Nursing Policy Issue Analysis
ORDER CUSTOM, PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPERS ON Nursing Policy Issue Analysis
The graduate analyzes the historical, economic, and political factors that affect healthcare policy development and the impact of those policies on healthcare cost, quality, and access.
7007.1.3 : Effects of Legal and Regulatory Policies
The graduate analyzes the effect of major legal and regulatory policies on nursing practice, healthcare delivery, and health outcomes for individual, families, and communities.
7007.1.4 : Ethical Theories Applied to Nurses’ Policy Positions
The graduate analyzes the values that drive policies.
7007.1.5 : Advocate for Policies That Improve the Health of the Public and the Profession of Nursing
The graduate analyzes strategies that healthcare advocates use to affect policies with the goal of improving the public health and the profession of nursing. Nursing Policy Issue Analysis
For this assessment, you will be required to develop and thoroughly analyze a public policy in order to advocate for one that improves the health of the public and/or the nursing profession globally (local, state, national, or international). To do this, you will reflect on several aspects of being a policy maker within the nursing position. A few things to consider are:
• Why did you select the health or nursing profession policy issue?
• How does this issue affect nursing practice, healthcare delivery, and health outcomes for individual, families, and/or communities?
• What are the values and the ethical positions that underpin your perspectives?
• What are the criteria you will use to evaluate the success (outcomes) of your proposed policy change?
By using both a top-down and a bottom-up approach, you will analyze and bring the nursing perspective to policy makers and stakeholders. Identifying the values and ethical perspectives that underpin your position, you will develop criteria to evaluate the success of your work. This will lead to a created a policy brief that can be sent to decision makers and created a plan to work with an organization/community to promote policy change at the local level.
To guide you to your conclusion, using nursing research to support your position is vital. This should include principles of community-based participatory research (CBPR).
Your submission must be your original work. No more than a combined total of 30% of the submission and no more than a 10% match to any one individual source can be directly quoted or closely paraphrased from sources, even if cited correctly. An originality report is provided when you submit your task that can be used as a guide.
Professional Communications is a required aspect to pass this task. Completion of a spell check and grammar check prior to submitting your final work is strongly recommended.
You must use the rubric to direct the creation of your submission because it provides detailed criteria that will be used to evaluate your work. Each requirement below may be evaluated by more than one rubric aspect. The rubric aspect titles may contain hyperlinks to relevant portions of the course.
Note: Your submission may take the form of an essay, multimedia presentation, etc. Be sure to cover each prompt in sufficient detail and support no matter what form you use.
A. Prepare your reflection essay (suggested length of no more than of 3 pages) of the values and ethics of a public policy issue by doing the following:
1. Analyze a health or nursing profession public policy issue that impacts a group of people and requires a policy change.
a. Discuss why you selected this public policy issue.
Note: If you select a local policy, be sure your discussion reflects how the policy will affect more than a single unit, department, or organization.
b. Discuss the relevance of the public policy issue to the health or the nursing profession, using two pieces of academically appropriate literature from the last five years.
c. Describe the financial impact of the public policy on an organization or on a community.
2. Analyze how your values impact your position on the public policy issue.
a. Discuss the ethical principle (e.g., autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, justice) or theory that underpins your perspective.
B. Develop a policy brief (suggested length of no more than 6 pages) for the public policy issue discussed in part A in which you do the following:
1. Identify the decision maker (name and title) who will receive the policy brief.
a. Explain why the public policy issue requires the decision maker’s attention, using relevant nursing research from the last five years to support your position.
2. Discuss the main challenges of addressing the selected public policy issue.
3. Discuss the primary options and/or interventions for the decision maker, including why they are tangible.
4. Propose a persuasive course of action for the decision maker, including ways to avoid the challenges identified in part B2.
5. Discuss how you will evaluate the success of your policy brief (top-down approach).
C. Create a plan (suggested length of no more than 3 pages) for working with an organization or a community to address the public policy issue analyzed in part A by doing the following:
1. Identify an organization or community that has expressed interest in your selected health or nursing profession public policy issue.
a. Summarize evidence supporting why the organization or community has expressed interest in the selected public policy issue.
