BUSI 611 Liberty University Operations Management for Health Organizations Paper

1Research Paper on Quality Improvement in Healthcare
Quadasia Dukes
The Liberty University
Busi 611: Operations Management for Health Organizations
Professor Pamela Kelly
June 12, 2022
2
Research Paper on Quality Improvement in Healthcare
Abstract
The topic for this research project is “quality improvement in healthcare”, which involves
looking up ways a health-oriented organization can supervise, assess and progress its standards
regarding quality delivery. In the medical field, quality can be defined as the extent of the impact
or contribution of healthcare services toward attaining desired healthcare outcomes among
individuals or populations, along with adherence to current medical knowledge and skills
(Lifvergren, 2013; Niñerola et al., 2020). Quality improvement involves critical structures such
as technology, organizational leadership, the role of culture in healthcare, capital and resources
in healthcare. This research will address the major factors associated with quality improvement
in healthcare.
3
Introduction
The topic for this research is “quality improvement in healthcare”, which involves
looking up ways a health-oriented organization can supervise, assess and progress its standards
regarding quality delivery. These standards and improvements create a better structure which
progresses medical services offered to patients and advances any further health-related research.
Within this topic, the research will focus on the dynamics of quality improvement in healthcare,
including the medical practices that constitute quality improvement, trends and efforts in quality
improvement over the years, and implications of quality improvement in healthcare.
In the medical field, quality can be defined as the extent of the impact or contribution of
healthcare services toward attaining desired healthcare outcomes among individuals or
populations, along with adherence to current medical knowledge and skills (Lifvergren, 2013;
Niñerola et al., 2020). Quality improvement deals with the efforts and processes directed toward
streamlining healthcare processes and structures to improve patient outcomes and increase the
efficiency of healthcare institutions and systems (Dixon-Woods & Martin, 2016). One of these
efforts may be examining the current healthcare system’s current date and results. This will help
in identifying target areas for improvement.
Setting well-structured, achievable goals for improvement is essential because it provides
a sense of direction when undergoing the process of healthcare improvement. For quality
healthcare to be quality, it has to cater to everyone. To ensure this, a team of the diverse member
should be created to participate in the improvement. This will bring in ideas from all over the
world alongside different experiences. These diverse opinions will ensure better decision making
and inclusivity during the execution of improvement steps toward quality healthcare.
4
Quality improvement involves critical structures such as technology, organizational
leadership, the role of culture in healthcare, capital and resources in healthcare. Technology can
contribute to quality improvement by providing online digital platforms where worldwide health
and medical practitioners may communicate and share ideas and discoveries they may have
made in their research or daily practice (Dixon-Woods & Martin, 2016). The creation of 3D
printed organs has and is still a great way in which technology has contributed to quality
healthcare improvement. The doctor can still supervise patients at home through technology.
Machines are created to transmit signals that communicate medical measurements such as
heartbeat rate to the doctor (Dixon-Woods & Martin, 2016). They can give medical advice,
watch their patient’s progress, and provide healthcare wherever they are.
Good organizational leadership can contribute to quality healthcare by creating a good
work environment for the health researchers to work efficiently. The leaders in these
organizations are responsible for this, facilitating and ensuring the best possible health services
are offered to all patients without bias. They should encourage acquiring more knowledge and
skills that contribute to quality healthcare improvement (Dixon-Woods & Martin, 2016). Quality
healthcare improvement requires the leader to be transformational. This will increase
productivity, and patients will be contented.
The role of culture in quality healthcare is wide. Different cultures have different
opinions and approaches towards healthcare. This is why it is important to have inclusivity when
researching new ways to improve the healthcare systems. This will promote appreciation of the
improvements by most individuals, if not all. Several kinds of capital funds or investments are
required for quality healthcare improvement. These investments include obligatory replacements,
5
optional replacements, expanding existing services, venturing into new services, and safety
projects.
Additionally, human resources management, education and training of healthcare
professionals, and knowledge capital are essential pillars of realizing quality improvement in
healthcare. Human resources managers who work in healthcare environments like hospitals and
insurance organizations have interacted with patients, medical practitioners and the
administration office of these facilities. The human resource managers are responsible for
ensuring they receive quality healthcare services. The managers are trained to address certain
concerns in the health system like how finances are managed, how employees are treated, how
patients are treated, and if health rules and regulations are being implemented (Willmington et
al., 2022). They also supervise the hiring of well trained, qualified healthcare providers, which
contributes to improving healthcare quality.
