IOM Future Of Nursing Report

A clear and accurate description of the work of the Robert Wood Foundation Committee Initiative that led to the IOM report is presented.

A description of the work of the Robert Wood Foundation Committee Initiative that led to the IOM report is presented. There are slight inaccuracies.

A summary of the work of the Robert Wood Foundation Committee Initiative that led to the IOM report is presented. There are inaccuracies or misinterpretations.

An incomplete description of the work of the Robert Wood Foundation Committee Initiative that led to the IOM report is presented.

A description of the work of the Robert Wood Foundation Committee Initiative that led to the IOM report is omitted.

The four key messages that structure the IOM report are clearly outlined. A description of how these transformed nursing practice, nursing education and training, nursing leadership, and nursing workforce development are thoroughly discussed.

The four key messages that structure the IOM report are outlined. A description of how these transformed key aspects of nursing is presented.

The four key messages that structure the IOM report are generally outlined. A summary of how these transformed some aspects of nursing is presented, but there are some inaccuracies.

Fewer than four key messages are presented, and the messages contain inaccuracies. An incomplete discussion on how they transformed nursing is presented.

The four key messages are omitted.

The role of state-based action coalitions is thoroughly discussed. A detailed and accurate discussion of how they help advance the goals in the IOM report is presented.

The role of state-based action coalitions is discussed. A discussion of how they help advance the goals in the IOM report is presented.

The role of state-based action coalitions is summarized. A summary of how they help advance the goals in the IOM report is presented.

The role of state-based action coalitions is incomplete. It is unclear how these advance the goals in the IOM report.

The role of state-based action coalitions is omitted.

Two initiatives spearheaded by a state action coalition and how they advance the nursing profession are thoroughly discussed. The discussion demonstrates a clear understanding of the state action committee and the role in advancing the nursing profession.

Two initiatives spearheaded by a state action coalition and how they advance the nursing profession are discussed.

Two initiatives spearheaded by a state action coalition are summarized. How these initiatives advance the nursing profession are generally discussed. There are some inaccuracies.

Only one initiative spearheaded by a state action coalition is presented. The narrative contains omissions and inaccuracies. How these initiatives advance the nursing profession are incomplete.

Initiatives spearheaded by a state action coalition are omitted.

Barriers to advancement that currently exist in the state are thoroughly explored and how nursing advocates in the state overcome barriers are thoroughly described.

Barriers to advancement that currently exist in the state and how nursing advocates in the state overcome barriers are described.

Barriers to advancement that currently exist in the state are presented. How nursing advocates in the state overcome barriers is summarized. There are inaccuracies, or more information is needed.

Barriers to advancement that currently exist in the state are unclear. How nursing advocates in the state overcome barriers is incomplete.

Barriers to advancement that currently exist in the state are omitted. How nursing advocates in the state overcome barriers is omitted.

Thesis is comprehensive and contains the essence of the paper. Thesis statement makes the purpose of the paper clear.

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

Thesis is apparent and appropriate to purpose.

Thesis is insufficiently developed or vague. Purpose is not clear.

Paper lacks any discernible overall purpose or organizing claim.

Clear and convincing argument presents a persuasive claim in a distinctive and compelling manner. All sources are authoritative.

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

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.

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

Statement of purpose is not justified by the conclusion. The conclusion does not support the claim made. Argument is incoherent and uses noncredible sources.

Writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English.

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.

Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but they are not overly distracting to the reader. Correct sentence structure and audience-appropriate language are used.

Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistencies in language choice (register), sentence structure, or word choice are present.

Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice or sentence construction is used.

All format elements are correct.

Appropriate template is fully used. There are virtually no errors in formatting style.

Appropriate template is used. Formatting is correct, although some minor errors may be present.

Appropriate template is used, but some elements are missing or mistaken. A lack of control with formatting is apparent.

Template is not used appropriately, or documentation format is rarely followed correctly.

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

Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is mostly correct.

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

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

Sources are not documented.