2. Identify three CBPR principles you could use to work with the organization or community to address a policy change for the public policy issue.
a. Explain how you could approach and collaborate with the organization or community.
b. Discuss how the goal of the community or organization aligns with your goal for the selected public policy issue.
c. Discuss the action steps that need to be taken to achieve your goal from part C2b.
d. Discuss the possible roles/responsibilities of the community or organization members, including problem-solving and capacity-building roles. Nursing Policy Issue Analysis
e. Discuss key elements of developing a collaborative evaluation plan, using CBPR principles.
f. Discuss how you will evaluate the success of your community or organization plan (bottom-up approach).
D. Analyze (suggested length of 1 page) the strengths and challenges of the top-down and bottom-up approaches in achieving policy change(s) to support your selected public policy issue by doing the following:
1. Discuss the strengths of each approach to implement change for the selected public policy issue.
2. Discuss the challenges of each approach to implement change for the selected public policy issue.
3. Discuss which approach you would recommend as the most effective to address the selected public policy issue. Nursing Policy Issue Analysis
E. When you use sources, include all in-text citations and references in APA format.
Note: When using sources to support ideas and elements in an assessment, the submission MUST include APA formatted in-text citations with a corresponding reference list for any direct quotes or paraphrasing. It is not necessary to list sources that were consulted if they have not been quoted or paraphrased in the text of the assessment. Nursing Policy Issue Analysis
File Restrictions
File name may contain only letters, numbers, spaces, and these symbols: ! – _ . * ‘ ( )
File size limit: 200 MB
File types allowed: doc, docx, rtf, xls, xlsx, ppt, pptx, odt, pdf, txt, qt, mov, mpg, avi, mp3, wav, mp4, wma, flv, asf, mpeg, wmv, m4v, svg, tif, tiff, jpeg, jpg, gif, png, zip, rar, tar, 7z Nursing Policy Issue Analysis
ARTICULATION OF RESPONSE (CLARITY, ORGANIZATION, MECHANICS)
| UNSATISFACTORY / NOT PRESENT
The candidate provides unsatisfactory articulation of response. |
DOES NOT MEET STANDARD
The candidate provides weak articulation of response. |
MINIMALLY COMPETENT
The candidate provides limited articulation of response. |
COMPETENT
The candidate provides adequate articulation of response. |
HIGHLY COMPETENT
The candidate provides substantial articulation of response. |
A1:PUBLIC POLICY ISSUE
| UNSATISFACTORY / NOT PRESENT
The candidate does not provide a plausible analysis of a health or nursing profession public policy issue that impacts a group of people and requires a policy change. |
DOES NOT MEET STANDARD
The candidate provides a plausible analysis, with no detail, of a health or nursing profession public policy issue that impacts a group of people and requires a policy change. |
MINIMALLY COMPETENT
The candidate provides a plausible analysis, with limited detail, of a health or nursing profession public policy issue that impacts a group of people and requires a policy change. |
COMPETENT
The candidate provides a plausible analysis, with adequate detail, of a health or nursing profession public policy issue that impacts a group of people and requires a policy change. |
HIGHLY COMPETENT
The candidate provides a plausible analysis, with substantial detail, of a health or nursing profession public policy issue that impacts a group of people and requires a policy change. |
A1A:ISSUE SELECTION
| UNSATISFACTORY / NOT PRESENT
The candidate does not provide a logical discussion of why the public policy issue was selected. |
DOES NOT MEET STANDARD
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with no detail, of why the public policy issue was selected. |
MINIMALLY COMPETENT
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with limited detail, of why the public policy issue was selected. |
COMPETENT
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with adequate detail, of why the public policy issue was selected. |
HIGHLY COMPETENT
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with substantial detail, of why the public policy issue was selected. |
A1B:ISSUE RELEVANCE
| UNSATISFACTORY / NOT PRESENT
The candidate does not provide a logical discussion of the relevance of this public policy issue to health or the nursing profession, using 2 pieces of academically appropriate literature from the last five years. |
DOES NOT MEET STANDARD
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with no support, of the relevance of this public policy issue to health or the nursing profession, using 2 pieces of academically appropriate literature from the last five years. |
MINIMALLY COMPETENT
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with limited support, of the relevance of this public policy issue to health or the nursing profession, using 2 pieces of academically appropriate literature from the last five years. |