Education is essential in improving quality healthcare services. If one is educated, they
can make better decisions and judgments in a case where their health is compromised. For
instance, an educated person would choose to seek medical attention when ill, while one who is
not as educated may choose to ignore or self-prescribe medicines which may not be safe
(Willmington et al., 2022). Education is not only about books but also about being aware of what
is happening around oneself. This awareness will assist both patients, health, and medical
practitioners make better decisions.
Effective quality measurement plays a critical role in the quest for quality improvement
in the healthcare industry. Several techniques can be used in quality measurement in healthcare,
such as identifying best practices through benchmarking (Willmington et al., 2022) and applying
the six-sigma tool in healthcare (Niñerola et al., 2020). The five steps in the six sigma tool are
6
defining who the patient is and their needs, measuring how improvement would appear,
collecting and analyzing data, implementing upgrades to improve the system, and supervising the
performance in maintaining improvement. The acquisition of knowledge and the subsequent
transformation of this knowledge into implementable healthcare practice is crucial to achieving
quality improvement in healthcare (Brandrud et al., 2017).
Significance of the research
This research plays a critical role in helping to shape the future medical practice and the
healthcare industry. Unfortunately, every day a new infection or disease is discovered. Some are
already infected, while some are predicted. Improving healthcare services enables us to prepare
for any future infections or diseases that may come up. It will also enable us to know about it
before it becomes dangerous. For instance, when the world was affected by the 2019 pandemic,
it was very severe because no measures were taken to prepare for such an impactful disaster.
Healthcare was limited, and even those who could afford to go to the best hospitals still
did not survive. Some insurance companies stopped supporting their clients during this trying
time. Therefore, this research paper should encourage healthcare professionals to look for ways
to improve the quality of healthcare systems. Encouraging healthcare professionals in this
context means providing alternatives towards the provision of quality healthcare services.
The study provides a background to the trends in quality best practices in healthcare,
showing the areas that need improvement. From these trends, we can observe what mistakes
were made in the past that can be prevented now. It can also point out the areas of improvement
which were not explored fully, if not at all. From the background, an individual with little to no
information about quality healthcare improvement will acquire it. The previous trends also give
room for developing new trends by giving ideas.
7
The study will also provide insights into the various efforts and approaches that can be
implemented in healthcare settings worldwide to improve the quality of their operations and
yield better medical outcomes. Any health researcher or practitioner who may be stuck or having
any difficulty in their research would be able to understand or get insight based on this research.
It will also help them not follow any previous failed procedures. The various approaches will
also challenge them to improve their work. Being challenged is important because that is how
one identifies and strengthens their weak points.
This study will highlight the challenges that hinder the implementation of practices aimed
at quality improvement in healthcare. As a result, it has paved the way for further research on
how to overcome the challenges. Future researchers have to look at their past content in order for
them to improve and come up with better ideas on how to improve the quality of health care
systems. These are the main important points of this research paper.
Background to the study
This study stems from the backdrop of research on adopting quality standards in
healthcare settings and medical practice. Researchers such as (Brandrud et al.,2017) have pointed
out that the gap between knowledge and implementation has presented a lag in enforcing quality
improvement practices in healthcare. Brandrud and colleagues pointed out how healthcare was in
the pits and had serious unresolved issues that risked lives and caused unforeseeable patient
predicaments (Brandrud et al.,2017). They stated that quality improvement had failed because it
did not focus on the healthcare environment or centralized patient improvement. It also did not
serve the healthcare practitioners at the time. They developed an instrument with 25 questions
and held interviews with different focus groups (Brandrud et al.,2017).
8
From these focus groups, they could identify features that could have potentially
improved the quality of healthcare services then. They sent the questionnaire to 189 projects that
we are focusing on improving. Their main aim was to learn who documented the improvements
at the time. Using the questionnaires, they were to gather this information from the frontline
medical practitioners at the time. The results they collected ewer 70% of the total questionnaires
they had sent out (Brandrud et al.,2017). The respondents ranged from physicians to nurses to
psychologists and other medical practitioners.
