Description
Project Planning Paper Guidelines:Develop a comprehensive project plan in relation to your DNP project. You might consider different alternatives in an effort to develop a plan that best meets the needs of the organization. Your plan can focus on a single factor, but it must be comprehensive. Please consult your faculty with your selection of the focus prior to beginning your plan. Please put this in a PICOT format.The final paper should not exceed eight pages not counting the title page, references and appendix. It should be written in the APA Professional Paper Format, not the student paper format, including an editor’s note and abstract. Feel free to use the APA template provided in this week’s modules.Complete and submit the Program Planning Paper (CO 1, 2, 3, 5) due in Week 3. Files:DNP 806 Program Planning Paper Rubric 1.docxDownload DNP 806 Program Planning Paper Rubric 1.docxEXAMPLE_ WK 3 DNP Project Plan_ (003).pdf Download EXAMPLE_ WK 3 DNP Project Plan_ (003).pdf
Unformatted Attachment Preview
Running head: DNP SCHOLARLY PROJECT PLAN
DNP Scholarly Project Plan
School of Nursing, Northern Kentucky University
DNP 806: Program Development, Implementation, & Evaluation
Dr. Teresa Huber & Dr. Julie Joiner
September 4, 2020
DNP SCHOLARLY PROJECT PLAN
2
DNP Scholarly Project Plan
The Doctor of Nursing Practice (DNP) scholarly project is a practice-based project
focused on positively impacting patient outcomes. This paper provides an overview of the
project plan for developing a care-team led patient mobility program. The project plan outlines
the following: Incorporation of evidence-based practice (EBP), measurable goals and outcomes,
key stakeholders, strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT) analysis, financial
analysis, methods and instruments, and cultural and learning considerations.
Program Overview and Incorporation of Evidence Based Practice
The purpose of this DNP quality improvement project is to decrease length of stay (LOS)
and increase patient experience after implementing a care-team led mobility program for adultgeriatric med-surg patients. Prolonged immobility can cause functional decline, increased LOS,
and increased healthcare acquired conditions (HAC) (Jones et al., 2020). Ambulation and
mobility are the most commonly missed care activity, and front-line caregivers are frequently
confused about their role in patient mobility (Teodoro et al., 2016). Implementing a care-team
led mobility program will help to clarify roles, increase mobility, and improve patient
outcomes—particularly LOS and patient experience (Dewitt et al., 2019). The program will also
incorporate an EBP tool at the front-line that helps to guide patient mobility called the Johns
Hopkins Highest Level of Mobility (JH-HLM) tool. This tool has an interrater reliability of 0.99
between physical therapists and nurses (Hoyer et al., 2018).
Measurable Program Goals and Outcomes
The PICOT question for this project is: In adult-geriatric med-surg patients age 18 and
older (P), what is the effect of using a care-team led mobility program (I) compared to not using
DNP SCHOLARLY PROJECT PLAN
3
a care team led mobility program (C) on LOS and patient experience (O) over a three-month
period (T)? This PICOT question is integral for defining program goals and outcomes.
Measurable Program Goal and Outcome #1
The first program goal is to decrease LOS by 0.3 days in the med-surg department
performing the quality improvement project. Data will be collected 90-days after implementation
and compared to pre-implementation data. The data used for pre-implementation will include the
previous 6-month average LOS. There are two positive outcomes for meeting this goal. The
organization is positively impacted financially by decreasing patient days in the hospital. Patients
are positively impacted by going home sooner and decreasing their cost for hospitalization.
Measurable Program Goal and Outcome #2
The second program goal is to increase the overall rating of the hospital stay and
likelihood to recommend the hospital by 10% over a 90-day period post-implementation in the
med-surg department performing the quality improvement project. The data for preimplementation will include the previous 6-month average score for overall rating and likelihood
to recommend. The organization is positively impacted by meeting this patient experience goal
because it increases reimbursement and patient loyalty. Patients benefit from an improved
experience while hospitalized.
Patient Population
The patient population for this DNP project is adult-geriatric patients age 18 and older
hospitalized in a med-surg department. This patient population and setting was chosen because
adult med-surg departments across the entire hospital system need to improve patient mobility
while also decreasing LOS and increasing patient satisfaction.
DNP SCHOLARLY PROJECT PLAN
4
Stakeholders
There are many stakeholders involved in this DNP scholarly project. The primary
stakeholder is the patient who positively benefits from improved outcomes. Other key
stakeholders include nurse leaders, rehab services personnel, care management personnel, frontline staff, physicians, nurse practitioners, and system-level leaders.
