5 Excellent 100.00% The problem description and objectives are presented in detail and align. The stakeholders/change agents - who or what organizations are concerned, may benefit from, or are affected by this proposal - are described. The problem is in the PICOT format and developed appropriately. Objectives are measurable. The problem selection is justified using literature and supportive examples, not just based on the most current evidence. Expected changes before and after the evidence-based practice are integrated. An initial reference list is developed. Clarity and specificity of comprehension are demonstrated, and all relevant information is synthesized. Coverage extends beyond what is needed to support subject matter. Writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English.

4 Good 92.00% The problem description and objectives are presented and tie together. The stakeholders/change agents - who or what organizations are concerned, may benefit from, or are affected by this proposal - are identified. The problem is in the PICOT format and developed appropriately. Objectives are measurable. The problem selection is justified using literature. Expected changes are outlined. An initial reference list is developed. Integrative and accurate comprehension is demonstrated and information is applied as appropriate. There is comprehensive coverage of subject matter. Prose is largely free of mechanical errors, although a few may be present. A variety of sentence structures and effective figures of speech are used.

3 Satisfactory 88.00% The problem description and objectives are stated but may not be fully developed or aligned. The problem is in the PICOT format but not appropriately developed. Objectives are measurable but may be ambiguous. The problem selection rationale is present but the significance is unclear. Expected changes are briefly introduced. Comprehension of the material is exhibited and there is clearly an attempt to integrate and apply information. All subject matter is covered in minimal quantity and quality. Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but are not overly distracting to the reader. Correct sentence structure and audience-appropriate language are used.

2 Less than Satisfactory 80.00% The problem description and objectives are addressed, but not all components are included. Alignment is difficult to discern. The problem is not in the correct format. Objectives are lacking measurement or may be ambiguous. The problem selection rationale is not addressed or is minimally introduced with no supporting details. Expected changes before and after the evidence-based practice are listed. A lack of comprehension is displayed, but there is an attempt to apply information. A partial initial reference list is developed. There is weak, marginal coverage of subject matter with large gaps in presentation. Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistencies in language choice (register), sentence structure, and/or word choice are present.

1 Unsatisfactory 0.00% 100.0 %Problem Description 100.0 %Describe the background of the problem. Identify the stakeholders/change agents and list the interested parties. Provide the PICOT question. State the purpose and project objectives in specific, realistic, and measurable terms. Develop an initial reference list. There is no discernible problem description and/or objectives. The problem selection rationale is not addressed or is minimally addressed. Expected changes before and after the evidence-based practice are not addressed or are minimally addressed. Inaccurate comprehension of material and lack the ability to apply information is revealed. Subject matter is absent, inappropriate, and/or irrelevant. Initial reference list is missing. Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice and/or sentence construction are used.

5 Excellent 100.00% Detailed information in relation to the survey categories that scored high and low on the survey is provided. The rationale for the scores, including details and/or examples, is provided. The major project barriers and facilitators are thoughtfully analyzed and evaluated. Warranted conclusions are drawn. An informed position on how to integrate clinical inquiry into the organization is developed and explained, providing strategies which align to the weaker areas of the organization. Clarity and specificity of comprehension are demonstrated, and all relevant information is synthesized. Coverage extends beyond what is needed to support subject matter. Writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English.

4 Good 92.00% Information in relation to the survey categories which scored high and low on the survey is provided. The rationale for the scores, including details and/or examples, is stated. Analysis on the project barriers and facilitators is direct, competent, and appropriately aligned to the survey. How to integrate a basic idea of clinical inquiry into the organization is explained, and strategies that broadly encompass many issues of concern are provided. Integrative and accurate comprehension is demonstrated and information is applied as appropriate. There is comprehensive coverage of subject matter. Prose is largely free of mechanical errors, although a few may be present. A variety of sentence structures and effective figures of speech are used.

3 Satisfactory 88.00% A basic survey overview is provided, but any rationale, details, and/or examples are minimally included. A surface level of evaluation of the possible project barriers and facilitators is conducted. Very narrow focus is provided. Claims and ideas of the criteria are supported but not developed in-depth. How to integrate a basic idea of clinical inquiry into the organization is explained but does not specifically address the individual organization being assessed. Comprehension of the material is exhibited and there is clearly an attempt to integrate and apply information. All subject matter is covered in minimal quantity and quality. Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but are not overly distracting to the reader. Correct sentence structure and audience-appropriate language are used.

2 Less than Satisfactory 80.00% The survey results are listed without an in-depth explanation. The project barriers and facilitators are ignored or superficially evaluated. Unwarranted conclusions are drawn. Clinical inquiry is defined and/or broad statements are made about it, but the individual organization being assessed is not specifically addressed. A lack of comprehension is displayed, but there is an attempt to apply information. There is weak, marginal coverage of subject matter with large gaps in presentation. Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistencies in language choice (register), sentence structure, and/or word choice are present.

1 Unsatisfactory 0.00% 100.0 %Organizational Culture and Readiness Assessment 100.0 %Describe the results from the organizational culture survey you selected, addressing the readiness level of your organization. Provide an analysis of any possible project barriers and facilitators, and describe how to integrate clinical inquiry into your organization. The survey results are listed without an in-depth explanation. Analysis of the project barriers and facilitators is not outlined or is outlined poorly. Clinical inquiry is defined and/or broad statements are made about it, but the individual organization being assessed is not specifically addressed. Inaccurate comprehension of material is revealed, as is the lack of ability to apply information. Subject matter is absent, inappropriate, and/or irrelevant. Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice and/or sentence construction are used.