I learned much about my subject from specialists of Expertsmind.Com. Your experts characterized each answer great and shared important information about my subject. Love you so much. The writing team is very good, help me to get a high score, my each and every homework are done here, my friends will be sending assignments here as well as they are very happy with the quality, is worth to recommend, worthy of trust.

The are some changes mentioned by the subject teacher and we need in assignments are- 1) in the first point-benefits and drawbacks, you have to write these general as well as from literature reviews with as much reference as you can. 2) in the second point, regarding the claim to be 95% accurate, you have to support this answer with references from the literature review 3) you decide to do some further investigation into drug and alcohol screening tests and find a company whose test has shown to be quite reliable with 95% sensitivity and 86% specificity. 3-a) explain these results to CEO of the company 3-b) calculation should be done to find out positive and negative predictive values and diagnostic accuracy and this can be done by finding the values (a,b,c,d) and the interpretation of these values must be done in a language that would be appropriate to report back to the CEO. 3-c) would you recommend the use of this test as a monthly screening test in your workplace? Why or why not. Please try to use more references and from the literature review.

Hi I have found that you have done justice with the calculation part. You have read the instructions I sent you later. References are sufficient. In benefits and drawbacks, maximum use of reference is there. In the second part- claim 95% accuracy- you have used literature review or study to support your answer. The answer you have given is satisfactory. You just have to support the 95% claim by the company by a reference of a study or you can disagree but only with the support of a reference. And with the statistics part, I will inform you by tomorrow till then please try to make changes in the first 2 parts. Please send me the updated file. As I have to submit it.

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.

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

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

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. 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.