COMPETENT
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with adequate support, of the relevance of this public policy issue to health or the nursing profession, using 2 pieces of academically appropriate literature from the last five years. |
HIGHLY COMPETENT
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with substantial support, of the relevance of this public policy issue to health or the nursing profession, using 2 pieces of academically appropriate literature from the last five years. |
A1C:FINANCIAL IMPACT
| UNSATISFACTORY / NOT PRESENT
The candidate does not provide an accurate description of the financial impact of the public policy on an organization or on a community. |
DOES NOT MEET STANDARD
The candidate provides an accurate description, with no detail, of the financial impact of the public policy on an organization or on a community. |
MINIMALLY COMPETENT
The candidate provides an accurate description, with limited detail, of the financial impact of the public policy on an organization or on a community. |
COMPETENT
The candidate provides an accurate description, with adequate detail, of the financial impact of the public policy on an organization or on a community. |
HIGHLY COMPETENT
The candidate provides an accurate description, with substantial detail, of the financial impact of the public policy on an organization or on a community. |
A2:PERSONAL VALUES
| UNSATISFACTORY / NOT PRESENT
The candidate does not provide a plausible analysis of how the candidate’s values impact the candidate’s position on the public policy issue. |
DOES NOT MEET STANDARD
The candidate provides a plausible analysis, with no detail, of how the candidate’s values impact the candidate’s position on the public policy issue. |
MINIMALLY COMPETENT
The candidate provides a plausible analysis, with limited detail, of how the candidate’s values impact the candidate’s position on the public policy issue. |
COMPETENT
The candidate provides a plausible analysis, with adequate detail, of how the candidate’s values impact the candidate’s position on the public policy issue. |
HIGHLY COMPETENT
The candidate provides a plausible analysis, with substantial detail, of how the candidate’s values impact the candidate’s position on the public policy issue. |
A2A:ETHICAL PRINCIPLE OR THEORY
| UNSATISFACTORY / NOT PRESENT
The candidate does not provide a logical discussion of the ethical principle or theory that underpins the candidate’s perspective. |
DOES NOT MEET STANDARD
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with no detail, of the ethical principle or theory that underpins the candidate’s perspective. |
MINIMALLY COMPETENT
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with limited detail, of the ethical principle or theory that underpins the candidate’s perspective. |
COMPETENT
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with adequate detail, of the ethical principle or theory that underpins the candidate’s perspective. |
HIGHLY COMPETENT
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with substantial detail, of the ethical principle or theory that underpins the candidate’s perspective. |
B1:DECISION MAKER
| UNSATISFACTORY / NOT PRESENT
The candidate does not identify the appropriate decision maker (name and title) who will receive the policy brief. |
DOES NOT MEET STANDARD
Not applicable. |
MINIMALLY COMPETENT
Not applicable. |
COMPETENT
Not applicable. |
HIGHLY COMPETENT
The candidate identifies the appropriate decision maker (name and title) who will receive the policy brief. |
B1A:EXPLANATION
| UNSATISFACTORY / NOT PRESENT
The candidate does not provide a logical explanation of why the public policy requires the decision maker’s attention, using relevant nursing research from the last five years to support the position. |
DOES NOT MEET STANDARD
The candidate provides a logical explanation, with no detail, of why the public policy requires the decision maker’s attention, using no relevant nursing research from the last five years to support the position. |
MINIMALLY COMPETENT
The candidate provides a logical explanation, with limited detail, of why the public policy requires the decision maker’s attention, using limited relevant nursing research from the last five years to support the position. |
COMPETENT
The candidate provides a logical explanation, with adequate detail, of why the public policy requires the decision maker’s attention, using adequate relevant nursing research from the last five years to support the position. |
HIGHLY COMPETENT
The candidate provides a logical explanation, with substantial detail, of why the public policy requires the decision maker’s attention, using substantial relevant nursing research from the last five years to support the position. |
B2:CHALLENGES
| UNSATISFACTORY / NOT PRESENT
The candidate does not provide a logical discussion of the main challenges of addressing the selected public policy issue. |
DOES NOT MEET STANDARD
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with no detail, of the main challenges of addressing the selected public policy issue. |