From the results, Brandrud and colleagues realized that the improvement involved social
sciences more than anything. They had to differentiate between social sciences and biological
sciences. Likewise, they needed to know how each could improve the quality of healthcare
services then (Brandrud et al.,2017). They concluded that quality improvement projects have a
high chance of success if they implement good leadership and focus on the main agenda. They
also discovered that more successful healthcare facilities engaged in quality improvement
centralized around the patients.
Additionally, (Niñerola et al., 2020) highlight that the healthcare industry can benefit
from applying management of tools such as six-sigma to enhance quality improvement. Their
main objective was to identify opportunities for implementing the six-sigma tool. They
conducted a literature review since using six-sigma appeared in 2017 (Niñerola et al., 2020).
They sought to spread the six-sigma awareness and its benefits to healthcare practitioners.
On the other hand, scholars such as Batalden (2018) have discovered that structures and
processes have sometimes hindered the attempts to implement quality improvement practices in
healthcare within the healthcare industry. The research presented by the various scholars on
quality improvement in healthcare has largely formed the basis for this research (Batalden,
9
2018). Further, the current dynamics and trends in adopting quality improvement practices in
healthcare settings have contributed to the background of this study.
Batalden (2018) also talked about how health practitioners face challenges that make it
difficult to offer the best healthcare service to their patients. One of these challenges is
demanding and frustrating administrative commands that reduce their time to attend to patients
carefully without any consequences. In 2007, Batalden and their colleague came up with a frame
where thinking and working would improve the quality of services. They embraced the thought
that making a product is similar to doing a service (Batalden, 2018).
Using that assumption, they considered the doctor-patient relationship similar to a
supplier-client relationship (Batalden, 2018). Unfortunately, this theory could not fully work
since patients are both suppliers and clients. Patients will consume drugs and pay for checkups,
too, as clients. As suppliers, they serve as a research point. By allowing the healthcare
practitioner to examine, study, and diagnose, the patient has supplied the doctor with the
opportunity to learn and do further research. As time went by, Batalden and colleagues observed
an improvement in the healthcare system’s performance (Batalden, 2018).
Research issues
This research will address the major factors associated with quality improvement in
healthcare. One of the main research issues in quality improvement in healthcare is the
sensitization and motivation of healthcare professionals towards adopting quality practices
(Huang et al., 2019). Most healthcare professionals may have all the education that they received
in school. However, it is not as helpful if they do not build on that education and realize the
importance of constantly looking for ways to improve what they do daily (Huang et al., 2019).
10
Therefore, healthcare practitioners must be trained on why it is important to research and adopt
new healthcare practices that may come up in their careers.
Another major research issue in this study is the analysis of the different perspectives in
the healthcare industry on what constitutes quality and quality improvement. Despite the cost of
manufacturing and purchasing quality original medication today, we cannot deny that quality
medicine is the best. The quality of anything is the best (Giannini, 2015; Myers et al., 2021). So
many generic medicines are produced and sold at a lower price, but at the end of the day may
have some implications on your health. There are different opinions toward quality and quality
improvement that consequently delay or stop the improvement process. All individuals must
seek and acquire proper knowledge on the importance of quality and its improvement. Typically,
this will be important towards limiting some of the risks linked to healthcare delivery.
The research further looks into the dynamics of measurement aimed at quality
improvement in healthcare instead of quality measurement for accountability and punitive action
(Pflueger, 2015). With accountability, there is acceptance of any mistakes that may have
occurred in previous improvement research methods. When accepted, improvement is enabled.
Learning from past experiences supports further discoveries, which lead to quality improvement
in healthcare systems. Various quality improvement frameworks have been used in the
healthcare industry, which will be analyzed and compared in this study (Giannini, 2015; Myers
et al., 2021).
Healthcare quality improvement could be considered 80% human and 20% technical.
Perhaps the most important components that fill up the 80% humanistic aspects are clarity of
approach, clear communication, and appropriate language (Huang, Chin, & Li, 2019). Typically,
this means that without a shared quality improvement understanding as an approach toward
11
change, there is a possibility that quality improvement risks are likely to stray primarily from
some of the issues mentioned in this discussion, thus making it unlikely to succeed (Huang,
Chin, & Li, 2019). In situations where the practitioners are unable to communicate effectively
about the primary quality improvement principles, there is the possibility of mismatched
expectations regarding healthcare quality improvement, including how healthcare practitioners
could use it. Such issues usually lower the possibility of a quality improvement process in
healthcare.