Patients
Patients are the most important stakeholders who participate in the mobility program.
This program improves overall patient outcomes and quality of care. Similar mobility programs
have also shown to improve LOS and patient experience (Dewitt et al., 2019).
Nurse Leaders
The nurse manager (NM) and assistant nurse manager (ANM) are the primary leaders
involved with implementing the project because they are the closest to the front-line. It is
important for these leaders to ensure that team members understand their role and the purpose of
the project. The NM and ANM are responsible for collecting data from the Epic analytics system
and the Press Ganey database for monitoring LOS and patient experience.
Rehab Services Personnel
The director of rehab services is a key stakeholder who will help with moving the project
forward at the bedside. The director of rehab services will collaborate and communicate with
front-line leaders and therapists to work with the nursing staff as the project is operationalized.
Care Management Personnel
The director of care management will assist with data management needs. This leader has
access to all LOS data down to the department level. Care management staff who work on the
DNP SCHOLARLY PROJECT PLAN
5
nursing unit will be responsible for ensuring the JH-HML assessment is completed daily by frontline nurses.
Front-line Staff
Front-line staff, particularly nurses and patient care associates, are an important part of
operationalizing the program. The nurses are responsible for completing the JH-HML assessment
and guiding care appropriately. Patient care associates can perform the needed actions, such as
ambulating in the hall, sitting up in a chair, etc. after the nurse has assessed the level of mobility.
This is a practice change that requires adjustment in how nurses perform daily assessments and
delegate tasks.
Hospitalists and Nurse Practitioners
Hospitalists and nurse practitioners need to work with the care team by ensuring patients
have the correct discharge disposition. A majority of ambulatory patients should be discharged
home. Physicians may want to send patients to subacute rehabs even when not warranted—
which increases the LOS. These stakeholders will also have their personal LOS monitored
throughout the project.
System-level Leaders
System-level leaders are important to keep updated periodically throughout the project.
System leaders are needed when the program is disseminated across the entire hospital system.
SWOT Analysis
A SWOT analysis provides an overview of pros and cons that need to be considered. The
strengths and weaknesses identified are considered internal factors and the opportunities and
threats identified are considered external factors (Pearce, 2007). Below explains the SWOT
Analysis. See Appendix A, SWOT Analysis for additional information.
DNP SCHOLARLY PROJECT PLAN
6
Strengths
The organization has many strengths that support implementing a care-team led mobility
program. The leadership throughout the hospital supports EBP projects and using the
Institutional Review Board (IRB) to complete projects. The Institute for Nursing (I4N) is another
strength used at the organization. I4N is a system-level department that can assist with planning,
developing, and disseminating the project once proven successful. The level of engagement from
front-line staff is considered high for this organization, and the department conducting the
project has completed EBP projects successfully in the past.
Weaknesses
There are some internal factors that are considered weaknesses. Staff need to understand
the purpose of the project and feel empowered to ask clarifying questions. Potential gaps to
consider related to this project are staff’s ability to interpret statistics, translate knowledge into
practice, and interpret outcomes (Arguelles, 2011). There is also a concern for competing
workloads from both staff and frontline managers who are adjusting to practice changes with the
Covid-19 pandemic.
Opportunities
There are external factors that can positively impact the organization after implementing
the mobility program which include standardization of patient care, improved patient outcomes,
increased financial gains, and decreased costs. Disseminating the program across the entire
healthcare system will ensure that all med-surg patients get the same standard of care. Providing
this level of care can decrease LOS, increase patient outcomes, increase patient satisfaction, and
improve patient loyalty to the healthcare system (Dewitt et al., 2019; Wurmser, 2009).
DNP SCHOLARLY PROJECT PLAN
7
Threats
There are some external threats to consider when implementing this project which
include cost constraints, decreased utilization of sub-acute rehabs and nursing homes, and
skewed LOS due to the Covid-19 pandemic. Some leaders may question the cost to train staff
depending on the financial needs during the time of implementation. Alternatives such as virtual
training, on-the-job training, and train-the-trainer can be used to decrease costs. There is a risk
for sub-acute rehabs and nursing homes to question decreased usage from the hospital setting.
Patients will be more mobile and may no longer need sub-acute rehab placement. Finally, there
is a risk that LOS may not decrease as much as desired because the organization is seeing a
higher LOS due to Covid-19.