MINIMALLY COMPETENT
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with limited detail, of the main challenges of addressing the selected public policy issue. |
COMPETENT
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with adequate detail, of the main challenges of addressing the selected public policy issue. |
HIGHLY COMPETENT
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with substantial detail, of the main challenges of addressing the selected public policy issue. |
B3:OPTIONS/INTERVENTIONS
| UNSATISFACTORY / NOT PRESENT
The candidate does not provide a logical discussion of the primary options and/or interventions for the decision maker, including why they are tangible. |
DOES NOT MEET STANDARD
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with no detail, of the primary options and/or interventions for the decision maker, including why they are tangible. |
MINIMALLY COMPETENT
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with limited detail, of the primary options and/or interventions for the decision maker, including why they are tangible. |
COMPETENT
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with adequate detail, of the primary options and/or interventions for the decision maker, including why they are tangible. |
HIGHLY COMPETENT
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with substantial detail, of the primary options and/or interventions for the decision maker, including why they are tangible. |
B4:COURSE OF ACTION
| UNSATISFACTORY / NOT PRESENT
The candidate does not provide an appropriate proposal for a persuasive course of action for the decision maker, including ways to avoid the challenges identified in part B2. |
DOES NOT MEET STANDARD
The candidate provides an appropriate proposal, with no support, for a persuasive course of action for the decision maker, including ways to avoid the challenges identified in part B2. |
MINIMALLY COMPETENT
The candidate provides an appropriate proposal, with limited support, for a persuasive course of action for the decision maker, including ways to avoid the challenges identified in part B2. |
COMPETENT
The candidate provides an appropriate proposal, with adequate support, for a persuasive course of action for the decision maker, including ways to avoid the challenges identified in part B2. |
HIGHLY COMPETENT
The candidate provides an appropriate proposal, with substantial support, for a persuasive course of action for the decision maker, including ways to avoid the challenges identified in part B2. |
B5:SUCCESS OF POLICY BRIEF
| UNSATISFACTORY / NOT PRESENT
The candidate does not provide a logical discussion of how the candidate will evaluate the success of the policy brief (a top-down approach). |
DOES NOT MEET STANDARD
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with no detail, of how the candidate will evaluate the success of the policy brief (a top-down approach). |
MINIMALLY COMPETENT
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with limited detail, of how the candidate will evaluate the success of the policy brief (a top-down approach). |
COMPETENT
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with adequate detail, of how the candidate will evaluate the success of the policy brief (a top-down approach). |
HIGHLY COMPETENT
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with substantial detail, of how the candidate will evaluate the success of the policy brief (a top-down approach). |
C1:IDENTIFIED ORGANIZATION OR COMMUNITY
| UNSATISFACTORY / NOT PRESENT
The candidate does not identify an organization or community that has expressed interest in the selected health or nursing profession public policy issue. |
DOES NOT MEET STANDARD
Not applicable |
MINIMALLY COMPETENT
Not applicable |
COMPETENT
Not applicable |
HIGHLY COMPETENT
The candidate identifies an organization or community that has expressed interest in the selected health or nursing profession public policy issue. |
C1A:SUMMARY OF EXPRESSED INTEREST
| UNSATISFACTORY / NOT PRESENT
The candidate does not provide a logical summary of evidence supporting why the organization or community has expressed interest in the selected public policy issue. |
DOES NOT MEET STANDARD
The candidate provides a logical summary, with no detail, of evidence supporting why the organization or community has expressed interest in the selected public policy issue. |
MINIMALLY COMPETENT
The candidate provides a logical summary, with limited detail, of evidence supporting why the organization or community has expressed interest in the selected public policy issue. |
COMPETENT
The candidate provides a logical summary, with adequate detail, of evidence supporting why the organization or community has expressed interest in the selected public policy issue. |
HIGHLY COMPETENT
The candidate provides a logical summary, with substantial detail, of evidence supporting why the organization or community has expressed interest in the selected public policy issue. |
C2:CBPR PRINCIPLES
| UNSATISFACTORY / NOT PRESENT