Another issue or risk, which remains common when seeking to improve healthcare
quality, is the adopted quality improvement language, especially when describing change efforts
despite their fidelity based on the quality improvement approach (Huang, Chin, & Li, 2019).
Typically, this usually happens due to a lack of QI understanding. Mismanaged or poor fidelity,
especially to the quality improvement principles, remains key to limiting its effectiveness,
especially in the healthcare sector. In such instances, it usually results in wasted efforts given its
credibility decrease. It also wastes efforts, especially by the participants (Dixon-Woods, &
Martin, 2016). Once this issue progresses, it usually widens the gap between individuals inclined
to skepticism and proponents of quality improvement, especially in healthcare. In most cases, it
usually results in missed prospects on how to incorporate quality improvement, thus resulting in
quality of patient care variation.
There is always the need to articulate the variances between healthcare quality
improvements and other approaches. Basically, this means that without such articulation, there is
the possible of risk failing to classify where the quality improvement can add some value within
the healthcare sector (Dixon-Woods, & Martin, 2016). Equally, there is the possibility of seeing
quality improvement as an important aspect that could be used when dealing with healthcare
12
challenges. Using different approaches can always be considered to be an effective way of
dealing with such issues within the healthcare sector.
Based on this analysis, it remains evident that quality improvement does not address all
the healthcare delivery issues (Dixon-Woods, & Martin, 2016). Before incorporating it into a
healthcare setup, it is always important to identify some of the tools which could be used based
on the healthcare situation. As much as the different approaches remain critical in addressing the
different challenges, failing to have a clear knowledge of the approaches to be used could mean
missed opportunities when seeking to improve quality healthcare.
13
Thesis and purpose statement
Purpose:
From the research carried out by researchers in this field, along with the current state of
quality improvement in healthcare facilities, this study will consolidate information to provide
deeper insights into the topic and present practical solutions to improve quality in healthcare
settings.
Thesis:
The healthcare industry has seen various trends in adopting and implementing practices
aimed at quality improvement. Nevertheless, there have also been challenges in enforcing these
practices, which calls for detailed research into how the dynamics of quality improvement in
healthcare can be improved.
Research questions
1. What efforts have been made in the healthcare industry towards achieving quality
improvement in healthcare systems?
2. How does knowledge level affect the implementation of quality improvement practices in
healthcare settings?
3. Which challenges affect the proper implementation of quality improvement practices in
healthcare systems?
Organizational plan
This research will follow the conventional research process and the standard research
paper format and plan to achieve the research purpose. The researcher will first conduct
preliminary research to find out what work and research have previously been done on the same
research topic. Secondly, the researcher should present a research proposal for review, validation
14
and approval from the supervisor(s) for permission to proceed with the research. The researcher
will then conduct the main research to collect and analyze data. Finally, they will compile a
research report containing the data collected, its analysis and conclusion as informed by research
findings from the field.
15
References
Adair, K. C., Quow, K., Frankel, A., Mosca, P. J., Profit, J., Hadley, A., Leonard, M., & Bryan
Sexton, J. (2018). The improvement readiness scale of the SCORE survey: A metric to
assess capacity for quality improvement in healthcare. BMC Health Services
Research, 18(1), 975-975. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-018-3743-0
Bartunek, J. M. (2012). Intergroup relationships and quality improvement in healthcare. BMJ
Quality & Safety, 20(Suppl 1), i62-i66. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs.2010.046169
Batalden, P. (2018). Getting more health from healthcare: Quality improvement must
acknowledge patient coproduction—an essay by Batalden den. BMJ, 362,
k3617. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.k3617
Brandrud, A. S., Nyen, B., Hjortdahl, P., Sandvik, L., Helljesen Haldorsen, G. S., Bergli, M.,
Nelson, E. C., & Bretthauer, M. (2017). Domains associated with successful quality
improvement in healthcare – a nationwide case study. BMC Health Services
Research, 17(1), 648-648. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-017-2454-2
Datta, V., & Livesley, N. (2021). Spread of quality improvement in healthcare across the south
Asian subcontinent. BMJ Open Quality, 10(Suppl 1),
e001600. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjoq-2021-001600
Dixon-Woods, M., & Martin, G. P. (2016). Does quality improvement improve quality?. Future
Hospital Journal, 3(3), 191.
