video name: assist screening tool for problematic substance use- Full interview. this video is 5 years ago. you may get many videos but you must watch this and do the tasks. I don't have any idea regarding this assessment as we don't have any class before assessment. how much I understand is we have to write an essay by watching this video but not explain the video but find out all the things that are listed in criteria. there are 8 points in assessment criteria you need to fulfill that one to complete assignment please read it carefully. down one pdf is criteria and marking rubric I need only assessment 1 at the moment. I humbly request you to read carefully the assignment criteria and write according to marking rubric to get the distinction. you cant write yourself it must be from this video.

Structure, organisation and referencing 10% Organises assignment logically and coherently. Effective, smooth and logical transitions presented, with a clear flow of ideas. Provided a comprehensive reference list and accurately referenced all sources using the modified APA 6 referencing style. Clear organisational structure, with a clear flow of ideas presented, easily followed Provided a comprehensive reference list and accurately referenced most sources using the APA 6 referencing style. Minor errors noted in main text and reference list. A level of organisation and structure, with minor ambiguities in paragraph and/or sentence length. APA 6 referencing style used to accurately reference the majority of sources. Several errors noted. A level of organisation and structure, with frequent ambiguities in paragraph and / or sentence structure. Difficult to follow. APA 6 referencing style used but with frequent error. Minimal clear flow from general ideas to specific ideas and back to general ideas. Paragraphs are consistently too short (insufficient detail) or too long (too many ideas discussed in one paragraph). Sentences are consistently too short or too long.

Diary entries 10% Insightful, well-documented and comprehensive diary entries documented. Free from spelling, grammatical and/or terminology errors. Very detailed and well- documented diary entries. Very minimal spelling and grammatical errors. Documented diary entries with minimal grammatical and spelling errors. Diary entries documented with frequent spelling and/or grammatical errors. Insufficient t number of entries documented. Multiple spelling and grammatical errors. Did not include diary entries.

Identification of ways to use change journey when working with the person experiencing a substance-use disorder 10% Provided an insightful, well- supported and comprehensive overview of ways to use own change journey when working with the person experiencinga substance- use disorder using a high level of academic writing. Provided a detailed and well- supported overview of ways to use own change journey when working with the person experiencing a substance- use disorder using a moderately high level of academic writing. Provided an overview of ways to use own change journey when working with the person experiencing a substance- use disorder with logical discussion, thesupport of references and the use of a moderate level of academic writing. Provided an overview of ways to use own change journey when working with the person experiencing a substance-use disorder with limited discussion and referencing. Inadequate exploration of ways to use own change journey when working with the person experiencing a substance-use disorder. Did not present information in an academic style. Lacked clear and logical structure and written expression.

Identification in the reflection of facilitators to change 10% Provided an insightful, well- supported and comprehensive reflection of facilitators to change using a high level of academic writing. Provided a detailed and well- supported reflection of facilitators to change using a moderately high level of academic writing. Provided a detailed and well- supported reflection of facilitators to change with logical discussion, the support of references and the use of a moderate level of academic writing. Provided a reflection of facilitators to change with limited discussion and referencing. . Inadequate reflection of facilitators to change. Did not present information in an academic style. Lacked clear and logical structure and written expression. Did not discuss facilitators to change.

Identification in the reflection of barriers to change 10% Provided an insightful, well- supported and comprehensive reflection of barriers to change using a high level of academic writing. Provided a detailed and well- supported reflection of barriers to change using a moderately high level of academic writing. Provided a detailed and well- supported reflection of barriers to change with logical discussion, the support of references and the use of a moderate level of academic writing. Provided a reflection of barriers to change with limited discussion and referencing. Inadequate reflection of barriers to change. Did not present information in an academic style. Lacked clear and logical structure and written expression. Did not discuss barriers to change.

Impact of behaviour change on lifestyle 10% Provided an insightful, well- supported and comprehensive overview of the Impact of behaviour change on lifestyle using a high level of academic writing. Provided a detailed and well- supported overview of Impact of behaviour change on lifestyle using a moderately high level of academic writing. Provided an overview of the Impact of behaviour change on lifestyle with logical discussion, the support of references and the use of a moderate level of academic writing. Provided an overview of the Impact of behaviour change on lifestyle with limited discussion and referencing. Provided a very minimal exploration of the impact of behaviour change on lifestyle. Did not present information in an academic style. Lacked clear and logical structure and written expression. Did not provide discussion on the impact of the behavioural change on lifestyle.

