Assignment 1 Marking Rubrics: Mental Health Assessment and Planning
| CRITERION | HD | D | C | P | N |
| Introduction and Background about the Consumer 10 Marks | Provides excellent and comprehensive background of the consumer that the assessment and planning is focusing on. Provides accurate information about the context that the assessment is taking place. Provides enough information to guide the reader as to the direction of the paper. Provides a clear explanation of how consumer has been de-identified. 10-8 | Provides a very good and comprehensive background of the consumer that the assessment and planning is focusing on. Provides accurate information about the context that the assessment is taking place. Provides enough information to guide the reader as to the direction of the paper. Provides a clear explanation of how consumer has been de-identified. 7-8 | Provides a good and comprehensive background of the consumer that the assessment and planning is focusing on. Provides accurate information about the context that the assessment is taking place. Provides enough information to guide the reader as to the direction of the paper. Provides a clear explanation of how consumer has been de-identified. 7-6 | Provides some information about the background of the consumer that the assessment and planning is focusing on. The information provided about the context of the assessment is vague. There is not enough information provided to guide the reader as to the direction of the paper. Not enough information provided about the process of consumer de-identification. 6-5 | The introduction and background lacks structure. There is little to no information about the consumer, context of assessment or the process of de-identification. 4-0 |
| Evidence Based Assessment 30 Marks | Provides an excellent description of each component of the MSE, links very well with the consumer presentation. Provides a very strong evidence base for the assessment of the individual components of the MSE. Provides an excellent and accurate risk assessment. Excellent and appropriate use of right terminologies with a high degree of precision. Excellent and appropriate interpretation of observations/assessment. Provides clear examples of relevant assessment questions and method used to obtain assessment data. 30-23 | Provides a very good description of each component of the MSE, links very well with the consumer presentation. Provides a strong evidence base for the assessment of the individual components of the MSE. Provides a very good and accurate risk assessment. Very good and appropriate use of right terminologies with a high degree of precision. Very good and appropriate interpretation of observations/assessment. Provides clear examples of relevant assessment questions and method used to obtain assessment data. 23-20 | Provides a good description of each component of the MSE, links well with the consumer presentation. Provides a good evidence base for the assessment of the individual components of the MSE. Provides a good and accurate risk assessment. Good and appropriate use of right terminologies with a good degree of precision. Good and appropriate interpretation of observations/assessment. Provides clear examples of relevant assessment questions and method used to obtain assessment data. 20-17 | The description provided for each component of the MSE is mostly accurate but a weak link with the consumer presentation. Minimal evidence base for the assessment of the individual components of the MSE provided. Risk assessment provided is not well formulated. Some errors in the terminologies used. Average and at times inaccurate interpretation of observations/assessment. Provides minimal examples of relevant assessment questions and method used to obtain assessment data. 17-14 | Poor description provided for each component of the MSE with no clear link with the consumer presentation. No evidence base or inaccurate evidence base for the assessment of the individual components of the MSE provided. Inaccurate Risk assessment. A number of errors in the terminologies used. Poor and inaccurate interpretation of observations/assessment. Provides minimal examples of relevant assessment questions and method used to obtain assessment data. 14-0 |
| Recovery Planning and Formulation 30 Marks | Formulated recovery plan demonstrates an excellent understanding of recovery focused care. Excellent link with the appropriate recovery process. Interventions presented have a high degree of clarity, excellent overall structure and a highly logical sequence to the rationales identified. Demonstrates excellent ability embed interventions within available evidence- based practice. | Formulated recovery plan demonstrates a very good understanding of recovery focused care. Very good link with the appropriate recovery process. Interventions presented have a very good degree of clarity, excellent overall structure and a highly logical sequence to the rationales identified. Demonstrates | Formulated recovery plan demonstrates a good understanding of recovery focused care. Good link with the appropriate recovery process. Interventions presented have a good degree of clarity, very good overall structure and a highly logical sequence to the rationales identified. Demonstrates good | Formulated recovery plan demonstrates a some understanding of recovery focused care. Average attempt to link with the appropriate recovery process. Interventions presented have some degree of clarity, average overall structure. Sometimes incoherent sequence to the rationales identified. Demonstrates some ability embed interventions within available evidence-based practice | Formulated recovery plan demonstrates a poor understanding of recovery focused care. Poor to nil attempt to link with the appropriate recovery process. Interventions presented lacks clarity, poor overall structure. Mostly incoherent sequence to the rationales identified. Lack of ability to embed interventions within available evidence- based practice |
| 10-8 | very good ability embed interventions within available evidence-based practice. 8-7 | ability embed interventions within available evidence-based practice. 7-6 | 6-4 | 4-0 | |
| Clarity of expression (including accuracy, spelling, grammar, punctuation) 5 Marks | Clear and articulate writing style appropriate to assignment. Flows easily and logically. Excellent grammar and spelling. 5-4 | Ideas are clearly articulated. Grammar and spelling accurate. 4-3.5 | Ideas are clearly articulated. Grammar and spelling contain minor errors. 3.5-3 | Shows some attempt to organise in a logical manner. Meaning apparent, but language not always fluent. Grammar and/or spelling contain many errors. 3-2.5 | Disorganised, incoherent. Meaning unclear and/or grammar and/or spelling contain frequent errors. 2.5-0 |
| Referencing using APA 7th ed. 5 Marks | Excellent citation consistent with APA 7th Edition style. References are relevant and accurate. Excellent use variety of sources which are accurately cited. All claims backed up by relevant sources. Utilised high-level sources. 5-4 | Very good citation consistent with APA 7th Edition, however with minor referencing errors. References are relevant to the claims made. Very good variety of sources used. 4-3.5 | Good citation mostly consistent with APA 7th Edition style, contains several referencing errors. Referencing is mainly relevant to claims made. Good variety of sources used. 3.5-3 | Average citation not entirely consistent with APA 7th Edition style. Significant referencing errors. Average quality sources used with over reliance on certain sources and information only websites. 3-2.5 | Citing is absent/unsystematic. Several statements not supported with accurate citation. Very poor-quality sources used. 2.5-0 |
| Sub-total: Penalty: /80 |