Financial Analysis
There are financial considerations with implementing this quality improvement project. It
is estimated that virtual training and class training will cost approximately $977.50. This cost is
based on the average hourly wage for both patient care associates and nurses on the department.
Salaried personnel are expected to complete needed training during their regular workday. Other
expenses include print materials such as paper, ink, card stock, etc. that is estimated to be
$150.00. This expense is needed because staff will need quick references and educational
materials to use. The administrative assistant will organize these materials, and the approximate
cost will be $80.80 for four hours of work total for this employee.
The overall cost for implementation of this project is estimated at $1,208.30. The cost
associated with implementation and training is worth the benefits of achieving the goals and
outcomes of the project. Throughout the project the focus will be on financially evaluating the
program using a cost benefit analysis and/or cost-effectiveness analysis (Thomas, 2020). The
DNP SCHOLARLY PROJECT PLAN
8
cost-benefit analysis will show that money saved is more than money spent for training. The
cost-effectiveness analysis will show decreased LOS and increased patient experience—which is
financially beneficial for the organization.
Methods and Instruments for Data Collection That Best Fit Project
The Epic analytics system is the method used for collecting LOS data. This data can be
analyzed by hospital, department, and provider. Using this system enables the data to be pulled
from the med-surg department where the quality improvement project is performed. Data can
also be further analyzed by looking at individual providers’ LOS—which could indicate whether
the mobility program is being utilized effectively by providers. The instrument used to collect
monthly data is presented in Appendix B, Data Collection Tools.
The Press Ganey database is used for collecting patient experience data. The data can be
analyzed at the department level to determine if the quality improvement project is positively
impacting the identified categories—overall rating and likelihood to recommend. The data will
be analyzed and reviewed for changes in top-box scores and percentile ranking scores. The
instrument used to collect monthly data is presented in Appendix B, Data Collection Tools.
Cultural and Learning Considerations
There are cultural and learning considerations related to implementing the care-team led
mobility program. From an organizational culture standpoint, it is important to note that the
department where this project will take place has completed EBP projects in the past. The culture
for EBP readiness should be assessed in other departments prior to disseminating the program
across the entire system. Learning considerations for staff include understanding the purpose of
the project and explaining important details such as outcomes data and statistical analyses that
support using the mobility program. Arguelles (2011) explains that common educational gaps
DNP SCHOLARLY PROJECT PLAN
9
include statistical analysis, interpretation of data, and translating projects into practice. In order
to overcome these potential learning needs, nurse leaders at the front-line should explain data in
terms staff understand.
There are special needs to consider for patients as well. During the current pandemic, it is
possible that some patients may not tolerate ambulating in the hallways wearing a mask. For
example, patients who have asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), pneumonia,
etc. may exhibit activity intolerance when wearing a mask. To alleviate the risk for declining
mobility due activity intolerance related to wearing a mask, these patients can ambulate and
perform mobility exercises in their room.
Conclusion
All in all, this paper provides a comprehensive DNP project plan for implementing and
evaluating a care-team led mobility program. The project plan explains stakeholder roles, a
SWOT analysis, a financial analysis, and data collection methods. This plan will help with
analyzing and evaluating data to support the need for dissemination across the entire hospital
system.
DNP SCHOLARLY PROJECT PLAN
10
References
Arguelles, C. (2011). Evidence-based practice mentors: Taking information literacy to the units
in a teaching hospital. Journal of Hospital Librarianship, 11(1), 8-22.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15323269.2011.537989
Dewitt, K., Coto, J.A., Carr, L., Ondrey, M., & Petkunas, H. (2019). Ambulation programs:
Decreasing length of stay and improving patient outcomes. MEDSURG Nursing, 28(5),
293-302. Retrieved from
http://web.a.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=36&sid=98f2858a-e8aa4dff-b734-e9cf9dc3e831%40sdc-v-sessmgr02
Hoyer, E.H., Young, D.L., Klein, L.M., Kreif, J., Shumock, K., Hiser, S., Friedman, M.,
Lavezza, A., Jette, A., Chan, K., & Needham, D. (2018). Toward a common language for
measuring patient mobility in the hospital: Reliability and construct validity of
interprofessional mobility measures. Physical Therapy, 98(2), 133-142.
https://doi.org/10.1093/ptj/pzx110
Jones, R.A., Merkle, S., Ruvalcaba, L., Ashton, P., Bailey, C., & Lopez, M. (2020). Nurse-led
mobility program. Journal of Nursing Care Quality, 35(1), 20-26. doi: 10.1097/NCQ.