Impact of behaviour change on health 10% Provided an insightful, well- supported and comprehensive overview of the Impact of behaviour change on health using a high level of academic writing. Provided a detailed and well- supported overview of Impact of behaviour change on health using a moderately high level of academic writing. Provided an overview of the Impact of behaviour change on health with logical discussion, the support of references and the use of a moderate level of academic writing. Provided an overview of the Impact of behaviour change on health with limited discussion and referencing. Provided a very minimal exploration of the Impact of behaviour change on health. Did not present information in an academic style. Lacked clear and logical structure and written expression. Did not provide discussion on the impact of the behavioural change on health.

Positives versus negatives to change 10% Provided an insightful, well- supported and comprehensive overview of positives versus the negatives to change using a high level of academic writing. Provided a detailed and well- supported overview of positives versus the negatives to change using a moderately high level of academic writing. Provided an overview of positives versus the negatives to change with logical discussion, the support of references and the use of a moderate level of academic writing. Provided an overview of positives versus the negatives to change with limited discussion and referencing. Provided a very minimal exploration of positives versus the negatives to change. Did not present information in an academic style. Lacked clear and logical structure and written expression. Did not discuss the positives versus the negatives to change.

Short and long – term goals to achieving health behaviour change 10% Provided an insightful, well- supported and comprehensive overview of goals to achieving thechange using a high level of academic writing. Provided a detailed and well- supported overview of goals to achieving the change using a moderately high level of academic writing. Provided an overview of goals to achieving the change with logical discussion, the support of references and the use of a moderate level of academic writing. Provided an overview of goals to achieving the change with limited discussion and referencing. Provided a very minimal exploration of goals to achieving the change. Did not present information in an academic style. Lacked clear and logical structure and written expression. Did not document goals to achieving the health behaviour change.

Criteria High Distinction Distinction Credit Pass Fail Absent Discussion on one health behaviour to change 10% Provided an insightful, well- supported and comprehensive discussion of a health behaviour using a high level of academic writing. Provided a detailed and well- supported overview of ahealth behavior using a moderately high level of academic writing. Provided an overview of a health behaviour with logical discussion, the support of references and the use of a moderate level of academic writing. Provided an overview of a health behaviour with limited discussion and referencing. Provided very minimal discussion of one health behaviour. Did not present information in an academic style. Lacked clear and logical structure and written expression. Did not provide discussion on one health behaviour

Referencing 10% Provided a comprehensive reference list and accurately referenced all sources using the APA 6 referencing style. Provided a comprehensive reference list and accurately referenced most sources using the APA 6 referencing style. Minor errors noted in main text and reference list. APA 6 referencing style used to accurately reference the majority of sources. Several errors noted. APA 6 referencing style used but with frequent error. Multiple errors in referencing. Incorrect referencing style used.

Structure, grammar and organisation 10% Organises assignment logically and coherently, paragraphing to advance argument. Effective, smooth and logical transitions presented, with a clear flow of ideas, no grammatical errors. Well thought-out headings. Clear organisational structure, with a clear flow of ideas presented, and easily followed. Minimal errors in grammar. Appropriate headings. A level of organisation and structure, with minor ambiguities in paragraph and / or sentence length and grammar. Appropriate headings. A level of organisation and structure, with major ambiguities in paragraph and/or sentence structure and grammar. Difficult to follow. Headings used. Minimal flow from general ideas to specific ideas and back to general ideas. Paragraphs are consistently too short (insufficient detail) or too long (too many ideas discussed in one paragraph). Sentences are consistently too short or too long. Headings not used or inappropriate. Poor grammatical expression. No clear flow of general to specific ideas. Multiple structural and organisational errors. Did not adhere to word limit. Very poor grammatical expression.

Interviewer’s conclusion of the Interview 10% Provided an insightful, well- supported and comprehensive critique of the interviewer’s conclusion of the interview using a high level of academic writing. Provided a detailed and well- supported critique of the interviewer’s conclusion of the interview using a moderately high level of academic writing. Provided a critique of the interviewer’s conclusion of the interview with logical discussion, the support of references and the use of a moderate level of academic writing. Provided a critique of the interviewer’s conclusion of the interview with limited discussion and referencing. Provided very minimal critique of the interviewer’s conclusion of the interview. Did not present information in an academic style. Lacked clear and logical structure and written expression. Did not critique the interviewer’s conclusion of the interview.

