DNP 805 Week 8 Evaluation of Health Care Technology GCU

DNP 805 Week 8 Evaluation of Health Care Technology GCU

DNP 805 Week 8 Evaluation of Health Care Technology GCU

DNP 805 Week 8 Evaluation of Health Care Technology GCU

Assessment Description

For this assignment, you will utilize content from the study materials as well as additional qualified resources to synthesize new information that you can apply towards your DPI Project, your future work area, or your clinical practice as a DNP-prepared nurse.

General Guidelines:

Use the following information to ensure successful completion of the assignment:

• This assignment uses a rubric. Please review the rubric prior to beginning the assignment to become familiar with the expectations for successful completion.
• Doctoral learners are required to use APA style for their writing assignments. The APA Style Guide is located in the Student Success Center.
• Use primary sources published within the last 5 years. Provide citations and references for all sources used.
• You are required to submit this assignment to LopesWrite. A link to the LopesWrite technical support articles is located in Class Resources if you need assistance.
• Learners will submit this assignment using the assignment dropbox in the learning management system. In addition, learners must upload this deliverable to the Learner Dissertation Page (LDP) in the DNP PI Workspace for later use.

Directions:

For this assignment, write a 1,000-1,250 word paper in which you:

1. Select a technology that has been explored in the course.
2. Using the technology you have selected, define and describe how the element would be measured or evaluated.
3. Using the content in the textbook and other readings, list three elements that will be used to evaluate the user-technology interface.
4. Perform an assessment using elements of user-technology interface or human factors methods to determine functionality.
5. For each element, propose practicable suggestions for improvement using support from the literature.

6. Evaluation of Health Care Technology – Rubric
7. Collapse All Evaluation Of Health Care Technology – RubricCollapse All
8. Selection of a Specific Technology Explored in This Course

   

9. 11 points
10. Criteria Description
11. Selection of a Specific Technology Explored in This Course
12. Excellent
13. 11 points
14. Selection of a specific technology explored in this course is present. Discussion is insightful and forward-thinking. Information presented is from current scholarly sources.
15. Good
16. 12 points
17. Selection of a specific technology explored in this course is present. Discussion is convincing. Information presented is from scholarly though dated sources.

Click here to ORDER an A++ paper from our Verified MASTERS and DOCTORATE WRITERS: DNP 805 Week 8 Evaluation of Health Care Technology GCU

6. Satisfactory
7. 68 points
8. Selection of a specific technology explored in this course is perfunctory.

Also Read:  MAT 2051 Discrete Mathematics Unit 7 Assignment 1

6. Less Than Satisfactory
7. 8 points
8. Selection of a specific technology explored in this course is marginal or incomplete.
9. Unsatisfactory
10. 0 points
11. Selection of a specific technology explored in this course is not present.
12. Assessment Performed Using Elements of User-Technology Interface or Human Factor Methods to Determin
13. 5 points
14. Criteria Description
15. Assessment Performed Using Elements of User-Technology Interface or Human Factor Methods to Determine Existing Functionality of the Specified Technology
16. Excellent
17. 5 points
18. An assessment using elements of user-technology interface or human factor methods to determine existing functionality of the specified technology is present in full. Discussion is convincing and defines specific elements. Discussion is insightful and forward-thinking. Information presented is from current scholarly sources.
19. Good
20. 18 points
21. An assessment using elements of user-technology interface or human factor methods to determine existing functionality of the specified technology is present in full. Discussion is convincing and defines specific elements. Information presented is from scholarly though dated sources.
22. Satisfactory
23. 52 points
24. An assessment using elements of user-technology interface or human factor methods to determine existing functionality of the specified technology is present but at a perfunctory level.
25. Less Than Satisfactory
26. 2 points
27. An assessment using elements of user-technology interface or human factor methods to determine existing functionality of the specified technology is marginal or incomplete.
28. Unsatisfactory
29. 0 points
30. An assessment using elements of user-technology interface or human factor methods to determine existing functionality of the specified technology is not present.
31. List With Support for Three Elements of the Specified Technology That Will Be Used to Evaluate the U
32. 5 points
33. Criteria Description
34. List With Support for Three Elements of the Specified Technology That Will Be Used to Evaluate the User-Technology Interface Using the Course Content
35. Excellent
36. 5 points
37. A list with support of three elements of the specified technology that will be used to evaluate the user-technology interface using the course content is present in full. Discussion is convincing and defines specific elements. Discussion is insightful and forward-thinking. Information presented is from current scholarly sources.
38. Good
39. 18 points
40. A list with support of three elements of the specified technology that will be used to evaluate the user-technology interface using the course content is present in full. Discussion is convincing and defines specific elements. Information presented is from scholarly though dated sources.
41. Satisfactory
42. 52 points
43. A list with support of three elements of the specified technology that will be used to evaluate the user-technology interface using the course content is present but at a perfunctory level.
44. Less Than Satisfactory
45. 2 points
46. A list with support of three elements of the specified technology that will be used to evaluate the user-technology interface using the course content is present but is marginal or incomplete.
47. Unsatisfactory
48. 0 points
49. A list with support of three elements of the specified technology that will be used to evaluate the user-technology interface using the course content is not present.
50. Definition of Each Element of the Specified Technology Identified and Description of How Each Elemen
51. 5 points
52. Criteria Description
53. Definition of Each Element of the Specified Technology Identified and Description of How Each Element Would Be Measured or Evaluated
54. Excellent
55. 5 points
56. A definition of each element of the specified technology identified and a description of how each element would be measured or evaluated are present in full. Discussion is convincing and defines specific elements. Discussion is insightful and forward-thinking. Information presented is from current scholarly sources.
57. Good
58. 18 points
59. A definition of each element of the specified technology identified and a description of how each element would be measured or evaluated are present in full. Discussion is convincing and defines specific elements. Information presented is from scholarly though dated sources.
60. Satisfactory
61. 52 points
62. A definition of each element of the specified technology identified and a description of how each element would be measured or evaluated are present but at a perfunctory level.
63. Less Than Satisfactory
64. 2 points
65. A definition of each element of the specified technology identified and a description of how each element would be measured or evaluated are present but are marginal or incomplete.
66. Unsatisfactory
67. 0 points
68. A definition of each element of the specified technology identified and a description of how each element would be measured or evaluated are not present.
69. Proposal That Employs Support From the Literature to Provide Practicable Suggestions for Improvement
70. 5 points
71. Criteria Description
72. Proposal That Employs Support From the Literature to Provide Practicable Suggestions for Improvement in the Use of Each Element of the Specified Technology
73. Excellent
74. 5 points
75. A proposal that employs support from the literature to provide practicable suggestions for improvement in the use of each element of the specified technology is present in full. Discussion is convincing and defines specific elements. Discussion is insightful and forward-thinking. Information presented is from current scholarly sources.
76. Good
77. 18 points
78. A proposal that employs support from the literature to provide practicable suggestions for improvement in the use of each element of the specified technology is present in full. Discussion is convincing and defines specific elements. Information presented is from scholarly though dated sources.
79. Satisfactory
80. 52 points
81. A proposal that employs support from the literature to provide practicable suggestions for improvement in the use of each element of the specified technology is present but at a perfunctory level.
82. Less Than Satisfactory
83. 2 points
84. A proposal that employs support from the literature to provide practicable suggestions for improvement in the use of each element of the specified technology is present but is marginal or incomplete.