Giannini, M. (2015). Performance and quality improvement in healthcare
organizations. International Journal of Healthcare Management, 8(3), 173179. https://doi.org/10.1179/2047971915Y.0000000002
16
Gleeson, H., Calderon, A., Swami, V., Deighton, J., Wolpert, M., & Edbrooke-Childs, J. (2016).
A systematic review of approaches to patient experience data for quality improvement in
healthcare settings. BMJ Open, 6(8), e011907-e011907. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen2016-011907
Huang, C., Chin, Y. H., & Li, Y. J. (2019). Scaling up knowledge sharing to speed up quality
improvement in healthcare organizations. International Journal for Quality in Health
Care, 31(9), 655-656. https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzz125
Islam, M., & Li, Y. (. (2019). Quality improvement in healthcare requires valid, reliable, and
efficient methods and indicators. International Journal for Quality in Health Care, 31(7),
495-496. https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzz077
Lifvergren, S. (2013). Quality improvement in healthcare. Chalmers Tekniska Hogskola
(Sweden).
Myers, J. S., Kin, J. M., Billi, J. E., Burke, K. G., & Harrison, R. V. (2021). Development and
validation of an A3 problem-solving assessment tool and self-instructional package for
teachers of quality improvement in healthcare. BMJ Quality & Safety, 31(4), 287296. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2020-012105
Niñerola, A., Sánchez-Rebull, M., & Hernández-Lara, A. (2020). Quality improvement in
healthcare: Six systematic sigma review. Health Policy (Amsterdam), 124(4), 438-445.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthpol.2020.01.002
Pflueger, D. (2015). Accounting for quality: The relationship between accounting and quality
improvement in healthcare. BMC Health Services Research, 15(1), 178178. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-015-0769-4
17
Slyngstad, L. (2021). The contribution of variable control charts to quality improvement in
healthcare: A literature review. Journal of Healthcare Leadership, 13, 221230. https://doi.org/10.2147/JHL.S319169
Willmington, C., Belardi, P., Murante, A. M., & Vainieri, M. (2022). The contribution of
benchmarking to quality improvement in healthcare. A systematic literature review. BMC
Health Services Research, 22(1), 139-139. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-022-07467-8
Žvanut, B., Burnik, M., Kolnik, T. Š., & Pucer, P. (2020). The applicability of COBIT processes
representation structure for quality improvement in healthcare: A Delphi
study. International Journal for Quality in Health Care, 32(9), 577584. https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzaa096
BUSI 611
RESEARCH PROJECT FINAL ASSIGNMENT INSTRUCTIONS
OVERVIEW
Using your research, Outline, and Draft, you will work on polishing the 3,000-5,000 -word
paper, complying with the formatting and content instructions below.
INSTRUCTIONS
Format
• 3,000-5,000 words, double-spaced, not including title and reference pages
• Times New Roman, 12-point font
• Left justified
• One-inch margins
• Current APA format
• Numbered pages
• At least 15 scholarly articles from peer reviewed journals, each less than 10 years old
• Block quotations for any quotes more than 40 words:
• Reference page in current APA format including active URL links
Content
• A title page that includes:
o “Running head:” and page number (right aligned)
o Course number and name
o Case name
o Date submitted
o “Respectfully submitted to: (Instructor’s Name)”
• Abstract (in block format)
• Content of your topic and/or paper (review the associated grading rubric)
o Use concepts from the textbook that are related to your topic, including page
numbers where the concepts may be found. Credit will only be earned for
concepts supported by page numbers from the textbook. (Essentially, this is
accomplished through integration of the relevant course content, using properly
formatted, current APA citations.)
o Use in-text citations in current APA format to credit sources listed in the
reference list as appropriate.
• Conclusion
• References
Page 1 of 2
BUSI 611
Plagiarism
Plagiarism will not be tolerated. Plagiarism commonly occurs when the student utilizes an
author’s words without properly attributing the source. All sources must be referenced. No
cutting and pasting or copying is appropriate unless quoting. Purchasing papers of any form will
result in automatic failure for the course and a recommendation for expulsion.
