Fill in Order Details

  • Submit paper details for free using our simple order form

Make Payment Securely

  • Add funds to your account. There are no upfront payments. The writer will only be paid once you have approved your paper

Writing Process

  • The best qualified expert writer is assigned to work on your order
  • Your paper is written to standard and delivered as per your instructions

Download your paper

  • Download the completed paper from your online account or your email
  • You can request a plagiarism and quality report along with your paper
Posted on by admin

mental health screenings for women examples of screening tools and how they are used

Mental health screenings for Women (examples of screening tools and how they are used)

  • Review this week’s media presentation, as well as Chapters 6 and 8 of the Tharpe et al. text and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services article in the Learning Resources.
  • Use guidelines on screening for the following topics and reflect on strengths and limitations of the screening guidelines.
  • Consider how the guidelines might support your clinical decision making.
  • Research guidelines on screening procedures for the topic assigned to you by the course Instructor (e.g., guidelines on screening for domestic violence, safety, nutrition, osteoporosis, heart disease, mental health, eating disorders, thyroid disease, pap smear, mammogram, cancer, and sexually transmitted infections). Note: The course Instructor will assign a topic to you by Day 1 of this week.
  • Reflect on strengths and limitations of the screening guidelines.
  • Consider how the guidelines might support your clinical decision making.

Post an explanation of the guidelines on screening procedures for the topic assigned to you. Include an explanation of strengths and limitations of the guidelines. Then, explain how the guidelines might support your clinical decision making.

http://mym.cdn.laureate-media.com/2dett4d/Walden/N…https://class.content.laureate.net/cbeb13986072869…

2-3 pages. APA. at least 3 references.

https://www.hhs.gov/programs/prevention-and-wellne…

Rubric Detail

Select Grid View or List View to change the rubric’s layout.

Content

Name: NURS_6551_Week2_Discussion_Rubric

Outstanding Performance Excellent Performance Competent Performance Proficient Performance Room for Improvement
Main Posting:

Response to the discussion question is reflective with critical

analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the

course readings for the module and current credible sources.

Points:

Points Range: 44 (44%) – 44 (44%)

Thoroughly responds to the discussion question(s)

is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources.

supported by at least 3 current, credible sources

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range: 40 (40%) – 43 (43%)

Responds to the discussion question(s)

is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.

75% of post has exceptional depth and breadth

supported by at least 3 credible references

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range: 35 (35%) – 39 (39%)

Responds to most of the discussion question(s)

is somewhat reflective with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.

50% of post has exceptional depth and breadth

supported by at least 3 credible references

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range: 31 (31%) – 34 (34%)

Responds to some of the discussion question(s)

one to two criteria are not addressed or are superficially addressed

is somewhat lacking reflection and critical analysis and synthesis

somewhat represents knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.

post is cited with fewer than 2 credible references

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range: 0 (0%) – 30 (30%)

Does not respond to the discussion question(s)

lacks depth or superficially addresses criteria

lacks reflection and critical analysis and synthesis

does not represent knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.

contains only 1 or no credible references

Feedback:

Main Posting:
Writing

Points:

Points Range: 6 (6%) – 6 (6%)

Written clearly and concisely

Contains no grammatical or spelling errors

Fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range: 5.5 (5.5%) – 5.5 (5.5%)

Written clearly and concisely

May contain one or no grammatical or spelling error

Adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range: 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)

Written concisely

May contain one to two grammatical or spelling error

Adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range: 4.5 (4.5%) – 4.5 (4.5%)

Written somewhat concisely

May contain more than two spelling or grammatical errors

Contains some APA formatting errors

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range: 0 (0%) – 4 (4%)

Not written clearly or concisely

Contains more than two spelling or grammatical errors

Does not adhere to current APA manual writing rules and style

Feedback:

Main Posting:
Timely and full participation

Points:

Points Range: 10 (10%) – 10 (10%)

Meets requirements for timely and full participation

posts main discussion by due date

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)

NA

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)

NA

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)

NA

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)

Does not meet requirement for full participation

Feedback:

First Response:

Post to colleague’s main post that is reflective and justified with credible sources.

Points:

Points Range: 9 (9%) – 9 (9%)

Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings

responds to questions posed by faculty

the use of scholarly sources to support ideas demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range: 8.5 (8.5%) – 8.5 (8.5%)

Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range: 7.5 (7.5%) – 8 (8%)

Response has some depth and may exhibit critical thinking or application to practice setting

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range: 6.5 (6.5%) – 7 (7%)

Response is on topic, may have some depth

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range: 0 (0%) – 6 (6%)

Response may not be on topic, lacks depth

Feedback:

First Response:
Writing

Points:

Points Range: 6 (6%) – 6 (6%)

Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues

Response to faculty questions are fully answered if posed

Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources

Response is effectively written in Standard Edited English

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range: 5.5 (5.5%) – 5.5 (5.5%)

Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues

Response to faculty questions are answered if posed

Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources

Response is effectively written in Standard Edited English

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range: 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)

Communication is mostly professional and respectful to colleagues

Response to faculty questions are mostly answered if posed

Provides opinions and ideas that are supported by few credible sources

Response is written in Standard Edited English

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range: 4.5 (4.5%) – 4.5 (4.5%)

Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication

Response to faculty questions are somewhat answered if posed

Few or no credible sources are cited

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range: 0 (0%) – 4 (4%)

Responses posted in the discussion lack effective

Response to faculty questions are missing

No credible sources are cited

Feedback:

First Response:
Timely and full participation

Points:

Points Range: 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)

Meets requirements for timely and full participation

posts by due date

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)

NA

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)

NA

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)

NA

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)

Does not meet requirement for full participation

Feedback:

Second Response:
Post to colleague’s main post that is reflective and justified with credible sources.

