursing practice.

    · Conduct additional research in the Walden Library and other credible resources, and then locate two examples in the scholarly literature that support your insights.

    BY DAY 3 OF WEEK 5

    **Post** a cohesive scholarly response that addresses the following:

    · Explain how your selected measures of effect strengthen and support nursing practice. Provide at least two specific examples from the literature to substantiate your insights.

    · Assess limitations of
    **not** using measures of effect in nursing practice.

    **## wk5epirubrics.docx**

    **NURS_8310_Week5_Discussion_Rubric**

    | | | |
    | — | — | — |
    | NURS_8310_Week5_Discussion_Rubric |
    | **Criteria** | **Ratings** | **Pts** |
    | This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeRESPONSIVENESS TO DISCUSSION QUESTION (20 possible points): Discussion posts minimum requirements: The original posting must be completed by Day 3 at 11:59pm ET. Two response postings to two different peer original posts, on two different days, are required by Day 6 at 11:59pm ET. Faculty member inquiries require responses, which are not included in the peer posts. Your Discussion Board postings should be written in Standard Academic English and follow APA 7 style for format and grammar as closely as possible given the constraints of the online platform. Be sure to support the postings with specific citations from this week's learning resources as well as resources available through the Walden University library and other credible online resources (guidelines, expert opinions etc.) | **20 to >19.0 ptsExcellent**• Discussion postings and responses are responsive to and exceed the requirements of the Discussion instructions. • The student responds to the question/s being asked or the prompt/s provided. Goes beyond what is required in some meaningful way (e.g., the post contributes a new dimension, unearths something unanticipated) • Demonstrates that the student has read, viewed, and considered a variety of learning resources, as well as resources available through the Walden University library and other credible online resources (guidelines, expert opinions etc.) • Detailed response to faculty.<br> <br>**19 to >15.0 ptsGood**• Discussion postings and responses are responsive to and meet the requirements of the Discussion instructions. • The student responds to the question/s being asked or the prompt/s provided. • Demonstrates that the student has read, viewed, and considered a variety of learning resources, as well as resources available through the Walden University library and other credible online resources (guidelines, expert opinions etc.) • Appropriate reply to faculty.<br> <br>**15 to >12.0 ptsFair**• Discussion postings and responses are somewhat responsive to the requirements of the Discussion instructions. • The student may not clearly address the objectives of the discussion or the question/s or prompt/s. • Minimally demonstrates that the student has read, viewed, and considered a variety of learning resources, as well as resources available through the Walden University library and other credible online resources (guidelines, expert opinions etc.) • Brief response to faculty with minimal effort.<br> <br>**12 to >0 ptsPoor**• Discussion postings and responses are unresponsive to the requirements of the Discussion instructions. • Does not clearly address the objectives of the discussion or the question/s or prompt/s. • Does not demonstrate that the student has read, viewed, and considered a variety of learning resources, as well as resources available through the Walden University library and other credible online resources (guidelines, expert opinions etc.) • Fails to respond to faculty inquiries. | 20 pts |
    | This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCONTENT REFLECTION and MASTERY: Initial Post (30 possible points) | **30 to >29.0 ptsExcellent** Initial Discussion posting: • Post demonstrates mastery and thoughtful/accurate application of content and/or strategies presented in the course. • Posts are substantive and reflective, with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings and current credible evidence. • Initial post is supported by 3 or more relevant examples and research/evidence from a variety of scholarly sources including course and outside readings.<br> <br>**29 to >23.0 ptsGood** Initial Discussion posting: • Posts demonstrate some mastery and application of content, applicable skills, or strategies presented in the course. • Posts are substantive and reflective, with analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings and current credible evidence. • Initial post is supported by 3 or more relevant examples and research/evidence from a variety of scholarly sources including course and outside readings.<br> <br>**23 to >18.0 ptsFair** Initial Discussion posting: • Post may lack in depth, reflection, analysis, or synthesis but rely more on anecdotal than scholarly evidence. • Posts demonstrate minimal understanding of concepts and issues presented in the course, and, although generally accurate, display some omissions and/or errors. • There is a lack of support from relevant scholarly research/evidence.<br> <br>**18 to >0 ptsPoor** Initial Discussion posting: • Post lacks in substance, reflection, analysis, or synthesis. • Posts do not generalize, extend thinking or evaluate concepts and issues within the topic or context of the discussion. • Relevant examples and scholarly resources are not provided. | 30 pts |