• Unsatisfactory

101. 0 points
102. A proposal that employs support from the literature to provide practicable suggestions for improvement in the use of each element of the specified technology is not present.
103. Purpose
104. 7 points
105. Criteria Description
106. Purpose

• Excellent

108. 7 points
109. Thesis is comprehensive and contains the essence of the paper. Thesis statement makes the purpose of the paper clear.

• Good

111. 08 points
112. Thesis is clear and forecasts the development of the paper. Thesis is descriptive and reflective of the arguments and appropriate to the purpose.

• Satisfactory

114. 78 points
115. Thesis is apparent and appropriate to purpose.

• Less Than Satisfactory

117. 16 points
118. Thesis is insufficiently developed or vague. Purpose is not clear.

• Unsatisfactory

120. 0 points
121. Paper lacks any discernible overall purpose or organizing claim.
122. Argument Logic and Construction
123. 8 points
124. Criteria Description
125. Argument Logic and Construction

• Excellent

127. 8 points
128. Clear and convincing argument that presents a persuasive claim in a distinctive and compelling manner. All sources are authoritative.

• Good

130. 1 points
131. Argument shows logical progressions. Techniques of argumentation are evident. There is a smooth progression of claims from introduction to conclusion. Most sources are authoritative.

• Satisfactory

133. 74 points
134. Argument is orderly, but may have a few inconsistencies. The argument presents minimal justification of claims. Argument logically, but not thoroughly, supports the purpose. Sources used are credible. Introduction and conclusion bracket the thesis.

• Less Than Satisfactory

136. 04 points
137. Sufficient justification of claims is lacking. Argument lacks consistent unity. There are obvious flaws in the logic. Some sources have questionable credibility.

• Unsatisfactory

139. 0 points
140. Statement of purpose is not justified by the conclusion. The conclusion does not support the claim made. Argument is incoherent and uses noncredible sources.
141. Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use)
142. 5 points
143. Criteria Description
144. Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use)

• Excellent

146. 5 points
147. Writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English.

• Good

149. 06 points
150. 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.

• Satisfactory

152. 84 points
153. 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.

• Less Than Satisfactory

155. 4 points
156. 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.

• Unsatisfactory

158. 0 points
159. Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice or sentence construction is used.
160. Paper Format (Use of appropriate style for the major and assignment)
161. 5 points
162. Criteria Description
163. Paper Format (Use of appropriate style for the major and assignment)

• Excellent

165. 5 points
166. All format elements are correct.

• Good

168. 06 points
169. Template is fully used; There are virtually no errors in formatting style.

• Satisfactory

171. 84 points
172. Template is used, and formatting is correct, although some minor errors may be present.

• Less Than Satisfactory

174. 4 points
175. Template is used, but some elements are missing or mistaken; lack of control with formatting is apparent.

• Unsatisfactory

177. 0 points
178. Template is not used appropriately or documentation format is rarely followed correctly.
179. Documentation of Sources
180. 5 points
181. Criteria Description
182. Documentation of Sources (citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc., as appropriate to assignment and style)

• Excellent

184. 5 points
185. Sources are completely and correctly documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is free of error.

• Good

187. 06 points
188. Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is mostly correct.

• Satisfactory

190. 84 points
191. Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, although some formatting errors may be present.

• Less Than Satisfactory

193. 4 points
194. Documentation of sources is inconsistent or incorrect, as appropriate to assignment and style, with numerous formatting errors.

• Unsatisfactory

196. 0 points
197. Sources are not documented.
198. Total 110 points