Points:

Points Range: 9 (9%) – 9 (9%)

Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings * responds to questions posed by faculty

the use of scholarly sources to support ideas demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range: 8.5 (8.5%) – 8.5 (8.5%)

Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range: 7.5 (7.5%) – 8 (8%)

Response has some depth and may exhibit critical thinking or application to practice setting

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range: 6.5 (6.5%) – 7 (7%)

Response is on topic, may have some depth

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range: 0 (0%) – 6 (6%)

Response may not be on topic, lacks depth

Feedback:

Second Response:
Writing

Points:

Points Range: 6 (6%) – 6 (6%)

Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues

Response to faculty questions are fully answered if posed

Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources

Response is effectively written in Standard Edited English

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range: 5.5 (5.5%) – 5.5 (5.5%)

Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues

Response to faculty questions are answered if posed

Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources

Response is effectively written in Standard Edited English

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range: 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)

Communication is mostly professional and respectful to colleagues

Response to faculty questions are mostly answered if posed

Provides opinions and ideas that are supported by few credible sources

Response is written in Standard Edited English

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range: 4.5 (4.5%) – 4.5 (4.5%)

Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication

Response to faculty questions are somewhat answered if posed

Few or no credible sources are cited

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range: 0 (0%) – 4 (4%)

Responses posted in the discussion lack effective

Response to faculty questions are missing

No credible sources are cited

Feedback:

Second Response:
Timely and full participation

Points:

Points Range: 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)

Meets requirements for timely and full participation

Posts by due date

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)

NA

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)

NA

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)

NA

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)

Does not meet requirement for full participation

Feedback:

Main Posting:
Response to the discussion question is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources.—

Levels of Achievement:

44
(44%) – 44
(44%)

Thoroughly responds to the discussion question(s)

is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources.

supported by at least 3 current, credible sources

40 (40%) – 43 (43%)

Responds to the discussion question(s)

is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.

75% of post has exceptional depth and breadth

supported by at least 3 credible references

35 (35%) – 39 (39%)

Responds to most of the discussion question(s)

is somewhat reflective with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.

50% of post has exceptional depth and breadth

supported by at least 3 credible references

31 (31%) – 34 (34%)

Responds to some of the discussion question(s)

one to two criteria are not addressed or are superficially addressed

is somewhat lacking reflection and critical analysis and synthesis

somewhat represents knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.

post is cited with fewer than 2 credible references

0 (0%) – 30 (30%)

Does not respond to the discussion question(s)

lacks depth or superficially addresses criteria

lacks reflection and critical analysis and synthesis

does not represent knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.

contains only 1 or no credible references

Feedback:

Main Posting:
Writing—

Levels of Achievement:

6
(6%) – 6
(6%)

Written clearly and concisely

Contains no grammatical or spelling errors

Fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style

5.5 (5.5%) – 5.5 (5.5%)

Written clearly and concisely

May contain one or no grammatical or spelling error

Adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style

5 (5%) – 5 (5%)

Written concisely

May contain one to two grammatical or spelling error

Adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style

4.5 (4.5%) – 4.5 (4.5%)

Written somewhat concisely

May contain more than two spelling or grammatical errors

Contains some APA formatting errors

0 (0%) – 4 (4%)

Not written clearly or concisely

Contains more than two spelling or grammatical errors

Does not adhere to current APA manual writing rules and style

Feedback:

Main Posting:
Timely and full participation—

Levels of Achievement:

10
(10%) – 10
(10%)

Meets requirements for timely and full participation

posts main discussion by due date

0 (0%) – 0 (0%)

NA

0 (0%) – 0 (0%)

NA

0 (0%) – 0 (0%)

NA

0 (0%) – 0 (0%)

Does not meet requirement for full participation

Feedback:

First Response:

Post to colleague’s main post that is reflective and justified with credible sources.—

Levels of Achievement:

9
(9%) – 9
(9%)

Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings

responds to questions posed by faculty

the use of scholarly sources to support ideas demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives

8.5 (8.5%) – 8.5 (8.5%)

Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings

7.5 (7.5%) – 8 (8%)

Response has some depth and may exhibit critical thinking or application to practice setting

6.5 (6.5%) – 7 (7%)

Response is on topic, may have some depth

0 (0%) – 6 (6%)

Response may not be on topic, lacks depth

Feedback:

First Response:
Writing—

Levels of Achievement:

