This document provides a rubric for assessing a paper on developmental assessment of school-aged children. The paper is expected to be 3-5 pages long and follow APA style. It should include an abstract, problem statement, literature review of no more than 5 years, summary of 3-5 articles, research methodology, study design, limitations, findings, and references. The rubric assesses the paper on content, organization/effectiveness, and format. Content is evaluated based on comparisons of assessments between age groups, assessment for a specific age, and applying a developmental theory. Organization considers thesis development, argument logic, and mechanics. Format covers template use, citations, and overall documentation. The rubric provides criteria for unsatisfactory

1. 1. Describe the different ways in which policy models are used?
2. What are the key lessons for policy modeling?
3. How security policy works in IT organization? Elaborate
modules in security policy like:
Access control,
Computer security policy,
Environmental design,
Data protection policy,
Security engineering,
Remote access policy and
User account policy
4. What are some strategies organization can use or adopt to
prevent issues on security policy?
Write a 3-5 page paper using APA citations. Use at least
different references:
Background/Abstract
Problem Statement
Description of the problem
Literature review should not go back farther than 5 years
Summary of 3-5 articles
Research Methodology
Resign Design
Study Population
Limitations
Findings
Recommendation
Conclusions
References
Rubic_Print_FormatCourse CodeClass CodeAssignment
TitleTotal PointsNRS-434VNNRS-434VN-O508Developmental

2. Assessment and the School-Aged
Child100.0CriteriaPercentageUnsatisfactory (0.00%)Less than
Satisfactory (75.00%)Satisfactory (79.00%)Good
(89.00%)Excellent (100.00%)CommentsPoints
EarnedContent80.0%Comparison of Physical Assessment
Among School-Aged Children25.0%A comparison of physical
assessments among different school-aged children is omitted.An
incomplete comparison of physical assessments among different
school-aged children is summarized. How assessment
techniques would be modified depending on the age and
developmental stage of the child is omitted or contains
significant inaccuracies.A general comparison of physical
assessments among different school-aged children is
summarized. How assessment techniques would be modified
depending on the age and developmental stage of the child is
generally described. More information or support is needed for
clarity or accuracy.A comparison of physical assessments
among different school-aged children is presented. How
assessment techniques would be modified depending on the age
and developmental stage of the child is described. Some
information is needed for clarity.A detailed comparison of
physical assessments among different school-aged children is
presented. How assessment techniques would be modified
depending on the age and developmental stage of the child is
thoroughly described. Insight is demonstrated into the physical
assessment of school age children.Typical Assessment for a
Child of a Specific Age25.0%The typical developmental stage
of a child between the ages 5 and 12 is not described. The
typical developmental stage of a child between the ages 5 and
12 is summarized. The summary contains significant
inaccuracies for the age of the child. The typical developmental
stage of a child between the ages 5 and 12 is generally
described. The description contains some inaccuracies for the
age of the child.The typical developmental stage of a child
between the ages 5 and 12 is described. The overall description
is accurate. Some information is needed for clarity.The typical

3. developmental stage of a child between the ages 5 and 12 is
accurately and thoroughly described. Developmental
Assessment of a Child Using a Developmental Theory
(Erickson, Piaget, Kohlberg)30.0%A child assessment based on
a developmental theory is omitted.A child assessment based on
a developmental theory is partially summarized. Partial
strategies to gain cooperation and for how explanations would
be offered during the assessment are presented. The potential
findings expected from the assessment are omitted or are
incorrect. There are significant inaccuracies.A child assessment
based on a developmental theory is generally described. General
strategies to gain cooperation and for how explanations would
be offered during the assessment are presented. The potential
findings expected from the assessment are summarized. There
are minor inaccuracies.A child assessment based on a
developmental theory is described. Appropriate strategies to
gain cooperation and for how explanations would be offered
during the assessment are presented. The potential findings
expected from the assessment are described. Some information
is needed for clarity.A child assessment based on a
developmental theory is thoroughly described. Well-developed
strategies to gain cooperation and for how explanations would
be offered during the assessment are presented. The potential
findings expected from the assessment are all accurate and
described in detail.Organization and Effectiveness 15.0%Thesis
Development and Purpose5.0%Paper lacks any discernible
overall purpose or organizing claim.Thesis is insufficiently
developed or vague. Purpose is not clear.Thesis is apparent and
appropriate to purpose.Thesis is clear and forecasts the
development of the paper. Thesis is descriptive and reflective of
the arguments and appropriate to the purpose.Thesis is
comprehensive and contains the essence of the paper. Thesis
statement makes the purpose of the paper clear.Argument Logic
and Construction5.0%Statement of purpose is not justified by
the conclusion. The conclusion does not support the claim
made. Argument is incoherent and uses noncredible

4. sources.Sufficient justification of claims is lacking. Argument
lacks consistent unity. There are obvious flaws in the logic.
Some sources have questionable credibility.Argument is
orderly, but may have a few inconsistencies. The argument
presents minimal justification of claims. Argument logically,
but not thoroughly, supports the purpose. Sources used are
credible. Introduction and conclusion bracket the thesis.
Argument shows logical progressions. Techniques of
argumentation are evident. There is a smooth progression of
claims from introduction to conclusion. Most sources are
authoritative.Clear and convincing argument that presents a
persuasive claim in a distinctive and compelling manner. All
sources are authoritative.Mechanics of Writing (includes
spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use)5.0%Surface
errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of
meaning. Inappropriate word choice or sentence construction is
used.Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the
reader. Inconsistencies in language choice (register), sentence
structure, or word choice are present.Some mechanical errors or
typos are present, but they are not overly distracting to the
reader. Correct sentence structure and audience-appropriate
language are used. 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. Writer is clearly in
command of standard, written, academic English.Format
5.0%Paper Format (use of appropriate style for the major and
assignment)2.0%Template is not used appropriately or
documentation format is rarely followed correctly.Template is
used, but some elements are missing or mistaken; lack of
control with formatting is apparent.Template is used, and
formatting is correct, although some minor errors may be
present. Template is fully used; There are virtually no errors in
formatting style.All format elements are correct. Documentation
of Sources (citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc.,
as appropriate to assignment and style)3.0%Sources are not
documented.Documentation of sources is inconsistent or

5. incorrect, as appropriate to assignment and style, with numerous
formatting errors.Sources are documented, as appropriate to
assignment and style, although some formatting errors may be
present.Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment
and style, and format is mostly correct. Sources are completely
and correctly documented, as appropriate to assignment and
style, and format is free of error.Total Weightage100%