Assessment 4: Project Plan and Evaluation (45%) Submission date: Midnight, Wednesday 14 June 2017 Word limit: 2,500 words Assessment 4 is the culmination of the research that you have done throughout the semester. This final assessment requires you to draw on what you have done in Assessment 2 and 3 to propose an evidence-based solution to your public health issue. You will also need to develop and justify a way of evaluating your proposed solution. You will need to provide a strong justification for each decision you make, based on all you have learnt throughout the semester. For your proposed solution:  Present a convincing argument that the health issue warrants a public health intervention by summarising the magnitude of the public health issue, identifying the at-risk population(s), and outlining the issue’s risk factors and/or enablers (10%)  Identify the population targets, goal, and objectives for your proposed intervention (10%)  Critically appraise the current intervention evidence base to address your health issue, including identifying gaps and limitations (15%) [note: this section of the assignment requires you to conduct a systematic literature search and review of the literature*]  Propose your intervention design, providing rationale underpinned by evidence, prevention and health promotion values and principles and/or theoretical frameworks, where relevant (25%)  Present an evidence-based evaluation design for your proposed intervention, including setting appropriate indicators and measurement methods (20%) You will also be assessed on your ability to write using appropriate academic structure and style (10%). *Literature search: you will need to produce a 1-page summary as an attachment (not included in the word count), documenting your literature search strategy conducted for this assessment (10%). The literature search strategy template can be downloaded from the Assessments page within Blackboard. The following pages provide further details on the standard expected for each of the criteria. Please also adhere to the ‘Guide for completing Assessments 2, 3, and 4’ on Page 15 of this document. 10 11 Assessment rubric for Assessment 4 FAIL PASS CREDIT DISTINCTION HIGH DISTINCTION Present a convincing argument that the health issue warrants a public health intervention (10%) Description of the magnitude of the public health issue is limited, confusing, or inaccurate. Discussion of the risk factors/enablers is very limited or not present. Presents a very weak or illogical argument for intervention. Lacks appropriate references. Describes the magnitude of the public health issue and identifies the at-risk populations and contributing risk factors/enablers. Argument for intervention is reasonable but could be strengthened. Supported by some appropriate but limited references. Summarises the magnitude of the public health issue and briefly describes the at-risk populations and contributing risk factors/enablers. Draws on this summary to present a reasonable argument for intervention. Supported by some appropriate but limited references. Concisely summarises the magnitude of the public health issue and briefly describes the at-risk population(s) and contributing risk factors/enablers that are influential and amenable to change. Draws on this summary to present a strong argument for intervention. Argument is well supported by appropriate references. Concisely summarises the magnitude of the public health issue and briefly discusses the at-risk population(s) and contributing risk factors/enablers that are influential and amenable to change. Draws on this summary to present a very strong argument for intervention, including highlighting any critical strengths or limitations. Argument is well supported by appropriate references. References show evidence of wider reading. Identify the population targets, goal, and objectives for your proposed intervention (10%) Identifies an inappropriate goal, associated objectives, and/or target population. Clarity of the goal and objectives is very poor. Identifies an appropriate goal and associated objectives. Clarity and/or the link between the objectives and the overarching goal could be improved. The selected population is appropriate. Justification for goal, objectives, and population is logical but may be indirect or limited. Identifies an appropriate goal and associated objectives. Some minor issues around clarity of the goal and/or objectives. The objectives clearly relate to the overarching goal. The selected population(s) is appropriate. Goal, objectives, and population are reasonably well justified by the student’s argument for intervention. Identifies an appropriate goal and associated objectives. Goal and objectives are generally easy to understand. The objectives clearly relate to the overarching goal. The selected population(s) is appropriate. Goal, objectives, and population are clearly justified by the student’s argument for intervention. Identifies an appropriate, well-constructed, and easily understood goal and associated objectives. The objectives clearly relate to and underpin the achievement of the overarching goal. The selected population(s) is appropriate. Goal, objectives, and population are clearly justified by the student’s argument for intervention. Critically appraise the current intervention evidence base to address your health issue (15%) Outlines the evidence base for the intervention. No or weak link to argument for intervention and/or the stated goal, objectives, and target population. Lacks appropriate references. Describes the evidence base for the intervention. Indirect links to argument for intervention and the stated goal, objectives, and target population. Supported by some appropriate but limited references. Discusses the evidence base for the intervention. Clear links to argument for intervention and the stated goal, objectives, and target population. Supported by some appropriate but limited references. Critically analyses the evidence base for the intervention as a whole. Clear links to argument for intervention and the stated goal, objectives, and target population. Identifies any gaps and limitations in the evidence Presents a thorough critical analysis of the evidence base for the intervention as a whole. Explicit and wellfounded links to argument for intervention and the stated goal, objectives, and target population. Discusses gaps 12 FAIL PASS CREDIT DISTINCTION HIGH DISTINCTION base. Argument is well supported by references. and limitations in the evidence base. Argument is well supported by references. References show evidence of wider reading. Propose an intervention, providing rationale underpinned by evidence, health promotion principles and values, and/or theoretical frameworks, where relevant (25%) Proposes a weak, unclear, or irrelevant intervention or one with no or very weak justification. The links between the student’s critique of the evidence base and the proposed intervention are very unclear. Inappropriate values and principles and/or theoretical frameworks may be identified. Lacks appropriate references. Proposes a relevant intervention, with a limited but reasonable justification. The