6
(6%) – 6
(6%)

Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues

Response to faculty questions are fully answered if posed

Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources

Response is effectively written in Standard Edited English

5.5 (5.5%) – 5.5 (5.5%)

Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues

Response to faculty questions are answered if posed

Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources

Response is effectively written in Standard Edited English

5 (5%) – 5 (5%)

Communication is mostly professional and respectful to colleagues

Response to faculty questions are mostly answered if posed

Provides opinions and ideas that are supported by few credible sources

Response is written in Standard Edited English

4.5 (4.5%) – 4.5 (4.5%)

Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication

Response to faculty questions are somewhat answered if posed

Few or no credible sources are cited

0 (0%) – 4 (4%)

Responses posted in the discussion lack effective

Response to faculty questions are missing

No credible sources are cited

Feedback:

First Response:
Timely and full participation—

Levels of Achievement:

5
(5%) – 5
(5%)

Meets requirements for timely and full participation

posts by due date

0 (0%) – 0 (0%)

NA

0 (0%) – 0 (0%)

NA

0 (0%) – 0 (0%)

NA

0 (0%) – 0 (0%)

Does not meet requirement for full participation

Feedback:

Second Response:
Post to colleague’s main post that is reflective and justified with credible sources.—

Levels of Achievement:

9
(9%) – 9
(9%)

Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings * responds to questions posed by faculty

the use of scholarly sources to support ideas demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives

8.5 (8.5%) – 8.5 (8.5%)

Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings

7.5 (7.5%) – 8 (8%)

Response has some depth and may exhibit critical thinking or application to practice setting

6.5 (6.5%) – 7 (7%)

Response is on topic, may have some depth

0 (0%) – 6 (6%)

Response may not be on topic, lacks depth

Feedback:

Second Response:
Writing—

Levels of Achievement:

6
(6%) – 6
(6%)

Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues

Response to faculty questions are fully answered if posed

Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources

Response is effectively written in Standard Edited English

5.5 (5.5%) – 5.5 (5.5%)

Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues

Response to faculty questions are answered if posed

Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources

Response is effectively written in Standard Edited English

ORDER A SIMILAR PAPER AND DELEGATE FULFILMENT OF YOUR ASSIGNMENT TO EXPERT ACADEMIC WRITERS. PLAGIARISM-FREE, GUARANTEED A, TIMELY DELIVERY.

strategic planning visioning session

WHAT OUR CURRENT CUSTOMERS SAY

  • Google
  • Sitejabber
  • Trustpilot
Zahraa S
Zahraa S
Absolutely spot on. I have had the best experience with Elite Academic Research and all my work have scored highly. Thank you for your professionalism and using expert writers with vast and outstanding knowledge in their fields. I highly recommend any day and time.
Stuart L
Stuart L
Thanks for keeping me sane for getting everything out of the way, I’ve been stuck working more than full time and balancing the rest but I’m glad you’ve been ensuring my school work is taken care of. I'll recommend Elite Academic Research to anyone who seeks quality academic help, thank you so much!
Mindi D
Mindi D
Brilliant writers and awesome support team. You can tell by the depth of research and the quality of work delivered that the writers care deeply about delivering that perfect grade.
Samuel Y
Samuel Y
I really appreciate the work all your amazing writers do to ensure that my papers are always delivered on time and always of the highest quality. I was at a crossroads last semester and I almost dropped out of school because of the many issues that were bombarding but I am glad a friend referred me to you guys. You came up big for me and continue to do so. I just wish I knew about your services earlier.
Cindy L
Cindy L
You can't fault the paper quality and speed of delivery. I have been using these guys for the past 3 years and I not even once have they ever failed me. They deliver properly researched papers way ahead of time. Each time I think I have had the best their professional writers surprise me with even better quality work. Elite Academic Research is a true Gem among essay writing companies.
Got an A and plagiarism percent was less than 10%! Thanks!
prevnext

ORDER NOW

CategoriesUncategorized

Consider Your Assignments Done

“All my friends and I are getting help from eliteacademicresearch. It’s every college student’s best kept secret!”

Jermaine Byrant
BSN

“I was apprehensive at first. But I must say it was a great experience and well worth the price. I got an A!”

Nicole Johnson
Finance & Economics

ORDER NOW

Our Top Experts

See Why Our Clients Hire Us Again And Again!


OVER

10.3k
Reviews

RATING
4.89/5
Average

YEARS
13
Mastery

Success Guarantee

When you order form the best, some of your greatest problems as a student are solved!

Reliable

Professional

Affordable

Quick

See our Results

ORDER YOUR ASSIGNMENT NOW

Using this writing service is legal and is not prohibited by any law, university or college policies. Services of Elite Academic Research are provided for research and study purposes only with the intent to help students improve their writing and academic experience. We do not condone or encourage cheating, academic dishonesty, or any form of plagiarism. Our original, plagiarism-free, zero-AI expert samples should only be used as references. It is your responsibility to cite any outside sources appropriately. This service will be useful for students looking for quick, reliable, and efficient online class-help on a variety of topics.