The candidate does not identify 3 CBPR principles the candidate could use to work with the organization or community to address a policy change for the public policy issue. |
DOES NOT MEET STANDARD
Not applicable. |
MINIMALLY COMPETENT
The candidate accurately identifies 1-2 CBPR principles the candidate could use to work with the organization or community to address a policy change for the public policy issue. |
COMPETENT
Not applicable |
HIGHLY COMPETENT
The candidate accurately identifies 3 CBPR principles the candidate could use to work with the organization or community to address a policy change for the public policy issue. |
C2A:APPROACH AND COLLABORATION
| UNSATISFACTORY / NOT PRESENT
The candidate does not provide a logical explanation of how the candidate could approach and collaborate with the organization or community. |
DOES NOT MEET STANDARD
The candidate provides a logical explanation, with no detail, of how the candidate could approach and collaborate with the organization or community. |
MINIMALLY COMPETENT
The candidate provides a logical explanation, with limited detail, of how the candidate could approach and collaborate with the organization or community. |
COMPETENT
The candidate provides a logical explanation, with adequate detail, of how the candidate could approach and collaborate with the organization or community. |
HIGHLY COMPETENT
The candidate provides a logical explanation, with substantial detail, of how the candidate could approach and collaborate with the organization or community. |
C2B:GOAL ALIGNMENT
| UNSATISFACTORY / NOT PRESENT
The candidate does not provide a logical discussion of how the goal of the community or organization aligns with the candidate’s goal for the selected public policy issue. |
DOES NOT MEET STANDARD
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with no detail, of how the goal of the community or organization aligns with the candidate’s goal for the selected public policy issue. |
MINIMALLY COMPETENT
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with limited detail, of how the goal of the community or organization aligns with the candidate’s goal for the selected public policy issue. |
COMPETENT
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with adequate detail, of how the goal of the community or organization aligns with the candidate’s goal for the selected public policy issue. |
HIGHLY COMPETENT
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with substantial detail, of how the goal of the community or organization aligns with the candidate’s goal for the selected public policy issue. |
C2C:ACTION STEPS
| UNSATISFACTORY / NOT PRESENT
The candidate does not provide a logical discussion of the action steps that need to be taken to achieve the candidate’s goal from part C2b. |
DOES NOT MEET STANDARD
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with no detail, of the action steps that need to be taken to achieve the candidate’s goal from part C2b. |
MINIMALLY COMPETENT
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with limited detail, of the action steps that need to be taken to achieve the candidate’s goal from part C2b. |
COMPETENT
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with adequate detail, of the action steps that need to be taken to achieve the candidate’s goal from part C2b. |
HIGHLY COMPETENT
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with substantial detail, of the action steps that need to be taken to achieve the candidate’s goal from part C2b. |
C2D:ROLES/RESPONSIBILITIES
| UNSATISFACTORY / NOT PRESENT
The candidate does not provide a logical discussion of the possible roles/responsibilities of community or organization members, including problem-solving and capacity-building roles. |
DOES NOT MEET STANDARD
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with no detail, of the possible roles/responsibilities of community or organization members, including problem-solving and capacity-building roles. |
MINIMALLY COMPETENT
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with limited detail, of the possible roles/responsibilities of community or organization members, including problem-solving and capacity-building roles. |
COMPETENT
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with adequate detail, of the possible roles/responsibilities of community or organization members, including problem-solving and capacity-building roles. |
HIGHLY COMPETENT
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with substantial detail, of the possible roles/responsibilities of community or organization members, including problem-solving and capacity-building roles. |
C2E:KEY ELEMENTS OF EVALUATION PLAN
| UNSATISFACTORY / NOT PRESENT
The candidate does not provide a logical discussion of key elements of developing a collaborative evaluation plan, using CBPR principles. |
DOES NOT MEET STANDARD
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with no detail, of key elements of developing a collaborative evaluation plan, using CBPR principles. |
MINIMALLY COMPETENT
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with limited detail, of key elements of developing a collaborative evaluation plan, using CBPR principles. |
