NURSING

NURSING

Order Description
Theory (SCDT) developed by Dorothea Orem. Orem’ theory

Describe the theorist (short biography and major in” rel=”nofollow”>influence on the theorist).

Grand Nursin” rel=”nofollow”>ing Theorist Assignment: Grand Theorist Report

1
Unsatisfactory
0.00%
2
Less Than Satisfactory
80.00%
3
Satisfactory
88.00%
4
Good
92.00%
5
Excellent
100.00%
70.0 %Content

5.0 %Introduction
Purpose of the paper is either not present or not evident to the reader. Briefly mentions theory and theorist. May or may not explain” rel=”nofollow”>in the rationale behin” rel=”nofollow”>ind its selection.
Purpose of the paper is in” rel=”nofollow”>insufficiently developed and/or vague. Briefly mentions theory and theorist. May or may not explain” rel=”nofollow”>in the rationale behin” rel=”nofollow”>ind its selection.
Purpose of the paper is present, but lacks depth and/or clarity. Outlin” rel=”nofollow”>ines the theory and theorist along with the rationale behin” rel=”nofollow”>ind its selection.
Purpose of the paper is present and clearly evident. Introduces the theory and theorist along with the rationale behin” rel=”nofollow”>ind its selection.
Purpose of the paper is present and comprehensive, forecastin” rel=”nofollow”>ing further development in” rel=”nofollow”>in paper. Introduces the theory and theorist along with the rationale behin” rel=”nofollow”>ind its selection.
10.0 %Theorist
Identification of theorist is either not present or not evident to the reader. Fails to identify the major in” rel=”nofollow”>influences behin” rel=”nofollow”>ind the development of the theory.
Identification of theorist is evident but is not clearly presented. Does not justify the impact in” rel=”nofollow”>influences had on the development of the theory.
Identification of theorist is present but cursory. Misin” rel=”nofollow”>interprets evidence on the major in” rel=”nofollow”>influences behin” rel=”nofollow”>ind the development of the theory.
Identification of theorist is present with evidence that supports claims. Justifies some of the impact in” rel=”nofollow”>influences had on the development of the theory.
Identification of theorist is present with rich details that support claims. Accurately presents the major in” rel=”nofollow”>influences behin” rel=”nofollow”>ind the development of the theory.
20.0 %Theory Assumptions, Concepts and Propositions
Analysis of the major concepts and propositions of the theory is poorly presented. The assumptions underlyin” rel=”nofollow”>ing the theory are not addressed.
Superficially evaluates the major concepts and propositions of the theory. Lacks understandin” rel=”nofollow”>ing of the theory in” rel=”nofollow”>in relation to the assumptions underlyin” rel=”nofollow”>ing the theory.
Surface level evaluation of major concepts and propositions of the theory is presented. Min” rel=”nofollow”>inimal in” rel=”nofollow”>information on the assumptions of the theory is provided.
Analysis is direct, competent, and appropriate for the major concepts and propositions of the theory. Assumptions and ideas of the theory are supported.
Thoughtfully analyzes and evaluates major concepts and propositions of the theory. Demonstrates a deep understandin” rel=”nofollow”>ing of theories and models. Explores the assumptions underlyin” rel=”nofollow”>ing the theory in” rel=”nofollow”>includin” rel=”nofollow”>ing how metaparadigm concepts are defin” rel=”nofollow”>ined.
15.0 %Practical Application
Application of theory with hypothesis of how practice will change as a result is either not present or not evident to the reader. Min” rel=”nofollow”>inimal examples of how theory will change practice are briefly mentioned.
Application of theory with hypothesis of how practice will change as a result is evident, but claims are vague and poorly developed. Mentions or outlin” rel=”nofollow”>ines examples of how theory will change practice but does not provide adequate details.
Application of theory with hypothesis of how practice will change as a result is present, but claims are supported with cursory evidence. Provides a few solid examples of how theory will change practice (ex. assessment guide, staffin” rel=”nofollow”>ing plan, patient outcome measurement, in” rel=”nofollow”>interventions)
Application of theory with hypothesis of how practice will change as a result is thoroughly presented, and claims are supported with detailed evidence. Provides several concrete examples of how theory will change practice (ex. assessment guide, staffin” rel=”nofollow”>ing plan, patient outcome measurement, in” rel=”nofollow”>interventions)
Application of theory with a hypothesis of how practice will change as a result is comprehensively presented, and claims are supported with detailed evidence that is rein” rel=”nofollow”>inforced from research. Provides multiple concrete examples of how theory will change practice (ex. assessment guide, staffin” rel=”nofollow”>ing plan, patient outcome measurement, in” rel=”nofollow”>interventions)
15.0 %Integration Plan
Plan fails to explain” rel=”nofollow”>in how the theory will be in” rel=”nofollow”>integrated, used as a foundation or framework in” rel=”nofollow”>in the practice/admin” rel=”nofollow”>inistration of the in” rel=”nofollow”>institution. Fails to provide a clear process or address aspects in” rel=”nofollow”>involved.
Plan briefly explain” rel=”nofollow”>ins how the theory will be in” rel=”nofollow”>integrated, used as a foundation or framework in” rel=”nofollow”>in the practice/admin” rel=”nofollow”>inistration of the in” rel=”nofollow”>institution. Provides clear process and details. Min” rel=”nofollow”>inimally addresses aspects in” rel=”nofollow”>involved.
Plan explain” rel=”nofollow”>ins how the theory will be in” rel=”nofollow”>integrated, used as a foundation and framework in” rel=”nofollow”>in the practice/admin” rel=”nofollow”>inistration of the in” rel=”nofollow”>institution. Provides details but may not cover essential aspects.
Plan clearly explain” rel=”nofollow”>ins how the theory will be in” rel=”nofollow”>integrated, used as a foundation and framework in” rel=”nofollow”>in the practice/admin” rel=”nofollow”>inistration of the in” rel=”nofollow”>institution. Provides clear process and details. Addresses many aspects in” rel=”nofollow”>involved.
Plan clearly and thoroughly explain” rel=”nofollow”>ins how the theory will be in” rel=”nofollow”>integrated, used as a foundation and framework, in” rel=”nofollow”>in the practice/admin” rel=”nofollow”>inistration of the in” rel=”nofollow”>institution. Provides clear details and thoroughly supports rationale. Addresses multiple aspects in” rel=”nofollow”>involved (train” rel=”nofollow”>inin” rel=”nofollow”>ing, process changes, etc.).
5.0 %Conclusion
Summary of the major poin” rel=”nofollow”>ints of the paper is either not present or not evident to the reader.
Summary of the major poin” rel=”nofollow”>ints of the paper is present, but it is vague and/or poorly developed.
Summary of the major poin” rel=”nofollow”>ints of the paper is present, but is cursory and lackin” rel=”nofollow”>ing depth.
Summary of the paper is evident to the reader. Arguments presented follow logical progression and support claims.
Summary of paper is clearly evident to the reader. Arguments support all claims with clarity, order, and richness of detail.
20.0 %Organization and Effectiveness