0000000000000404.
Pearce, C. (2007). Ten steps to carrying out a SWOT analysis. Nursing Management – UK,
14(2), 25. https://doi-org.northernkentuckyuniversity.idm.oclc.org/10.7748/
nm2007.05.14.2.25.c4343
DNP SCHOLARLY PROJECT PLAN
11
Teodoro, C.R., Breault, K., Garvey, C., Klick, C., O’Brien, J., Purdue, T., Stolaronek, A.,
Wilbur, H., & Matney, L. (2016). STEP-UP: Study of the effectiveness of a patient
ambulation protocol. MEDSURG Nursing, 25(2), 111-116. Retrieved from
http://web.a.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=8&sid=98f2858a-e8aa-4dffb734-e9cf9dc3e831%40sdc-v-sessmgr02
Thomas, P. (2020). Developing metrics that support project plans, interventions, and programs.
In J. Harris, L. Roussel, C. Dearman, & P. Thomas (Eds.), Project planning and
management: A guide for nurses and interprofessional teams (3rd ed., pp. 193-220).
Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett.
Wurmser, T. (2009). The financial case for EBP. Nursing Management, 40(2),
12–14. doi: 10.1097/01.NUMA.0000345867.84071.fa.
DNP SCHOLARLY PROJECT PLAN
12
Appendix A
SWOT Analysis
SWOT Analysis of Organization in Relation to DNP Scholarly Project
Strengths
•
Leadership supports EBP projects and
IRB process.
•
Physical therapy and occupational therapy
departments are interested in starting a
new mobility program that front-line staff
can use.
•
Department chosen for Pilot-Study of
DNP scholarly project is well-informed
on implementing EBP changes and
monitoring patient outcomes.
•
Weaknesses
•
Staff understanding that LOS and patient
experience can improve with effective
mobility programs (Dewitt et al., 2019).
•
Potential educational gaps among staff
related to statistical analysis,
interpretation, application of practices,
etc. (Arguelles, 2011).
•
Competing workloads for staff and
frontline managers to implement mobility
program.
Staff within department chosen for PilotStudy showed high engagement for
making improvements to patient care
during recent Employee Engagement
Survey.
Opportunities
•
Staff concern for mobilizing and
ambulating patients in the nursing unit
considering current pandemic.
•
Potential for hospital system alignment
with implementing mobility program to
improve patient outcomes.
•
•
Improved patient outcomes from DNP
scholarly project can lead to better patient
experience, decreased LOS, and increased
use of services (Dewitt, et al., 2019;
Wurmser, 2009).
External organizations such as Nursing
Homes and Sub-Acute Rehabs may lose
business when patients ambulate more
during hospital stay.
•
Cost constraints may require inconsistent
forms of communication and training due
to organizational financial needs.
•
Decreased healthcare costs for patients
who do not have to go to a Nursing Home
or Sub-Acute Rehab facility at discharge.
•
LOS may be skewed high due to Covid19 patients—LOS has increased since
pandemic.
•
Patient tolerance of wearing personal
protective equipment (PPE) while
ambulating outside room.
Threats
DNP SCHOLARLY PROJECT PLAN
13
Appendix B
Data Collection Tools
Department Specific LOS
Department
Month 1
LOS
Month 2
LOS
Month 3
LOS
Baseline
PostPreImplementation
Cumulative
Implementation
LOS
Average LOS
Month 2
LOS
Month 3
LOS
Baseline
PostPreImplementation
Implementation
Cumulative
LOS
Average LOS
Department Hospitalist LOS
Hospitalist
Month 1
LOS
DNP SCHOLARLY PROJECT PLAN
14
Department Likelihood to Recommend Scores
Department
Month 1
Top Box &
Percentile
Ranking
Month 2
Top Box &
Percentile
Ranking
Month 3
Baseline
PostTop Box &
PreImplementation
Percentile Implementation
Cumulative
Ranking
Top Box &
Average Top
Percentile
Box &
Ranking
Percentile
Ranking
Department Overall Rating Scores
Department
Month 1
Top Box &
Percentile
Ranking
Month 2
Top Box &
Percentile
Ranking
Month 3
Baseline
PostTop Box &
PreImplementation
Percentile Implementation
Cumulative
Ranking
Top Box &
Average Top
Percentile
Box &
Ranking
Percentile
Ranking
PROGRAM
PLANNING
PAPER
CRITERIA
70-60 POINTS
59-35 POINTS
34-25 POINTS
24-10 POINTS
9-0 POINTS
States the goals and
measurable outcomes of
the DNP project clearly
and succinctly.