COMPETENT
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with adequate detail, of key elements of developing a collaborative evaluation plan, using CBPR principles. |
HIGHLY COMPETENT
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with substantial detail, of key elements of developing a collaborative evaluation plan, using CBPR principles. |
C2F:COMMUNITY/ORGANIZATION PLAN
| UNSATISFACTORY / NOT PRESENT
The candidate does not provide a logical discussion of how the success of the community or organization plan will be evaluated (bottom-up approach). |
DOES NOT MEET STANDARD
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with no detail, of how the success the community or organization plan will be evaluated (bottom-up approach). |
MINIMALLY COMPETENT
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with limited detail, of how the success of the community or organization plan will be evaluated (bottom-up approach). |
COMPETENT
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with adequate detail, of how the success of the community or organization plan will be evaluated (bottom-up approach). |
HIGHLY COMPETENT
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with substantial detail, of how the success of the community or organization plan will be evaluated (bottom-up approach). |
D1:STRENGTHS OF EACH APPROACH
| UNSATISFACTORY / NOT PRESENT
The candidate does not provide a logical discussion of the strengths of each approach to implement change for the selected policy issue. |
DOES NOT MEET STANDARD
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with no detail, of the strengths of each approach to implement change for the selected public policy issue. |
MINIMALLY COMPETENT
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with limited detail, of the strengths of each approach to implement change for the selected public policy issue. |
COMPETENT
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with adequate detail, of the strengths ofeach approach to implement change for the selected public policy issue. |
HIGHLY COMPETENT
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with substantial detail, of the strengths of each approach to implement change for the selected public policy issue. |
D2:CHALLENGES OF EACH APPROACH
| UNSATISFACTORY / NOT PRESENT
The candidate does not provide a logical discussion of the challenges of each approach to implement change for the selected public policy issue. |
DOES NOT MEET STANDARD
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with no detail, of the challenges of each approach to implement change for the selected public policy issue. |
MINIMALLY COMPETENT
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with limited detail, of the challenges of each approach to implement change for the selected public policy issue. |
COMPETENT
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with adequate detail, of the challenges of each approach to implement change for the selected public policy issue. |
HIGHLY COMPETENT
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with substantial detail, of the challenges of each approach to implement change for the selected public policy issue. |
D3:MOST EFFECTIVE APPROACH
| UNSATISFACTORY / NOT PRESENT
The candidate does not provide a logical discussion of which approach the candidate would recommend as the most effective to address the selected public policy issue. |
DOES NOT MEET STANDARD
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with no detail, of which approach the candidate would recommend as the most effective to address the selected public policy issue. |
MINIMALLY COMPETENT
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with limited detail, of which approach the candidate would recommend as the most effective to address the selected public policy issue. |
COMPETENT
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with adequate detail, of which approach the candidate would recommend as the most effective to address the selected public policy issue. |
HIGHLY COMPETENT
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with substantial detail, of which approach the candidate would recommend as the most effective to address the selected public policy issue. |
E:SOURCES
| UNSATISFACTORY / NOT PRESENT
When the candidate uses sources, the candidate does not provide in-text citations and references. |
DOES NOT MEET STANDARD
When the candidate uses sources, the candidate provides only some in-text citations and references. |
MINIMALLY COMPETENT
When the candidate uses sources, the candidate provides appropriate in-text citations and references with major deviations from APA style. |
COMPETENT
When the candidate uses sources, the candidate provides appropriate in-text citations and references with minor deviations from APA style. |
HIGHLY COMPETENT
When the candidate uses sources, the candidate provides appropriate in-text citations and references with no readily detectable deviations from APA style, OR the candidate does not use sources. |