7.0 %Thesis Development and Purpose
None
Paper lacks any discernible overall purpose or organizin” rel=”nofollow”>ing claim.
Thesis and/or main” rel=”nofollow”>in claim are in” rel=”nofollow”>insufficiently developed and/or vague; purpose is not clear.
Thesis and/or main” rel=”nofollow”>in claim are apparent and appropriate to purpose.
Thesis and/or main” rel=”nofollow”>in claim are clear and forecast the development of the paper. It is descriptive and reflective of the arguments and appropriate to the purpose.
8.0 %Argument Logic and Construction
None
Statement of purpose is not justified by the conclusion. The conclusion does not support the claim made. Argument is in” rel=”nofollow”>incoherent and uses noncredible sources.
Sufficient justification of claims is lackin” rel=”nofollow”>ing. Argument lacks consistent unity. There are obvious flaws in” rel=”nofollow”>in the logic. Some sources have questionable credibility.
Argument is orderly, but may have a few in” rel=”nofollow”>inconsistencies. The argument presents min” rel=”nofollow”>inimal justification of claims. Argument logically, but not thoroughly, supports the purpose. Sources used are credible. Introduction and conclusion bracket the thesis.
Argument shows logical progressions. Techniques of argumentation are evident. There is a smooth progression of claims from in” rel=”nofollow”>introduction to conclusion. Most sources are authoritative.
5.0 %Mechanics of Writin” rel=”nofollow”>ing (in” rel=”nofollow”>includes spellin” rel=”nofollow”>ing, punctuation, grammar, language use)
None
Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meanin” rel=”nofollow”>ing. Inappropriate word choice and/or sentence construction are used.
Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistencies in” rel=”nofollow”>in language choice (register), sentence structure, and/or word choice are present.
Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but are not overly distractin” rel=”nofollow”>ing to the reader. Correct sentence structure and audience-appropriate language are used.
Prose is largely free of mechanical errors, although a few may be present. A variety of sentence structures and effective figures of speech are used.
10.0 %Format

5.0 %Paper Format (Use of appropriate style for the major and assignment)
None
Template is not used appropriately or documentation format is rarely followed correctly.
Appropriate template is used, but some elements are missin” rel=”nofollow”>ing or mistaken. A lack of control with formattin” rel=”nofollow”>ing is apparent.
Appropriate template is used. Formattin” rel=”nofollow”>ing is correct, although some min” rel=”nofollow”>inor errors may be present.
Appropriate template is fully used. There are virtually no errors in” rel=”nofollow”>in formattin” rel=”nofollow”>ing style.
5.0 %Research Citations (In-text citations for paraphrasin” rel=”nofollow”>ing and direct quotes, and reference page listin” rel=”nofollow”>ing and formattin” rel=”nofollow”>ing, as appropriate to assignment and style)
None
No reference page is in” rel=”nofollow”>included. No citations are used.
Reference page is present. Citations are in” rel=”nofollow”>inconsistently used.
Reference page is in” rel=”nofollow”>included and lists sources used in” rel=”nofollow”>in the paper. Sources are appropriately documented, although some errors may be present.
Reference page is present and fully in” rel=”nofollow”>inclusive of all cited sources. Documentation is appropriate and citation style is usually correct.
100 %Total Weightage

find the cost of your paper