Skip to main content

iRubric: Interview and Analysis Assignment CNUR104 rubric

find rubric

edit   print   share   Copy to my rubrics   Bookmark   test run   assess...   delete   Do more...
Interview and Analysis Assignment CNUR104 
Interview Assignment
In pairs students will conduct interviews with each other. The student acting as the patient will use the case study assigned for their role as interviewee. The student in the interviewer role is interviewing the patient to determine their learning preferences and needs. Students in the interviewer role will use their London text (pp. 23-27) for interviewer questions guidelines. The interviews done in the sim lab will be uploaded for student and seminar instructor access. Students will complete a written analysis of the tape and submit the analysis to their seminar instructor.
Rubric Code: R66X45
By CNUR104
Ready to use
Public Rubric
Subject: Nursing  
Type: (Other)  
Grade Levels: Undergraduate

Powered by iRubric Interview Assignment
  outstanding

(N/A)

very good

(N/A)

above average

(N/A)

generally satisfactory

(N/A)

barely acceptable

(N/A)

unacceptable

(N/A)

Format

outstanding

•Cover page
•References conform to APA format, no errors
•Conforms to proper use of English and writing mechanics (No errors in spelling, grammar, punctuation, or use and mechanics of English )
•5+ citations cited as supporting evidence at least 3 are recent (<5 yrs old) journal articles
very good

•Cover page
•References conform to APA format, 1 error
•Conforms to proper use of English and writing mechanics Few [<3] errors in spelling, grammar, punctuation, or use and mechanics of English.
•4-5 citations cited as supporting evidence at least 2 are recent (<5 yrs old) journal articles
•Proofreading needs some improvement
above average

•Cover page
•References conform to APA format, 2-3 errors
•Conforms to proper use of English and writing mechanics Few [<5] errors in spelling, grammar, punctuation, or use and mechanics of English.
•3-4 citations cited as supporting evidence, at least 2 are recent (<5 yrs old) journal articles
•Proofreading needs improvement
generally satisfactory

•Cover page.
•4-5 errors in APA referencing format
•Conforms to proper use of English and writing mechanics. Several [5-6] errors in spelling, grammar, punctuation, or use and mechanics of English.
•2-3 citations for evidence support, none are journals.
•Proofreading needs considerable improvement
barely acceptable

•Cover page.
•>6 errors in APA referencing format
•Conforms to proper use of English and writing mechanics. Several [>7] errors in spelling, grammar, punctuation, or use and mechanics of English.
•1-2 citations for evidence support.
•Proofreading needs considerable improvement
unacceptable

•No cover page.
•Does not follow APA format.
•Does not conform to proper use of English and writing mechanics. Numerous errors in spelling, grammar, punctuation, or use and mechanics of English.
•No citations to support evidence
•No evidence of proofreading before submission
Content and application to nursing

outstanding

•Introduction well written and clearly tells the reader the purpose of the paper.
•Permission requested to share information.
•Summary paragraph is included.
•Conclusion flows logically. Includes 3 implications for nurse as patient educator.
very good

•Introduction well written and tells the reader the purpose of the paper.
•Permission requested to share information.
•Summary paragraph is included but overlooks 1 important point.
•Conclusion flows logically. Includes 2 implications for nurse as patient educator.
above average

•Introduction well written and tells the reader the purpose of the paper.
•Permission requested to share information.
•Summary paragraph is included but overlooks 2 important points.
•Conclusion flows logically. Includes 2 implications for nurse as patient educator.
generally satisfactory

•No introductory paragraph.
•Permission to share of information alluded to but not explicit.
•Summary paragraph is included but misses 3 or more significant points, new information is introduced.
•Conclusion flows logically. Includes 1 implications for nurse as patient educator.
barely acceptable

•No introductory paragraph.
•Permission to share of information alluded to but not explicit.
•Summary paragraph is included but is off topic. New information is introduced.
•Conclusion does not flow logically from critique. Includes 1 implications for nurse as patient educator.
unacceptable

•No introductory paragraph.
•No permission requested to share information.
•No summary
•No conclusion or implications for nurse as patient educator
Analysis

outstanding

•The student clearly identifies 3 things they did well in the interview and 3 things they would like to do differently.
•The student identifies the time mark in the interview or uses direct quotes or accurate paraphrasing from the interview to illustrate and analyze these areas.
•To substantiate that they did these areas well, or how they would improve these areas, reference to the texts or the literature is made in all instances.
very good

•The student clearly identifies 3 things they did well in the interview and 2 things they would like to do differently.
•The student identifies the time mark in the interview and misses using 1 direct quotes or accurate paraphrasing from the interview to illustrate and analyze these areas.
•To substantiate that they did these areas well, or how they would improve these areas, reference to the texts or the literature is made in all but 1 instances.
above average

