Good fast response to any of my query. Looks good quality and thanks to the expert, followed the requirements. The provided assignment is very good. thanks once more. Thanks its great work, and thanks a lot for your explanations.

4. Effective communication and use of references 8.5 - 10 High-level quality of writing that is logical, clear and eloquent, meeting word limit requirements. No errors with grammar, spelling, punctuation or APA6 formatting. 7.5 - 8.4 Very good quality of writing, mostly clear, logical and well written, with minor errors with grammar, spelling, punctuation, APA6 referencing. Meets word limit 6.5 - 7.4 Good quality of writing, logic, which meets word limit requirements. There are errors with grammar, spelling and punctuation, APA6 referencing, but the meaning is easily discernible. Credible and relevant references are used. 5 - 6.4 Satisfactory quality of writing. Errors in spelling, sentence structure, organisation do not obscure meaning. Meets word limit requirements. APA referencing style is applied in most instances. References may be insufficient. 0 - 4.9 Poor standard of writing, which fails to adhere to word limit requirements, grammar, spelling, punctuation or APA6 referencing style. Meaning is not clearly conveyed. Not all references are relevant.

5 - 6.4 Satisfactory advice on the use of this screening test; with some evidence. 0 - 4.9 Submission demonstrates very little (or no) advice; minimal or no evidence. 2. Advice to CEO on companies claim to be 95% accurate 8.5 - 10 Excellent, high level advice and interpretation of the accuracy statistic 7.5 - 8.4 Very good advice and interpretation of the accuracy statistic 6.5 - 7.4 Good advice and interpretation of the accuracy statistic 5 - 6.4 Adequate advice and interpretation of the accuracy statistic 0 - 4.9 Inadequate advice and interpretation of the accuracy statistic 3. Explaining sensitivity & specificity, positive & negative predictive values 8.5 - 10 Excellent, high level interpretation of sensitivity & specificity, positive & negative predictive values 7.5 - 8.4 Very good interpretation of sensitivity & specificity, positive & negative predictive values 6.5 - 7.4 Good interpretation of sensitivity & specificity, positive & negative predictive values 5 - 6.4 Adequate interpretation of sensitivity & specificity, positive & negative predictive values 0 - 4.9 Inadequate interpretation of sensitivity & specificity, positive & negative predictive values

marks Assessment criteria 1. Advice on benefits & downside of screening employees 8.5 - 10 High-level advice on the use of this screening test; evidence on benefits & downside of screening. A considered argument is made, supported by adequate evidence. 7.5 - 8.4 Very good advice on the use of this screening test; evidence on benefits & downsides of screening. An argument is presented, and is supported by adequate evidence. 6.5 - 7.4 Good advice on the use of this screening test; evidence on benefits & downsides of screening. An argument is presented, supported by adequate evidence.

This exercise is intended to give students an opportunity for orientation to academic writing, with feedback prior to graded assessments. Preliminary work for Assessment Task 1 will be submitted by email for ungraded evaluation and comment. Create a title page; begin a table of contents that is a list of headings; identify and list three relevant references in APA6 style. One reference should be a peer reviewed journal article; one should be from a Government statistical report; and one from a reputable non-government agency (such as the World Health Organisation). Assignment 1 concerns workplace drug testing, so your three references should pertain to that. Possible headings for the table of contents can be deduced from below. This task will not receive a grade or mark, but emailed feedback. These steps will contribute to the Assignment.