intervention’s components are described but some elements are unclear. There are indirect links between the student’s critique of the evidence base and the proposed intervention. Relevant values and principles and theoretical frameworks may be identified and described. Supported by some appropriate but limited references. Proposes a relevant intervention, with a reasonable justification. The intervention’s components are generally well described. There are clear links between the student’s critique of the evidence base and the proposed intervention. Relevant values and principles and theoretical frameworks are used where appropriate and with some limited justification provided. Supported by some appropriate but limited references. Proposes a relevant intervention, with a strong justification. The intervention’s components are clearly described. There are clear links between the student’s critique of the evidence base and the proposed intervention. Relevant values and principles and theoretical frameworks are also used where appropriate and with reasonable justification provided. Limitations of the proposed intervention are highlighted. Argument is well supported by references. Proposes a relevant intervention, with a very strong justification. The intervention’s components are clearly described. There are explicit and well-founded links between the student’s critique of the evidence base and the proposed intervention. Relevant values and principles and theoretical frameworks are also used where appropriate and with strong justification provided. Limitations of the proposed intervention are highlighted and addressed, including identifying any issues that may influence translation to policy or practice. Argument is well supported by references. References show evidence of wider reading. Present an evidence-based evaluation design (20%) Presents an irrelevant or poorly described evaluation framework. Connection to the proposed intervention is either missing or very unclear. Indicators and measurement methods are inappropriate, with very weak or no justification provided. Lacks appropriate references. Describes a relevant evaluation design. May not consider all evaluation levels or focus extensively on one or two levels at the expense of the others. Indicators and measurement methods are appropriate but with limited justification provided. Supported by some Discusses a relevant evaluation design, addressing all evaluation levels. The discussion is clearly connected to the proposed intervention. Indicators and measurement methods are appropriate and with reasonable justification. Identifies any issues that influenced the evaluation framework design and/or Presents a good and well justified evaluation framework that is clearly connected to the proposed intervention. Addresses all evaluation levels, including describing the relationship between them. Indicators and measurement methods are appropriate and well justified. Identifies any issues that influenced the Presents an excellent and very well justified evaluation framework that is clearly connected to the proposed intervention. Addresses all evaluation levels, including discussing the relationship between them. Indicators and measurement methods are appropriate and very well justified. Identifies and 13 FAIL PASS CREDIT DISTINCTION HIGH DISTINCTION appropriate but limited references. weaknesses or limitations. Supported by some appropriate but limited references. evaluation framework design and/or weaknesses or limitations. Argument is well supported by references. discusses any issues that influenced the evaluation framework design and/or weaknesses or limitations. Where appropriate, identifies any evaluation issues that may influence translation to policy or practice. Argument is well supported by references. References show evidence of wider reading. Write using appropriate academic structure and style (10%) Unstructured or very poorly structured. Introduction, body, and conclusion are missing or indistinct. Information is poorly organised and does not flow logically. Large number of grammatical, spelling, and/or punctuation errors, rendering parts of the text incomprehensible. Referencing style is inappropriate, incomplete, has missing information, or contains many errors. Adequate structure but some information is poorly organised and does not flow logically. Introduction and/or conclusion may be missing, inadequate or not well linked to the body of the assignment. If used, headings and subheadings may be unclear or over-used. May rely too heavily on direct quotes. Meaning is generally conveyed clearly but parts of the text are difficult to comprehend. A number of grammatical, spelling, and/or punctuation errors. Referencing style is appropriate but may contain some minor errors or omissions. Well structured, including an adequate introduction and conclusion. Information is reasonably well organised and generally flows logically. If used, headings and subheadings generally used appropriately. Some grammatical, spelling and/or punctuation errors. The text is generally easy to comprehend. Referencing style is appropriate but may contain some minor errors or omissions. Very well structured. Clear introduction, body, and conclusion. Information is well organised and flows logically. If used, headings and subheadings used appropriately. Assignment is well written. Some minor grammatical, spelling, and/or punctuation errors. Most of the text is easy to comprehend. Referencing style is appropriate and complete. Excellent structure. Very clear introduction, body, and conclusion. Information is very well organised and always flows logically. If used, headings and sub-headings used appropriately. Of a similar standard to published academic work. Very few or no grammatical, spelling, or punctuation errors. Excellent use of the English language. All of the text is easy to comprehend. Referencing style is appropriate and complete. Develop a coherent literature search strategy (10%) Research question is missing, unclear, or not relevant. Search strategy is weak, very unclear, or fundamentally flawed. Strategy would need to be substantially revised. Formulates a relevant research question. Search strategy generally uses appropriate databases and keywords but some information may be unclear or missing. Strategy is not Formulates a relevant research question. Describes a logical search strategy, using appropriate databases and keywords. Some important information required in order to replicate the search strategy completely. Formulates a clear, relevant, and searchable research question. Describes a logical and efficient search strategy, using appropriate databases and keywords, with clear inclusion and exclusion criteria. Search strategy could Formulates a clear, relevant, and searchable research question. Describes a logical and efficient search strategy, using appropriate databases and keywords, with clear inclusion and exclusion criteria. Search strategy could 14 FAIL PASS CREDIT DISTINCTION HIGH DISTINCTION replicable without a lot of additional information. be replicated with some minor additional information. be replicated without any additional information.