1. Evaluate two health websites using the PEMAT rubric posted under resources in this module. These websites can be about any health-related topic that interests you. Drop the topic in your search engine and see what sites appear — that’s how your patients do it! What are they reading? is it valuable?
Score the websites using the PEMAT rubric from the AHRQ website. What are the strengths and limitations of the sites? Submit the tool evaluating both sites and discuss your findings in a 2–3-page summary. The summary should include an overview of the sites you chose, a description of both the understandability and actionability subscores, and the pros and cons of the sites.
This assignment should be completed using APA 7th edition format with a title page and references.
2. Conduct a search using a digital library and the internet to extend your knowledge about healthcare smart cards. Summarize the results of your search and cite sources (1-page limit). Would you use a healthcare smart card? Why or why not?
1. Evaluate two health websites using the PEMAT rubric posted under resources in this module. These websites can be about any health-related topic that interests you. Drop the topic in your search engine and see what sites appear — that’s how your patients do it! What are they reading? is it valuable?
Score the websites using the PEMAT rubric from the AHRQ website. What are the strengths and limitations of the sites? Submit the tool evaluating both sites and discuss your findings in a 2–3-page summary. The summary should include an overview of the sites you chose, a description of both the understandability and actionability subscores and the pros and cons of the sites.
This assignment should be completed using APA 7th edition format with a SoN title page and references.
|
Exemplary |
Accomplished |
Developing |
Beginning |
||||||
|
Evaluation of quality of health websites including strengths and limitations. |
Points Range:35 (35.00%) – 40 (40.00%) Both websites identified and summarized including detailed strengths and limitations. |
Points Range:30 (30.00%) – 34 (34.00%) Both websites identified and summarized including strengths and limitations. |
Points Range:10 (10.00%) – 29 (29.00%) Both websites are not identified and summarized OR didn’t include strengths and limitations. |
Points Range:0 (0.00%) – 19 (19.00%) Both websites are not identified and summarized AND didn’t include strengths and limitations. |
|||||
|
Integration of PEMAT score findings |
Points Range:17 (17.00%) – 20 (20.00%) Understandability and actionability scores for each site are thoroughly explained. |
Points Range:13 (13.00%) – 16 (16.00%) Understandability and actionability scores for each site are present but not explained in detail. |
Points Range:9 (9.00%) – 12 (12.00%) Understandability and actionability scores for each site are minimally explained. |
Points Range:0 (0.00%) – 8 (8.00%) Understandability and actionability scores for each site are missing or not explained. |
|||||
|
Writing Quality |
Points Range:18 (18.00%) – 20 (20.00%) Posts show above average writing style and clear using standard English, characterized by elements of a strong writing style and basically free from grammar, punctuation, and spelling errors. 0-1 APA errors. |
Points Range:15 (15.00%) – 17 (17.00%) Posts show average writing style using standard English with little grammar, punctuation, and spelling errors. 2-3 APA errors |
Points Range:10 (10.00%) – 14 (14.00%) Posts show an average and/or casual writing style with some errors in spelling, grammar, punctuation, and usage. 4-5 APA errors |
Points Range:0 (0.00%) – 9 (9.00%) Posts show a below average/poor writing style in terms of appropriate standard English writing style, clarity, language used, and grammar. >5 APA errors |
|||||
|
PEMAT Scoring forms Included |
Points Range:20 (20.00%) – 20 (20.00%) Both tools complete and submitted |
Points Range:15 (15.00%) – 15 (15.00%) One tool incomplete |
Points Range:10 (10.00%) – 10 (10.00%) Both tools incomplete or 1 tool missing |
Points Range:0 (0.00%) – 0 (0.00%) No tools submitted |
Name:Website Comparison Using PEMAT
2.Conduct a search using a digital library and the internet to extend your knowledge about healthcare smart cards. Summarize the results of your search and cite sources (1 page limit). Would you use a healthcare smart card? Why or why not?
|
Responsiveness to discussion prompts |
Points Range:36 (36.00%) – 40 (40.00%) All components of discussion prompt addressed. Well-developed viewpoint showing strong logical thinking, reasoning, and analysis with evidence and examples. |
Points Range:31 (31.00%) – 35 (35.00%) Most components of discussion prompt addressed logical thinking, reasoning, and/or analysis for most part; viewpoint is supported with evidence and/or examples. |
Points Range:20 (20.00%) – 30 (30.00%) Minimal components of discussion prompt addressed Ideas expressed are general in nature and/or occasionally may not be relevant. |
Points Range:0 (0.00%) – 19 (19.00%)
Minimal or no components of discussion prompt addressed. Ideas expressed lack depth, are off-topic and/or confusing to follow. Viewpoint, if given, is not supported with evidence or examples. |
|
Application of assigned readings, etc. |
Points Range:16 (16.00%) – 20 (20.00%) Very clear that readings (or other materials) were understood by incorporation into postings.Incorporates sources other than those provided. |
Points Range:11 (11.00%) – 15 (15.00%) Somewhat clear that readings (or other materials) were understood by incorporation into postings.Incorporates only those sources provided. |
Points Range:10 (10.00%) – 14 (14.00%)
Somewhat unclear that readings (or other materials) were understood by incorporation into postings. No references provided. |
Points Range:0 (0.00%) – 9 (9.00%)
Postings reflects no evidence of understanding of assigned readings (or other materials). Short statements such as “I agree with…”. No references cited. |
|
Response to Posts |
Points Range:16 (16.00%) – 20 (20.00%)
All components of discussion prompt addressed. Well-developed viewpoint showing strong logical thinking, reasoning, and analysis with referenced evidence and examples other than those provided. |
Points Range:11 (11.00%) – 15 (15.00%)
Most components of discussion prompt addressed logical thinking, reasoning, and/or analysis for most part; viewpoint is supported with referenced evidence and/or examples. |
Points Range:6 (6.00%) – 10 (10.00%) Minimal components of discussion prompt addressed Ideas expressed are general in nature and/or occasionally may not be relevant. No references cited. |
Points Range:0 (0.00%) – 5 (5.00%) components of discussion prompt addressed. Ideas expressed lack depth, are off-topic and/or confusing to follow. Viewpoint, if given, is not supported with evidence or examples. |
