Designing Electronic Forms – Rubric<\/p>\n
Electronic Form<\/p>\n
30\u00a0points<\/p>\n
Criteria Description<\/p>\n
Electronic Form<\/p>\n
5. Target<\/p>\n
30\u00a0points<\/p>\n
An Excel spreadsheet or Word document that designs a custom form for merging the paper documents and converts them to an electronic form is extremely thorough,<\/p>\n
4. Acceptable<\/p>\n
26.1\u00a0points<\/p>\n
An Excel spreadsheet or Word document that designs a custom form for merging the paper documents and converts them to an electronic form is complete.<\/p>\n
3. Approaching<\/p>\n
23.7\u00a0points<\/p>\n
An Excel spreadsheet or Word document that designs a custom form for merging the paper documents and converts them to an electronic form is included but lacks supporting evidence.<\/p>\n
2. Insufficient<\/p>\n
22.2\u00a0points<\/p>\n
An Excel spreadsheet or Word document that designs a custom form for merging the paper documents and converts them to an electronic form is incomplete or incorrect.<\/p>\n
1. Unsatisfactory<\/p>\n
0\u00a0points<\/p>\n
An Excel spreadsheet or Word document that designs a custom form for merging the paper documents and converts them to an electronic form is not present.<\/p>\n
Data Governance and Heuristic Principles<\/p>\n
15\u00a0points<\/p>\n
Criteria Description<\/p>\n
Data Governance and Heuristic Principles<\/p>\n
5. Target<\/p>\n
15\u00a0points<\/p>\n
An evaluation of the data governance and heuristic principles used to design the document is extremely thorough and includes substantial supporting details.<\/p>\n
4. Acceptable<\/p>\n
13.05\u00a0points<\/p>\n
An evaluation of the data governance and heuristic principles used to design the document is complete and includes supporting details.<\/p>\n
3. Approaching<\/p>\n
11.85\u00a0points<\/p>\n
An evaluation of the data governance and heuristic principles used to design the document is included but lacks supporting details.<\/p>\n
2. Insufficient<\/p>\n
11.1\u00a0points<\/p>\n
An evaluation of the data governance and heuristic principles used to design the document is incomplete or incorrect.<\/p>\n
1. Unsatisfactory<\/p>\n
0\u00a0points<\/p>\n
An evaluation of the data governance and heuristic principles used to design the document is not present.<\/p>\n
Quality Patient Care and User Experience<\/p>\n
15\u00a0points<\/p>\n
Criteria Description<\/p>\n
Quality Patient Care and User Experience<\/p>\n
5. Target<\/p>\n
15\u00a0points<\/p>\n
An assessment of how the documentation aids the oncology RN navigator in providing quality patient care and improving the user experience is extremely thorough and includes substantial supporting details.<\/p>\n
4. Acceptable<\/p>\n
13.05\u00a0points<\/p>\n
An assessment of how the documentation aids the oncology RN navigator in providing quality patient care and improving the user experience is complete and includes supporting details.<\/p>\n
3. Approaching<\/p>\n
11.85\u00a0points<\/p>\n
An assessment of how the documentation aids the oncology RN navigator in providing quality patient care and improving the user experience is included but lacks supporting details.<\/p>\n
2. Insufficient<\/p>\n
11.1\u00a0points<\/p>\n
An assessment of how the documentation aids the oncology RN navigator in providing quality patient care and improving the user experience is incomplete or incorrect.<\/p>\n
1. Unsatisfactory<\/p>\n
0\u00a0points<\/p>\n
An assessment of how the documentation aids the oncology RN navigator in providing quality patient care and improving the user experience is not present.<\/p>\n
Design Rationale<\/p>\n
10\u00a0points<\/p>\n
Criteria Description<\/p>\n
Design Rationale<\/p>\n
5. Target<\/p>\n
10\u00a0points<\/p>\n
A substantial rationale of the design is provided.<\/p>\n
4. Acceptable<\/p>\n
8.7\u00a0points<\/p>\n
A clear rationale of the design is provided.<\/p>\n
3. Approaching<\/p>\n
7.9\u00a0points<\/p>\n
The rationale of the design is underdeveloped.<\/p>\n
2. Insufficient<\/p>\n
7.4\u00a0points<\/p>\n
A weak rationale of the design is provided.<\/p>\n
1. Unsatisfactory<\/p>\n
0\u00a0points<\/p>\n
A rationale of the design is not provided.<\/p>\n
Visual Appeal<\/p>\n
10\u00a0points<\/p>\n
Criteria Description<\/p>\n
Visual Appeal<\/p>\n
5. Target<\/p>\n
10\u00a0points<\/p>\n
Appropriate and thematic graphic elements are used to make visual connections that contribute to the understanding of concepts, ideas, and relationships. Differences in type size or color are used well and consistently.<\/p>\n
4. Acceptable<\/p>\n
8.7\u00a0points<\/p>\n
Thematic graphic elements are used but not always in context. Visual connections mostly contribute to the understanding of concepts, ideas, and relationships. Differences in type size or color are used well and consistently.<\/p>\n
3. Approaching<\/p>\n
7.9\u00a0points<\/p>\n
Minimal use of graphic elements is evident. Elements do not consistently contribute to the understanding of concepts, ideas, and relationships. There is some variation in type size, color, and layout.<\/p>\n
