APA, format

Benchmark

– Outcome and Process Measures

Upcoming

Rubric

View Rubric

Assessment Traits

Benchmark

Requires Lopeswrite

Assessment Description

In a 1,000-1,250-word paper, consider the outcome and process measures that can be used for CQI. Include the following in your essay:

1. At least two process measures that can be used for CQI.

2. At least one outcome measure that can be used for CQI.

3. A description of why each measure was chosen.

4. An explanation of how data would be collected for each (how each will be measured).

5. An explanation of how success would be determined.

6. One or two data-driven, cost-effective solutions to this challenge.

Use a minimum of three peer-reviewed scholarly references as evidence.

Prepare this assignment according to the guidelines found in the APA Style Guide, located in the Student Success Center. 

This assignment uses a rubric. Please review the rubric prior to beginning the assignment to become familiar with the expectations for successful completion.

You are required to submit this assignment to LopesWrite. A link to the LopesWrite technical support articles is located in Class Resources if you need assistance.

Benchmark Information

This benchmark assignment assesses the following programmatic competency:

MSN Leadership in Health Care Systems

6.5: Generate data-driven, cost-effective solutions to organizational challenges.

Benchmark – Outcome and Process Measures – Rubric

Process Measures 13.2 points

Criteria Description

Process Measures

5. Target 13.2 points

Two process measures are present.

4. Acceptable 12.14 points

NA

3. Approaching 11.62 points

NA

2. Insufficient 10.56 points

Two process measures are incomplete or

not applicable.

1. Unsatisfactory 0 points

Two process measures are not present.

Outcome Measures 13.2 points

Criteria Description

Outcome Measures

5. Target 13.2 points

One outcome measure is present.

4. Acceptable 12.14 points

NA

3. Approaching 11.62 points

NA

Collapse All

2. Insufficient 10.56 points

One outcome measure is incomplete or not applicable.

1. Unsatisfactory 0 points

One outcome measure is not present.

Description of Why Each Measure Was Chosen 14.4 points

Criteria Description

Description of Why Each Measure Was Chosen

5. Target 14.4 points

A description of why each measure was chosen is present and

thorough.

4. Acceptable 13.25 points

A description of why each measure was chosen is present and

detailed.

3. Approaching 12.67 points

A description of why each measure was chosen is present.

2. Insufficient 11.52 points

A description of why each measure was chosen is present, but lacks detail or is

incomplete.

1. Unsatisfactory 0 points

A description of why each measure was chosen is not present.

Explanation of How Data Would Be Collected for Each Measure 14.4 points

Criteria Description

Explanation of How Data Would Be Collected for Each Measure

5. Target 14.4 points

An explanation of how data would be collected for each measure is present and

thorough.

4. Acceptable 13.25 points

An explanation of how data would be collected for each measure is present and

detailed.

3. Approaching 12.67 points

An explanation of how data would be collected for each measure is present.

2. Insufficient 11.52 points

An explanation of how data would be collected for each measure is present, but

lacks detail or

is incomplete.

Explanation of How Success Would Be Determined 14.4 points

Criteria Description

Explanation of How Success Would Be Determined

5. Target 14.4 points

An explanation of how success would be determined is present and thorough.

4. Acceptable 13.25 points

An explanation of how success would be determined is present and detailed.

3. Approaching 12.67 points

An explanation of how success would be determined is present.

2. Insufficient 11.52 points

An explanation of how success would be determined is present, but lacks detail or

is incomplete.

1. Unsatisfactory 0 points

An explanation of how success would be determined is not present.

Data Driven, Cost-E�ective Solutions (C6.5.) 14.4 points

Criteria Description

Data Driven, Cost-Effective Solutions (C6.5.)

5. Target 14.4 points

One or two data-driven, cost-effective solutions to this challenge are present and

thorough. Solutions provided are appropriate for the task.

4. Acceptable 13.25 points

One or two data-driven, cost-effective solutions to this challenge are detailed.

3. Approaching 12.67 points

One or two data-driven, cost-effective solutions to this challenge are present.

2. Insufficient 11.52 points

One or two data-driven, cost-effective solutions to this challenge are incomplete or

not applicable.

1. Unsatisfactory 0 points

Scholarly Sources 6 points

Criteria Description

5. Target 6 points

A minimum of three peer-reviewed, scholarly sources are present. Sources are

distinctive and address

all of the requirements stated in the assignment criteria.

4. Acceptable 5.52 points

A minimum of three peer-reviewed, scholarly sources are present. Sources address

all of the requirements stated in the assignment criteria.

3. Approaching 5.28 points

A minimum of three peer-reviewed, scholarly sources are present.

2. Insufficient 4.8 points

Two or three peer-reviewed, sources are present, but are not scholarly. Limited

research is present.

1. Unsatisfactory 0 points

Peer-reviewed, scholarly sources are not present.

Thesis Development and Purpose 8.4 points

Criteria Description

Thesis Development and Purpose

5. Target 8.4 points

Thesis is comprehensive and contains the essence of the paper. Thesis statement

makes the purpose of the paper clear.

4. Acceptable 7.73 points

Thesis is clear and forecasts the development of the paper. Thesis is descriptive and

reflective of the arguments and appropriate to the purpose.

3. Approaching 7.39 points

Thesis is apparent and appropriate to purpose.

2. Insufficient 6.72 points

Thesis is insufficiently developed or vague. Purpose is not clear.

1. Unsatisfactory 0 points

Paper lacks any discernible overall purpose or organizing claim.

Argument Logic and Construction 9.6 points

Criteria Description

Argument Logic and Construction

5. Target 9.6 points

Clear and convincing argument that presents a persuasive claim in a distinctive and

compelling manner. All

sources are authoritative.

4. Acceptable 8.83 points

Argument shows logical progressions. Techniques of argumentation are evident.

There is a smooth progression of claims from introduction to conclusion. Most

sources are authoritative.

3. Approaching 8.45 points

Argument is orderly, but may have a few inconsistencies. The argument presents

minimal justification of claims. Argument logically, but not thoroughly, supports the

purpose. Sources used are credible. Introduction and conclusion bracket the thesis.

2. Insufficient 7.68 points

Sufficient justification of claims is lacking. Argument lacks consistent unity. There

are obvious flaws in the logic. Some sources have questionable credibility.

1. Unsatisfactory 0 points

Mechanics of Writing 6 points

Criteria Description

Includes spelling, capitalization, punctuation, grammar, language use, sentence

structure, etc.

5. Target 6 points

No mechanical errors are present. Skilled control of language choice and sentence

structure are used throughout.

4. Acceptable 5.52 points

Few mechanical errors are present. Suitable language choice and sentence

structure are used.

3. Approaching 5.28 points

Occasional mechanical errors are present. Language choice is generally

appropriate. Varied sentence structure is attempted.

2. Insufficient 4.8 points

Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors are present. Inconsistencies in language

choice or sentence structure are recurrent.

Format/Documentation 6 points

Criteria Description

Uses appropriate style, such as APA, MLA, etc., for college, subject, and level;

documents sources using citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc.,

5. Target 6 points

No errors in formatting or documentation are present. Selectivity in the use of

direct quotations and synthesis of sources is demonstrated.

4. Acceptable 5.52 points

Appropriate format and documentation are used with only minor

errors.

3. Approaching 5.28 points

Appropriate format and documentation are used, although there are some obvious

errors.

2. Insufficient 4.8 points

Appropriate format is attempted, but some elements are missing. Frequent errors

in documentation of sources are evident.

1 Unsatisfactory 0 points
Total 120 points