•The student clearly identifies 3 things they did well in the interview and 2 things they would like to do differently.
•The student misses identifying 1 time mark in the interview or misses using 2 direct quotes or accurate paraphrasing from the interview to illustrate and analyze these areas.
•To substantiate that they did these areas well, or how they would improve these areas, reference to the texts or the literature is made in all but 2 instances.
generally satisfactory

•The student identifies 2 things they did well in the interview and 1 thing they would like to do differently.
•The student misses identifying 2 time marks in the interview or misses using 3 direct quotes or accurate paraphrasing from the interview to illustrate and analyze these areas.
•To substantiate that they did these areas well, or how they would improve these areas, reference to the texts or the literature is made in all but 3-4 instances.
barely acceptable

•The student identifies 1 things they did well in the interview and 1 thing they would like to do differently.
•The student misses identifying >3 time marks in the interview or misses using 3 direct quotes or accurate paraphrasing from the interview to illustrate and analyze these areas.
•To substantiate that they did these areas well, or how they would improve these areas, reference to the texts or the literature is made in all but 3-4 instances.
unacceptable

•The student identifies 2 or fewer things they did well in the interview and nothing they would like to do differently.
•The student misses identifying > 4 time marks in the interview or misses using > 4 direct quotes or accurate paraphrasing from the interview to illustrate and analyze these areas.
•There was no substantiation that they did any of the areas well, or how they could improve them. There are no references to the texts or the literature.
Problem identification

outstanding

•2 Pt learning needs and 8 teaching-learning considerations are clearly identified and demonstrate a comprehensive assessment
very good

2 •Pt learning needs and 6-7 teaching-learning considerations are clearly identified and demonstrate a comprehensive assessment
above average

•2 Pt learning needs and 5-6 teaching-learning considerations are clearly identified and demonstrate a satisfactory assessment
generally satisfactory

•1 Pt learning needs and 4-5 teaching-learning considerations are clearly identified and demonstrate an adequate assessment
barely acceptable

•1 Pt learning needs and 2-3 teaching-learning considerations are clearly identified and demonstrate an adequate assessment
unacceptable

•No pt learning needs and < 4 teaching-learning considerations are clearly identified and demonstrate a comprehensive assessment
Interview

outstanding

•More than 20 questions asked.
•The questions are in logical sequence and they lead to a natural conversation.
•It is evident the student has prepared using the required and recommended readings and information covered in the seminar.
•Student interviewer employs all aspects of SOLER and all relevant TCTs.
very good

•More than 18 questions asked.
•The questions are in logical sequence and they lead to a natural conversation.
•It is evident the student has prepared using most the required and recommended readings and information covered in the seminar.
•Student interviewer employs 4 aspects of SOLER and all relevant TCTs.
above average

•More than 16-17 questions asked.
•The questions are in logical sequence and they lead to a natural conversation.
•It is evident the student has prepared using most the required and recommended readings and information covered in the seminar.
•Student interviewer employs all 4 aspects of SOLER and all relevant TCTs.
generally satisfactory

• 15 questions asked.
•The questions are in mostly logical sequence and they lead to a fairly natural conversation.
•The student has prepared using a few of the required and recommended readings and information covered in the seminar.
•Student interviewer employs 3 aspects of SOLER and 50% of relevant TCTs.
barely acceptable

• 12 questions asked.
•The questions are in mostly logical sequence and they lead to a fairly natural conversation.
•The student has prepared using a few of the required and recommended readings and information covered in the seminar.
•Student interviewer employs 3 aspects of SOLER and 50% of relevant TCTs.
unacceptable

•Fewer than 12 questions asked.
•The questions are in not logical sequence and they do not lead to a natural conversation. There is little to no evidence the student has prepared using most the required and recommended readings and information covered in the seminar.
•Student interviewer employs <2 aspects of SOLER and < 50% relevant TCTs.




Subjects:


Discuss this rubric




Do more with this rubric:
Preview

Preview

Preview this rubric.
Edit

Edit

Modify this rubric.
Copy

Copy

Make a copy of this rubric and begin editing the copy.

Print

Print

Show a printable version of this rubric.
Categorize

Categorize

Add this rubric to multiple categories.
Bookmark

Bookmark

Bookmark this rubric for future reference.
Assess
Test run

Test run

Test this rubric or perform an ad-hoc assessment.
Grade

Grade

Build a gradebook to assess students.
Collaborate

Collaborate

Apply this rubric to any object and invite others to assess.
Share
Publish

Publish

Link, embed, and showcase your rubrics on your website.
Email

Email

Email this rubric to a friend.
Discuss

Discuss

Discuss this rubric with other members.
 

Do more with rubrics than ever imagined possible.

Only with iRubrictm.

n202