Nursing StrengthsFinder Assessment
Nursing StrengthsFinder Assessment
Discussion – Week 5 NURS 6053
Discussion 2: Your Leadership Profile
Do you believe you have the traits to be an effective leader? Perhaps you are already in a supervisory role, but as has been discussed previously, appointment does not guarantee leadership skills.
How can you evaluate your own leadership skills and behaviors? You can start by analyzing your performance in specific areas of leadership. In this Discussion, you will complete Gallup’s StrengthsFinder assessment. This assessment will identify your personal strengths, which have been shown to improve motivation, engagement, and academic self-conference. Through this assessment, you will discover your top five themes—which you can reflect upon and use to leverage your talents for optimal success and examine how the results relate to your leadership traits. Nursing StrengthsFinder Assessment
To Prepare for Nursing StrengthsFinder Assessment
Complete the StrengthsFinder assessment instrument, per the instructions found in this Module’s Learning Resources.
Please Note: This Assessment will take roughly 30 minutes to complete.
- Once you have completed your assessment, you will receive your “Top 5 Signature Themes of Talent” on your screen.
- Click the Download button below Signature Theme Report, and then print and save the report. We also encourage you to select the Apply tab to review action items.
NOTE: Please keep your report. You will need your results for future courses. Technical Issues with Gallup:
If you have technical issues after registering, please contact the Gallup Education Support group by phone at +1.866-346-4408. Support is available 24 hours/day from 6:00 p.m. Sunday U.S. Central Time through 5:00 p.m. Friday U.S. Central Time.
- Reflect on the results of your Assessment, and consider how the results relate to your leadership traits.
By Day 3 of Week 5
Post a brief description of your results from the StrengthsFinder assessment. Then, briefly describe two core values, two strengths, and two characteristics that you would like to strengthen based on the results of your StrengthsFinder assessment. Be specific.
Bottom of Form
Learning Resources for Nursing StrengthsFinder Assessment
Required Readings
Marshall, E., & Broome, M. (2017). Transformational leadership in nursing: From expert clinician to influential leader (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Springer.
- Chapter 1, “Expert Clinician to Transformational Leader in a Complex Health Care Organization: Foundations” (pp. 7–20 ONLY)
- Chapter 6, “Frameworks for Becoming a Transformational Leader” (pp. 145–170)
- Chapter 7, “Becoming a Leader: It’s All About You” (pp. 171–194)
Rubric Detail
Select Grid View or List View to change the rubric’s layout.
Content
Name: NURS_6053_Module03_Week05_Discussion_Rubric
| Excellent | Good | Fair | Poor | |
| Main Posting | Points:
Points Range: 45 (45%) – 50 (50%) Answers all parts of the discussion question(s) expectations with reflective critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources. Supported by at least three current, credible sources. Written clearly and concisely with no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style. Feedback: |
Points:
Points Range: 40 (40%) – 44 (44%) Responds to the discussion question(s) and is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module. At least 75% of post has exceptional depth and breadth. Supported by at least three credible sources. Written clearly and concisely with one or no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style. Feedback: |
Points:
Points Range: 35 (35%) – 39 (39%) Responds to some of the discussion question(s). One or two criteria are not addressed or are superficially addressed. Is somewhat lacking reflection and critical analysis and synthesis. Somewhat represents knowledge gained from the course readings for the module. Post is cited with two credible sources. Written somewhat concisely; may contain more than two spelling or grammatical errors. Contains some APA formatting errors. Feedback: |
Points:
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 34 (34%) Does not respond to the discussion question(s) adequately. Lacks depth or superficially addresses criteria. Lacks reflection and critical analysis and synthesis. Does not represent knowledge gained from the course readings for the module. Contains only one or no credible sources. Not written clearly or concisely. Contains more than two spelling or grammatical errors. Does not adhere to current APA manual writing rules and style. Feedback: |
| Main Post: Timeliness | Points:
Points Range: 10 (10%) – 10 (10%) Posts main post by day 3. Feedback: |
Points:
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) Feedback: |
Points:
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) Feedback: |
Points:
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) Does not post by day 3. Feedback: |
| First Response | Points:
Points Range: 17 (17%) – 18 (18%) Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings. Responds fully to questions posed by faculty. Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources. Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives. Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues. Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed. Response is effectively written in standard, edited English. Feedback: |
Points:
Points Range: 15 (15%) – 16 (16%) Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings. Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues. Responses to faculty questions are answered, if posed. Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources. Response is effectively written in standard, edited English. Feedback: |
Points:
Points Range: 13 (13%) – 14 (14%) Response is on topic and may have some depth. Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication. Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed. Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited. Feedback: |
Points:
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 12 (12%) Response may not be on topic and lacks depth. Responses posted in the discussion lack effective professional communication. Responses to faculty questions are missing. No credible sources are cited. Feedback: |
| Second Response | Points:
Points Range: 16 (16%) – 17 (17%) Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings. Responds fully to questions posed by faculty. Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources. Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives. Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues. Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed. Response is effectively written in standard, edited English. Feedback: |
Points:
Points Range: 14 (14%) – 15 (15%) Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings. Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues. Responses to faculty questions are answered, if posed. Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources. Response is effectively written in standard, edited English. Feedback: |
Points:
Points Range: 12 (12%) – 13 (13%) Response is on topic and may have some depth. Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication. Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed. Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited. Feedback: |
Points:
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 11 (11%) Response may not be on topic and lacks depth. Responses posted in the discussion lack effective professional communication. Responses to faculty questions are missing. No credible sources are cited. Feedback: |
| Participation | Points:
Points Range: 5 (5%) – 5 (5%) Meets requirements for participation by posting on three different days. Feedback: |
Points:
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) Feedback: |
Points:
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) Feedback: |
Points:
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) Does not meet requirements for participation by posting on 3 different days. Feedback: |
Show DescriptionsShow Feedback
Main Posting—
Levels of Achievement:
Excellent45 (45%) – 50 (50%)
Answers all parts of the discussion question(s) expectations with reflective critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources.