    | This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCONTRIBUTION TO THE DISCUSSION: First Response (20 possible points) | **20 to >19.0 ptsExcellent** Discussion response: • Significantly contributes to the quality of the discussion/interaction and thinking and learning. • Provides rich and relevant examples and thought-provoking ideas that demonstrates new perspectives, and synthesis of ideas supported by the literature. • Scholarly sources are correctly cited and formatted. • First response is supported by 2 or more relevant examples and research/evidence from a variety of scholarly sources including course and outside readings. • Posts on separate day.<br> <br>**19 to >15.0 ptsGood** Discussion response: • Contributes to the quality of the interaction/discussion and learning. • Provides relevant examples and/or thought-provoking ideas • Scholarly sources are correctly cited and formatted. • First response is supported by 2 or more relevant examples and research/evidence from a variety of scholarly sources including course and outside readings. • Posts on separate day.<br> <br>**15 to >12.0 ptsFair** Discussion response: • Minimally contributes to the quality of the interaction/discussion and learning. • Provides few examples to support thoughts. • Information provided lacks evidence of critical thinking or synthesis of ideas. • There is a lack of support from relevant scholarly research/evidence. • Posts on separate day.<br> <br>**12 to >0 ptsPoor** Discussion response: • Does not contribute to the quality of the interaction/discussion and learning. • Lacks relevant examples or ideas. • There is a lack of support from relevant scholarly research/evidence. • Posts on same day. | 20 pts |
    | This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCONTRIBUTION TO THE DISCUSSION: Second Response (20 possible points) | **20 to >19.0 ptsExcellent** Discussion response: • Significantly contributes to the quality of the discussion/interaction and thinking and learning. • Provides relevant examples and thought-provoking ideas that demonstrates new perspectives, and extensive synthesis of ideas supported by the literature. • Second response is supported by 2 or more relevant examples and research/evidence from a variety of scholarly sources including course and outside readings. • Scholarly sources are correctly cited and formatted. • Posts on separate day.<br> <br>**19 to >15.0 ptsGood** Discussion response: • Contributes to the quality of the interaction/discussion and learning. • Provides relevant examples and/or thought-provoking ideas • Second response is supported by 2 or more relevant examples and research/evidence from a variety of scholarly sources including course and outside readings. • Scholarly sources are correctly cited and formatted. • Posts on separate day.<br> <br>**15 to >12.0 ptsFair** Discussion response: • Minimally contributes to the quality of the interaction/discussion and learning. • Provides few examples to support thoughts. • Information provided lacks evidence of critical thinking or synthesis of ideas. • Minimal scholarly sources provided to support post. • Posts on separate day.<br> <br>**12 to >0 ptsPoor** Discussion response: • Does not contribute to the quality of the interaction/discussion and learning. • Lacks relevant examples or ideas. • No sources provided. • Posts on same day. | 20 pts |
    | This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeQUALITY OF WRITING (10 possible points) | **10 to >9.0 ptsExcellent** Discussion postings and responses exceed doctoral level writing expectations: • Use Standard Academic English that is clear, concise, and appropriate to doctoral level writing. • Make few if any errors in spelling, grammar, that does not affect clear communication. • Uses correct APA 7 format as closely as possible given the constraints of the online platform. • Are positive, courteous, and respectful when offering suggestions, constructive feedback, or opposing viewpoints.<br> <br>**9 to >8.0 ptsGood** Discussion postings and responses meet doctoral level writing expectations: • Use Standard Academic English that is clear and appropriate to doctoral level writing • Makes a few errors in spelling, grammar, that does not affect clear communication. • Uses correct APA 7 format as closely as possible given the constraints of the online platform. • Are courteous and respectful when offering suggestions, constructive feedback, or opposing viewpoints.<br> <br>**8 to >6.0 ptsFair** Discussion postings and responses are somewhat below doctoral level writing expectations: • Posts contains multiple spelling, grammar, and/or punctuation deviations from Standard Academic English that affect clear communication. • Numerous errors in APA 7 format • May be less than courteous and respectful when offering suggestions, feedback, or opposing viewpoints.<br> <br>**6 to >0 ptsPoor** Discussion postings and responses are well below doctoral level writing expectations: • Posts contains multiple spelling, grammar, and/or punctuation deviations from Standard Academic English that affect clear communication. • Uses incorrect APA 7 format • Are discourteous and disrespectful when offering suggestions, feedback, or opposing viewpoints. | 10 pts |

    Total Points: 100