Interviewer’s overall level of Engagement 10% Provided an insightful, well- supported and comprehensive critique of the interviewer’s level of engagement using a high level of academic writing. Provided a detailed and well- supported critique of the interviewer’s level of engagement using a moderately high level of academic writing. Provided a critique of the interviewer’s level of engagement with logical discussion, the support of references and the use of a moderate level of academic writing. Provided a critique of the interviewer’s level of engagement with limited discussion and referencing. Provided very minimal critique of the interviewer’s overall level of engagement. Did not present information in an academic style. Lacked clear and logical structure and written expression. Did not critique the interviewer’s overall level of engagement.

Interviewer’s identification of stressors 10% Provided an insightful, well- supported and comprehensive critique of the interviewer’s identification of stressors using a high level of academic writing. Provided a detailed and well- supported critique of the interviewer’s identification of stressors using a moderately high level of academic writing. Provided a critique of the interviewer’s identification of stressors with logical discussion, the support of references and the use of a moderate level of academic writing. . Provided a critique of the interviewer’s identification of stressors with limited discussion and referencing. Provided very minimal critique of the interviewer’s identification of stressors. Did not present information in an academic style. Lacked clear and logical structure and written expression. Did not critique the interviewer’s identification of the interviewee’s stressors.

Interviewer’s identification of the impact of substance use on lifestyle 10% Provided an insightful, well- supported and comprehensive critique of the interviewer’s identification of the impact of substance use on lifestyle using a high level of academic writing. Provided a detailed and well- supported critique of the interviewer’s identification of the impact of substance use on lifestyle using a moderately high level of academic writing. Provided a critique of the interviewer’s identification of the impact of substance use on lifestyle with logical discussion, the support of references and the use of a moderate level of academic writing. Provided a critique of the interviewer’s identification of the impact of substance use on lifestyle with limited discussion and referencing. Provided very minimal critique of the interviewer’s identification of the impact of substance use on lifestyle. Did not present information in an academic style. Lacked clear and logical structure and written expression. Did not critique the interviewer’s identification of the impact of substance use on the interviewee’s lifestyle.

Interviewer’s identification of the impact of substance use on health 10% Provided an insightful, well- supported and comprehensive critique of the interviewer’s identification of the impact of substance use on health using a high level of academic writing. Provided a detailed and well- supported critique of the interviewer’s identification of the impact of substance use on health using a moderately high level of academic writing. Provided a critique of the interviewer’s identification of the impact of substance use on health with logical discussion, the support of references and the use of a moderate level of academic writing. Provided a critique of the interviewer’s identification of the impact of substance use on health with limited discussion and referencing. Provided very minimal critique of the interviewer’s identification of the impact of substance use on health. Did not present information in an academic style. Lacked clear and logical structure and written expression. Did not critique the interviewer’s identification of the impact of substance use on the interviewee’s health.

Interviewer’s assessment of readiness to change 10% Provided an insightful, well- supported and comprehensive critique of the interviewer’s assessment of readiness to change using a high level of academic writing. Provided a detailed and well- supported critique of the interviewer’s assessment of readiness to change using a moderately high level of academic writing. Provided a critique of the interviewer’s assessment of readiness to change with logical discussion, the support of references and the use of a moderate level of academic writing. Provided a critique of the interviewer’s assessment of readiness to change with limited discussion and referencing. Provided very minimal critique of the interviewer’s assessment of readiness to change. Did not present information in an academic style. Lacked clear and logical structure and written expression. Did not critique the interviewer’s assessment of the interviewee’s readiness to change.

Interviewer’s rapport and respect 10% Provided an insightful, well- supported and comprehensive critique of the interviewer’s level of rapport and respect using a high level of academic writing. Provided a detailed and well- supported critique of interviewer’s level of rapport and respect using a moderately high level of academic writing. Provided a critique of the interviewer’s level of rapport and respect with logical discussion, the support of references and the use of a moderate level of academic writing. Provided a critique of the interviewer’s level of rapport and respect with limited discussion and referencing. Provided very minimal critique of the interviewer’s level of rapport and respect. Did not present information in an academic style. Lacked clear and logical structure and written expression. Did not critique the interviewer’s rapport and respect shown to interviewee.

Criteria High Distinction Distinction Credit Pass Fail Absent Interviewer’s initial contact 10% Provided an insightful, well- supported and comprehensive critique of the interviewer’s initial contact using a high level of academic writing. Provided a detailed and well- supported critique of interviewer’s initial contact using a moderately high level of academic writing. Provided a critique of the interviewer’s initial contact with logical discussion, the support of references and the use of a moderate level of academic writing. Provided a critique of the interviewer’s contact with limited discussion and referencing. Provided very minimal critique of the interviewer’s initial contact. Did not present information in an academic style. Lacked clear and logical structure and written expression. Did not critique interviewer’s initial contact with interviewee.