States the goals and
measurable outcomes of
the DNP project
adequately.
States the goals and
measurable outcomes of
the DNP project. May be
lacking in detail.
States the goals and
measurable outcomes of
the DNP project. May be
lacking in detail or
unclear.
Goals and measurable
outcomes of the DNP
project may be missing or
unclear.
Clearly identifies the
population and
stakeholders including
patients or clients,
providers, government
officials, influential
people, people whose jobs
may be impacted,
community activists, and
affected businesses.
Identifies the population
and stakeholders
including patients or
clients, providers,
government officials,
influential people, people
whose jobs may be
impacted, community
activists, and affected
businesses. Is generally
clear.
Identifies the population
and stakeholders
including patients or
clients, providers,
government officials,
influential people, people
whose jobs may be
impacted, community
activists, and affected
businesses. Lacking
detail.
Identifies the
strengths/weakness of the
organization in relation to
your DNP scholarly
project through the use of
SWOT. Strengths and
weaknesses are well
defined.
Identifies the
strengths/weakness of the
organization in relation to
your DNP scholarly
project through the use of
SWOT. Strengths and
weaknesses are defined.
Identifies the
strengths/weakness of the
organization in relation to
your DNP scholarly
project through the use of
SWOT. Strengths and
weaknesses may/may not
be clear.
Completes a thorough
financial analysis of
program implementation
with consideration to cost.
Completes a financial
analysis of program
implementation
with consideration to cost.
Completes a financial
analysis of program
implementation
with consideration to cost.
Some detail lacking.
Completes a partial
financial analysis of
program implementation
with consideration to cost.
Financial analysis of
program implementation
with consideration to cost
not completed or lacking
much detail.
Clearly identifies methods
and instruments that will
best fit the project
(surveys, questionnaires,
needs assessment, etc).
Data collection is well
defined.
Identifies methods and
instruments that will best
fit the project (surveys,
questionnaires, needs
assessment, etc). Data
collection is defined.
Identifies methods and
instruments that will best
fit the project (surveys,
questionnaires, needs
assessment, etc). Data
collection is somewhat
defined.
Identifies methods and
instruments that will best
fit the project (surveys,
questionnaires, needs
assessment, etc). Data
collection information is
minimal. Lacking detail.
Poorly identifies methods
and instruments that will
best fit the project
(surveys, questionnaires,
needs assessment, etc).
Data collection is minimal
or missing.
Evidence-based practice is
incorporated into the
Evidence-based practice is
incorporated into the
Evidence-based practice is
incorporated into the
Evidence-based practice is
incorporated into the
project. Detail lacking.
Evidence-based practice is
not incorporated into the
project.
Identifies the population
and stakeholders
including patients or
clients, providers,
government officials,
influential people, people
whose jobs may be
impacted, community
activists, and affected
businesses. Minimal
detail.
Identifies the
strengths/weakness of the
organization in relation to
your DNP scholarly
project through the use of
SWOT. Strengths and
weaknesses may/may not
be clear or components
missing.
Does not identify many of
the following: the
population and
stakeholders including
patients or clients,
providers, government
officials, influential
people, people whose jobs
may be impacted,
community activists, and
affected businesses.
May not identify the
strengths/weakness of the
organization in relation to
your DNP scholarly
project through the use of
SWOT. Some components
missing.
project and clearly
defined.
project and adequately
defined.
project and minimally
defined.
Includes cultural needs
and learning levels as
appropriate with much
depth and detail.
Includes cultural needs
and learning levels as
appropriate with some
depth and detail.
Includes cultural needs
and learning levels as
appropriate. Minimal
depth and detail.
Includes cultural needs
and learning levels as
appropriate with very little
detail.
Does not include
cultural needs and
learning levels as
appropriate.
70 points maximum for specific assignment/topic and 30 points maximum using Standard Grading rubric (below) for writing= 100 points
total for a writing assignment. This assignment relates to CO 1,2,3,4.
Project Planning Paper Guidelines:
Develop a comprehensive project plan in relation to your DNP project. You might consider different alternatives in an effort to develop a plan that
best meets the needs of the organization. Your plan can focus on a single factor, but it must be comprehensive. Please consult your faculty with
your selection of the focus prior to beginning your plan. The final paper should not exceed eight pages without title page, references and appendix.
