USA: +1(669)289-8683 
Sign in
Benchmark
– Outcome and Process Measures
Upcoming
Rubric
View Rubric
Assessment Traits
Benchmark
Requires Lopeswrite
Assessment Description
In a 1,000-1,250-word paper, consider the outcome and process measures that can be used for CQI. Include the following in your essay:
1. At least two process measures that can be used for CQI.
2. At least one outcome measure that can be used for CQI.
3. A description of why each measure was chosen.
4. An explanation of how data would be collected for each (how each will be measured).
5. An explanation of how success would be determined.
6. One or two data-driven, cost-effective solutions to this challenge.
Use a minimum of three peer-reviewed scholarly references as evidence.
Prepare this assignment according to the guidelines found in the APA Style Guide, located in the Student Success Center.
This assignment uses a rubric. Please review the rubric prior to beginning the assignment to become familiar with the expectations for successful completion.
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.
Benchmark Information
This benchmark assignment assesses the following programmatic competency:
MSN Leadership in Health Care Systems
6.5: Generate data-driven, cost-effective solutions to organizational challenges.
Benchmark – Outcome and Process Measures – Rubric
Process Measures 13.2 points
Criteria Description
Process Measures
5. Target 13.2 points
Two process measures are present.
4. Acceptable 12.14 points
NA
3. Approaching 11.62 points
NA
2. Insufficient 10.56 points
Two process measures are incomplete or
not applicable.
1. Unsatisfactory 0 points
Two process measures are not present.
Outcome Measures 13.2 points
Criteria Description
Outcome Measures
5. Target 13.2 points
One outcome measure is present.
4. Acceptable 12.14 points
NA
3. Approaching 11.62 points
NA
Collapse All
2. Insufficient 10.56 points
One outcome measure is incomplete or not applicable.
1. Unsatisfactory 0 points
One outcome measure is not present.
Description of Why Each Measure Was Chosen 14.4 points
Criteria Description
Description of Why Each Measure Was Chosen
5. Target 14.4 points
A description of why each measure was chosen is present and
thorough.
4. Acceptable 13.25 points
A description of why each measure was chosen is present and
detailed.
3. Approaching 12.67 points
A description of why each measure was chosen is present.
2. Insufficient 11.52 points
A description of why each measure was chosen is present, but lacks detail or is
incomplete.
1. Unsatisfactory 0 points
A description of why each measure was chosen is not present.
Explanation of How Data Would Be Collected for Each Measure 14.4 points
Criteria Description
Explanation of How Data Would Be Collected for Each Measure
5. Target 14.4 points
An explanation of how data would be collected for each measure is present and
thorough.
4. Acceptable 13.25 points
An explanation of how data would be collected for each measure is present and
detailed.
3. Approaching 12.67 points
An explanation of how data would be collected for each measure is present.
2. Insufficient 11.52 points
An explanation of how data would be collected for each measure is present, but
lacks detail or
is incomplete.
Explanation of How Success Would Be Determined 14.4 points
Criteria Description
Explanation of How Success Would Be Determined
5. Target 14.4 points
An explanation of how success would be determined is present and thorough.
4. Acceptable 13.25 points
An explanation of how success would be determined is present and detailed.
3. Approaching 12.67 points
An explanation of how success would be determined is present.
2. Insufficient 11.52 points
An explanation of how success would be determined is present, but lacks detail or
is incomplete.
1. Unsatisfactory 0 points
An explanation of how success would be determined is not present.
Data Driven, Cost-E�ective Solutions (C6.5.) 14.4 points
Criteria Description
Data Driven, Cost-Effective Solutions (C6.5.)
5. Target 14.4 points
One or two data-driven, cost-effective solutions to this challenge are present and
thorough. Solutions provided are appropriate for the task.
4. Acceptable 13.25 points
One or two data-driven, cost-effective solutions to this challenge are detailed.
3. Approaching 12.67 points
One or two data-driven, cost-effective solutions to this challenge are present.
2. Insufficient 11.52 points
One or two data-driven, cost-effective solutions to this challenge are incomplete or
not applicable.
1. Unsatisfactory 0 points
Scholarly Sources 6 points
Criteria Description
5. Target 6 points
A minimum of three peer-reviewed, scholarly sources are present. Sources are
distinctive and address
all of the requirements stated in the assignment criteria.
4. Acceptable 5.52 points
A minimum of three peer-reviewed, scholarly sources are present. Sources address
all of the requirements stated in the assignment criteria.
3. Approaching 5.28 points
A minimum of three peer-reviewed, scholarly sources are present.
2. Insufficient 4.8 points
Two or three peer-reviewed, sources are present, but are not scholarly. Limited
research is present.
1. Unsatisfactory 0 points
Peer-reviewed, scholarly sources are not present.
Thesis Development and Purpose 8.4 points
Criteria Description
Thesis Development and Purpose
5. Target 8.4 points
Thesis is comprehensive and contains the essence of the paper. Thesis statement
makes the purpose of the paper clear.
4. Acceptable 7.73 points
Thesis is clear and forecasts the development of the paper. Thesis is descriptive and
reflective of the arguments and appropriate to the purpose.
3. Approaching 7.39 points
Thesis is apparent and appropriate to purpose.
2. Insufficient 6.72 points
Thesis is insufficiently developed or vague. Purpose is not clear.
1. Unsatisfactory 0 points
Paper lacks any discernible overall purpose or organizing claim.
Argument Logic and Construction 9.6 points
Criteria Description
Argument Logic and Construction
5. Target 9.6 points
Clear and convincing argument that presents a persuasive claim in a distinctive and
compelling manner. All
sources are authoritative.
4. Acceptable 8.83 points
Argument shows logical progressions. Techniques of argumentation are evident.
There is a smooth progression of claims from introduction to conclusion. Most
sources are authoritative.
3. Approaching 8.45 points
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.
2. Insufficient 7.68 points
Sufficient justification of claims is lacking. Argument lacks consistent unity. There
are obvious flaws in the logic. Some sources have questionable credibility.
1. Unsatisfactory 0 points
Mechanics of Writing 6 points
Criteria Description
Includes spelling, capitalization, punctuation, grammar, language use, sentence
structure, etc.
5. Target 6 points
No mechanical errors are present. Skilled control of language choice and sentence
structure are used throughout.
4. Acceptable 5.52 points
Few mechanical errors are present. Suitable language choice and sentence
structure are used.
3. Approaching 5.28 points
Occasional mechanical errors are present. Language choice is generally
appropriate. Varied sentence structure is attempted.
2. Insufficient 4.8 points
Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors are present. Inconsistencies in language
choice or sentence structure are recurrent.
Format/Documentation 6 points
Criteria Description
Uses appropriate style, such as APA, MLA, etc., for college, subject, and level;
documents sources using citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc.,
5. Target 6 points
No errors in formatting or documentation are present. Selectivity in the use of
direct quotations and synthesis of sources is demonstrated.
4. Acceptable 5.52 points
Appropriate format and documentation are used with only minor
errors.
3. Approaching 5.28 points
Appropriate format and documentation are used, although there are some obvious
errors.
2. Insufficient 4.8 points
Appropriate format is attempted, but some elements are missing. Frequent errors
in documentation of sources are evident.
1 Unsatisfactory 0 points
Total 120 points