2. Insufficient<\/p>\n
7.4\u00a0points<\/p>\n
Color is garish and\/or typographic variations are overused and legibility suffers. Background interferes with readability. Understanding of concepts, ideas, and relationships is limited.<\/p>\n
1. Unsatisfactory<\/p>\n
0\u00a0points<\/p>\n
There are few or no graphic elements. No variation in layout or typography is evident.<\/p>\n
Technical Skill<\/p>\n
10\u00a0points<\/p>\n
Criteria Description<\/p>\n
Technical Skill<\/p>\n
5. Target<\/p>\n
10\u00a0points<\/p>\n
Execution is flawless. Demonstrates an in-depth, high-level of understanding.<\/p>\n
4. Acceptable<\/p>\n
8.7\u00a0points<\/p>\n
Execution is of good quality.<\/p>\n
3. Approaching<\/p>\n
7.9\u00a0points<\/p>\n
Execution needs improvement.<\/p>\n
2. Insufficient<\/p>\n
7.4\u00a0points<\/p>\n
Execution is sloppy and unprofessional.<\/p>\n
1. Unsatisfactory<\/p>\n
0\u00a0points<\/p>\n
Execution does not meet the criteria outlined.<\/p>\n
Originality<\/p>\n
7\u00a0points<\/p>\n
Criteria Description<\/p>\n
Originality<\/p>\n
5. Target<\/p>\n
7\u00a0points<\/p>\n
The product shows significant evidence of originality and inventiveness. The majority of the content and many of the ideas are fresh, original, inventive, and based upon logical conclusions and sound research.<\/p>\n
4. Acceptable<\/p>\n
6.09\u00a0points<\/p>\n
The product shows evidence of originality and inventiveness. While based somewhat on the ideas, products, images, or inventions of other people, the work extends beyond that collection to offer new insights.<\/p>\n
3. Approaching<\/p>\n
5.53\u00a0points<\/p>\n
The product shows evidence of originality. While based on the ideas, products, images, or inventions of other people, the work does offer some new insights.<\/p>\n
2. Insufficient<\/p>\n
5.18\u00a0points<\/p>\n
The work is a minimal collection or rehash of the ideas, products, images, or inventions of other people. There is no evidence of new thought.<\/p>\n
1. Unsatisfactory<\/p>\n
0\u00a0points<\/p>\n
The work is an extensive collection and rehash of the ideas, products, images, or inventions of other people. There is no evidence of new thought or inventiveness.<\/p>\n
Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, and language use)<\/p>\n
3\u00a0points<\/p>\n
Criteria Description<\/p>\n
Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, and language use)<\/p>\n
5. Target<\/p>\n
3\u00a0points<\/p>\n
The writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English.<\/p>\n
4. Acceptable<\/p>\n
2.61\u00a0points<\/p>\n
Prose is largely free of mechanical errors, although a few may be present. The writer uses a variety of effective sentence structures and figures of speech.<\/p>\n
3. Approaching<\/p>\n
2.37\u00a0points<\/p>\n
Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but they are not overly distracting to the reader. Correct and varied sentence structure and audience-appropriate language are employed.<\/p>\n
2. Insufficient<\/p>\n
2.22\u00a0points<\/p>\n
Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistencies in language choice (register) or word choice are present. Sentence structure is correct but not varied.<\/p>\n
1. Unsatisfactory<\/p>\n
0\u00a0points<\/p>\n
Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice or sentence<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Designing Electronic Forms – Rubric Electronic Form 30\u00a0points Criteria Description Electronic Form 5. Target 30\u00a0points An Excel spreadsheet or Word document that designs a custom form for merging the paper documents and converts them to an electronic form is extremely thorough, 4. Acceptable 26.1\u00a0points An Excel spreadsheet or Word document that designs a custom form […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[10],"class_list":["post-96575","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-research-paper-writing","tag-writing"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/papersspot.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/96575","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/papersspot.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/papersspot.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/papersspot.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/papersspot.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=96575"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/papersspot.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/96575\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/papersspot.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=96575"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/papersspot.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=96575"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/papersspot.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=96575"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}