The Following Grading Rubric Will Be Used To Ensure a Consistent Standard for Evaluating DNP Student Papers (Essays):
30 Points Total
Thesis / Topic
Content /
Development
6-5 POINTS
Exceptionally clear; easily
identifiable, insightful;
introduces the topic for the
paper; summary in one or
two well-written sentences.
4-3 POINTS
Generally clear; is
promising; could be a little
more inclusive of the
content of the paper.
6-5 POINTS
Thesis coherently
developed and maintained
throughout; thorough
explanation of key idea(s) at
an appropriate level for the
target audience; critical
thinking with excellent
understanding of the topic;
original in scope (this paper
made sense, was easy to
understand, and did not
leave reader with questions
due to incomplete
development).
4-3 POINTS
Explanation or illustration
of key ideas consistent
throughout essay; original
but may be somewhat
lacking in insight; minor
topics of the paper could be
developed more thoroughly.
2 POINTS
Central idea is adequate but
not fully developed; may be
somewhat unclear (contains
vague terms); only gives a
vague idea of the content of
the paper.
2 POINTS
Explanation or illustration
of some of the key ideas;
reader is left with some
questions due to inadequate
development; content may
be a little confusing or
unclear as to what the
author means.
1 POINTS
Difficult to identify with
inadequate illustration of
key ideas; does not let the
reader know what the paper
is going to include.
0 POINTS
No thesis statement or
introduction is identifiable.
1 POINTS
Little or no relevant detail;
many areas that could be
expanded.
0 POINTS
Paper does not make sense;
unclear what the author is
trying to say; very little real
information presented.
Organization
Mechanics
References
6-5 POINTS
Good organization with
clear focus and excellent
transition between
paragraphs; logical order to
presentation of information;
paragraphs are wellorganized; easy to
understand and makes
sense.
6-5 POINTS
Skillful use of language;
varied, accurate vocabulary;
well-developed sentence
structure with minimal
errors in punctuation,
spelling or grammar;
appropriate margins, font;
correct application of
research style format; use of
professional active voice;
very well-written paper.
6-5 POINTS
Uses sources effectively and
documents sources
accurately with minimal
errors; limited use of direct
quotes (No more than 2 or
3); meets reference
requirements for
assignment; reference list is
in correct format.
4-3 POINTS
Adequate organizational
style with logical transition
between paragraphs; overall
or paragraph organization
could be slightly improved.
2 POINTS
Adequate organizational
style, although flow is
somewhat choppy and may
wander occasionally;
somewhat confusing due to
organization of paper or
paragraphs.
1 POINTS
Incoherent structure; logic
is unclear; paragraph
transition is weak; difficult
to understand; must re-read
parts to figure out what is
being said.
0 POINTS
No order to content; very
confusing and difficult to
read; makes no sense.
4-3 POINTS
Appropriate use of language
with a few errors in
grammar, sentence
structure, punctuation; fairly
accurate interpretation of
assignment guidelines, with
a few minor errors;
readability of paper only
slightly affected by
mistakes.
2 POINTS
Some problems with
sentence structure,
grammar, punctuation,
and/or spelling; may have
several run-on sentences or
comma splices; some errors
in citation style; format
does not fully comply with
assignment guidelines;
somewhat difficult to read
due to mistakes.
2 POINTS
Some quotes not integrated
smoothly into text; several
errors with in-text citations
or reference list; omitted intext citations infrequently;
missing 2 required
references; overuse of direct
quotes
1 POINTS
Many difficulties in
sentence structure,
grammar, citation style,
punctuation, spelling and/or
misused words; proper
format not used
consistently; many errors in
citation style very difficult
to understand.
0 POINTS
Not written at a graduate
level; many mistakes;
proper format not used
consistently; many errors in
citation style; difficult to
read and understand.
1 POINTS
Quotes are not well
integrated into narrative or
are significantly overused;
paraphrasing is too close to
original work. (Minimal
errors only; more significant
errors will be considered
plagiarism – See Plagiarism
statement to right.)
0 POINTS
Plagiarism – source material
not adequately paraphrased;
direct quotes not identified;
source material not
referenced.
*Plagiarized papers will
be given a grade of zero
and could result in failure
of the course
4-3 POINTS
Appropriate sources and
documentation; may have
minimal errors with too few
or too many in-text
citations; missing no more
than one reference as
required for the assignment.
Purchase answer to see full
attachment