Supported by at least three current, credible sources.
Written clearly and concisely with no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style.
Good40 (40%) – 44 (44%)
Responds to the discussion question(s) and is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module. Nursing StrengthsFinder Assessment
At least 75% of post has exceptional depth and b readth.
Supported by at least three credible sources. Nursing StrengthsFinder Assessment
Written clearly and concisely with one or no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style.
Fair35 (35%) – 39 (39%)
Responds to some of the discussion question(s).
One or two criteria are not addressed or are superficially addressed.
Is somewhat lacking reflection and critical analysis and synthesis.
Somewhat represents knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.
Post is cited with two credible sources. Nursing StrengthsFinder Assessment
Written somewhat concisely; may contain more than two spelling or grammatical errors.
Contains some APA formatting errors. Nursing StrengthsFinder Assessment
Poor0 (0%) – 34 (34%)
Does not respond to the discussion question(s) adequately.
Lacks depth or superficially addresses criteria.
Lacks reflection and critical analysis and synthesis.
Does not represent knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.
Contains only one or no credible sources.
Not written clearly or concisely.
Contains more than two spelling or grammatical errors.
Does not adhere to current APA manual writing rules and style. Nursing StrengthsFinder Assessment
Feedback:
Main Post: Timeliness—
Levels of Achievement:
Excellent10 (10%) – 10 (10%)
Posts main post by day 3.
Good0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
Fair0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
Poor0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
Does not post by day 3.
Feedback:
First Response—
Levels of Achievement:
Excellent17 (17%) – 18 (18%)
Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings.
Responds fully to questions posed by faculty. Nursing StrengthsFinder Assessment
Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources.
Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues. Nursing StrengthsFinder Assessment
Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed. Nursing StrengthsFinder Assessment
Response is effectively written in standard, edited English. Nursing StrengthsFinder Assessment
Good15 (15%) – 16 (16%)
Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings.
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.
Responses to faculty questions are answered, if posed. Nursing StrengthsFinder Assessment
Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources.
Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.
Fair13 (13%) – 14 (14%)
Response is on topic and may have some depth.
Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication.
Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed.
Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited.
Poor0 (0%) – 12 (12%)
Response may not be on topic and lacks depth.
Responses posted in the discussion lack effective professional communication.
Responses to faculty questions are missing. Nursing StrengthsFinder Assessment
No credible sources are cited.
Feedback:
Second Response—
Levels of Achievement:
Excellent16 (16%) – 17 (17%)
Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings.
Responds fully to questions posed by faculty.
Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources.
Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.
Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed.
Response is effectively written in standard, edited English. Nursing StrengthsFinder Assessment
Good14 (14%) – 15 (15%)
Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings.
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.
Responses to faculty questions are answered, if posed.
Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources.
Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.
Fair12 (12%) – 13 (13%)
Response is on topic and may have some depth.
Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication.
Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed.
Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited.
Poor0 (0%) – 11 (11%)
Response may not be on topic and lacks depth.
Responses posted in the discussion lack effective professional communication.
Responses to faculty questions are missing. Nursing StrengthsFinder Assessment
No credible sources are cited.
Feedback:
Participation—
Levels of Achievement:
Excellent5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Meets requirements for participation by posting on three different days.
Good0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
Fair0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
Poor0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
Does not meet requirements for participation by posting on 3 different days.
Feedback:
| Total Points: 100 |
Name: NURS_6053_Module03_Week05_Discussion_Rubric