Final Project Rubric
Guidelines for Submission: Your theoretical analysis should be 10 to 15 pages in length with double spacing. Use APA style for formatting and citations. Your paper must utilize a minimum of ten scholarly resources, including primary resources from your selected theorist.

Instructor Feedback: This activity uses an integrated rubric in Blackboard. Students can view instructor feedback in the Grade Center. For more information, review these instructions.

Critical Elements Exemplary (100%) Proficient (90%) Needs Improvement (70%) Not Evident (0%) Value
Background: Historical Overview Meets “Proficient” criteria and the overview shows keen insight into historical details that were influential for the theorist Provides a historical overview of the selected theorist, including relevant biographical information and historical events that influenced the theorist Provides a historical overview of the selected theorist, but the overview is cursory or contains inaccuracies Does not provide a historical overview of the selected theorist 6.4
Background: Historical Development Meets “Proficient” criteria and analysis demonstrates a nuanced understanding of the development of the theory Analyzes the historical development of the theory based on the context of the theorist and supports with relevant research Analyzes the historical development of the theory based on the context of the theorist, but analysis is not supported by relevant research, is cursory, or contains inaccuracies Does not analyze the historical development of the theory 6.4

Background: Key Concepts Meets “Proficient” criteria and shows a keen ability to clearly articulate the key concepts of the personality psychology theory as conceived by the theorist Articulates the key concepts of the theory and supports response with relevant research Articulates the key concepts of the chosen theory, but response is unclear, is not supported with relevant research, or contains inaccuracies Does not articulate the key concepts of the theory 6.4
Background: How the Theory Is Used Today Meets “Proficient” criteria and discussion draws cogent connections between the initial application of the theory and its current use Discusses how theory is used today, identifying key differences from its initial application Discusses how theory is used today, identifying differences from its initial application, but response is cursory or contains inaccuracies Does not discuss how theory is used today or identify differences from its initial application 6.4
Evaluation: Position Statement Meets “Proficient” criteria and rationale establishes especially pertinent support for position on the theory’s continued relevance in personality psychology Develops a position statement regarding the theory’s continued relevance in personality psychology today, supported by rationale Develops a position statement regarding the theory’s continued relevance in personality psychology today, but statement is cursory or rationale contains gaps in logic or accuracy Does not develop a position statement regarding the theory’s continued relevance in personality psychology 6.4
Evaluation: Validity and Accuracy Meets “Proficient” criteria and examples are especially well- suited to supporting evaluation of the validity and accuracy of secondary research Evaluates, using specific examples, the validity and accuracy of secondary research that uses the theory, explaining how research supports position statement Evaluates the validity and accuracy of secondary research that uses the theory, but explanation is illogical or evaluation contains gaps in accuracy or support Does not evaluate the validity and accuracy of secondary research that uses the theory 6.4
Evaluation: Cultural Perspectives Meets “Proficient” criteria and sources cited are especially well- suited to supporting the evaluation of the theory’s appropriateness for a range of cultural perspectives in its contemporary use Evaluates, using relevant sources, the theory’s appropriateness for
a range of cultural perspectives, explaining how this supports position statement Evaluates the appropriateness of the theory for a range of cultural perspectives, but explanation is illogical or evaluation contains gaps in accuracy or support Does not evaluate appropriateness of the theory for a range of cultural perspectives 6.4
Evaluation: Alternative Theoretical Positions Meets “Proficient” criteria and draws nuanced connections between the chosen theory and alternatives Compares the theory to alternative theoretical positions currently used by researchers in personality psychology Compares the theory to alternative theoretical positions currently used by researchers in personality psychology but comparison is cursory or contains inaccuracies Does not compare the theory to alternative theoretical positions 6.4

Evaluation: Challenge Meets “Proficient” criteria and examples are especially well- suited to supporting assessment of challenges posed by alternative positions in personality psychology Assesses, using specific examples from published research, the extent to which alternative positions challenge the validity, weaknesses, or biases of theory Assesses the extent to which alternative positions challenge the validity, weaknesses, or biases of the chosen theory, but assessment is illogical, lacks support, or contains inaccuracies Does not assess the extent to which alternative positions challenge the theory 6.4
Evaluation: Defend Against the Challenges Meets “Proficient” criteria and research incorporated is especially supportive of theory defense Defends the contemporary use of the theory against the specific challenges identified, supporting with relevant research Defends the contemporary use of the theory against the specific challenges identified, but does not support claims with relevant research or defense is cursory or illogical Does not defend the contemporary use of the theory against the challenges identified 6.4
Evaluation: Apply Meets “Proficient” criteria and research is especially well-suited to illustrating the applicability of the theory to the problem or phenomenon Applies selected theory in explaining a real-world problem or phenomenon, citing relevant research Applies selected theory in explaining a real-world problem or phenomenon, but does not cite relevant research or response is illogical or contains inaccuracies Does not apply selected theory in explaining a real-world problem or phenomenon 6.4
Evaluation: Solutions Meets “Proficient” criteria and assessment shows a sophisticated grasp of the solutions offered by published secondary research Assesses published secondary research for solutions with the potential to address the chosen problem or phenomenon Assesses published secondary research for solutions to address the chosen problem or phenomenon, but assessment is cursory or contains inaccuracies Does not assess published secondary research for solutions to address the chosen problem or phenomenon 6.4
Evaluation: Contemporary Relevance Meets “Proficient” criteria and explanation draws cogent connections between the application and the larger contemporary relevance of the theory Explains how this application relates to the theory’s larger contemporary relevance Explains how this application relates to the theory’s larger contemporary relevance but explanation is cursory or illogical or contains inaccuracies Does not explain how this application relates to the theory’s larger contemporary relevance 6.4
Conclusion: Summary Meets “Proficient” criteria and summary masterfully places the theory’s use in context Summarizes the changing use of the theory over time, including how its use compares with other theories in personality psychology Summarizes the changing use of the theory over time, but summary is lacking in detail or contains inaccuracies Does not summarize the changing use of the theory over time 6.4

Conclusion: Relevance of the Theory Meets “Proficient” criteria and conclusions drawn demonstrate an especially well-supported synthesis of the theoretical analysis Draws conclusions on the relevance of the theory moving forward based on the analysis Draws conclusions on the relevance of the theory moving forward, but conclusions are not based on analysis or contain inaccuracies Does not draw conclusions on the relevance of the theory moving forward 6.4
Articulation of Response Submission is free of errors related to citations, grammar, spelling, syntax, and organization and is presented in a professional and easy-to-read format Submission has no major errors related to citations, grammar, spelling, syntax, or organization Submission has major errors related to citations, grammar, spelling, syntax, or organization that negatively impact readability and articulation of main ideas Submission has critical errors related to citations, grammar, spelling, syntax, or organization that prevent understanding of ideas 4
Total 100%

BEST-ESSAY-WRITERS-ONLINE

ORDER A SIMILAR ESSAY WRITTEN FROM SCRATCH at : https://www.nursingessayhub.com/

PLACE YOUR ORDER