Note: Your assignment will be checked for originality via the Turnitin plagiarism tool. The tool
is a starting point for instructors to check overall Academic Integrity and higher scores generally
indicate a higher probability of Academic Misconduct. The higher a score, the higher the
probability that there are too many quotations included in the narrative, and/or there are passages
that have not been properly cited.
Page 2 of 2
Submission comment from teache
Thank you for your submission. See electronic comments for additional feedback (Not all inclusive). Review all comments
and recommendations, as the point distributions and rubric are different for the draft and final (next and last phase of the
project paper). There is a lot of useful information covered in your paper. However, there is a lot or work need to organize
the material. You addressed a few of the gaps, key components, etc… for your approved topic … Quality Improvement…. – As
a general reminder, it is important for this course that you address an operation management perspective. I encourage
review of draft to bring the final phase of this project to fruition with a quality deliverable. There are several recommended
changes. Headers provided did not appear to align with the content material. However, you should review any opportunities
to add or reformat headers and sub-headers that correctly illustrate the association of the material. Below is information on
header formation from the OWL website that could be helpful (APA 7th edition). Lastly, remember that no headers should be
left at the bottom of a page, interferes with flow and readability. APA Headings Level Format 1 Centered, Boldface, Title
Case Heading Text starts a new paragraph. 2 Flush left, Boldface, Title Case Heading Text starts a new paragraph. 3 Flush
Left, Boldface Italic, Title Case Heading Text starts a new paragraph. 4 Indented, Boldface Title Case Heading Ending With a
Period. Paragraph text continues on the same line as the same paragraph. 5 Indented, Boldface Italic, Title Case Heading
Ending With a Period. Paragraph text continues on the same line as the same paragraph. Please note that I do not check all
references and citations for authenticity, but I do spot check in each assignment. You DID NOT meet the 15 peer-reviewed
sources, in addition to the textbook, requirement for full credit on that performance standard. The issue was
citation/reference alignment; several sources on the reference list were not cited in the paper. Additionally, for clarification,
any concept that is not your original idea or conclusion drawn must be cited. Citation is not synonymous with direct quote. It
is appropriate and expected that paraphrasing is used to illustrate understanding, application, and critical thinking skills.
Ensure that you are formatting the citations correctly to avoid this confusion. Also, remember that citations and references
must be aligned as noted previously. Keep in mind, when writing, the abstract for the final paper, you should include
objectives, methods, findings/results. Abstracts are a 200-250 words synopsis of the paper (word count is only a guide,
longer is acceptable if needed to meet expectations). The abstract is generally written last after the paper is completed.
Please ensure material summarized is in alignment with the content. Some tweaks needed on the abstract. The introduction
should include background information that leads to a purpose/thesis statement (see rubric). The strong thesis statement
and clear focus/scope are factors significant for a strong introduction. Thesis statement identified in your draft was good
but not included in the introduction. Also, remember that the main discussion points in the body of the paper should be
covered as they appear in the introduction. The conclusion should summarize research findings and address implications.
New ideas, or sources should not be introduced for the first time in the conclusion. Always review conclusion after making
any adjustments to the paper. Conclusion was not submitted with this draft of the paper. Technical: 1. I did not grade
general grammar, spelling, and punctuation harshly since this phase of the project is a draft. Please make sure to review
again for final. 2. APA formatting, to include running heads, citations, references, … 3. Review use of first-person pronouns
Research Project Draft Grading Rubric | BUSI611_B01_202230
Criteria
Abstract
Introduction
Ratings
10 to >9.0 pts
9 to >7.0 pts
7 to >0.0 pts
0 pts
Advanced
Proficient
Developing
Not
Present
•
All required
information is
included. •
No
extraneous
information is
included; formatting is
correct.
•
All required information•
Some required
is included. •
Some
information is included.
extraneous information is •
Extraneous information
included; formatting is
is included; formatting is
correct.
not correct.
10 to >9.0 pts
9 to >7.0 pts
7 to >0.0 pts
Advanced
Proficient
Developing
20 to >17.0 pts
17 to >16.0 pts
16 to >0.0 pts
0 pts
Advanced
Proficient
Developing
Not
Present
•
Thorough
comparison and
contrast of findings
are provided and
relate to the main
discussion points in
the order of their
appearance in the
purpose statement.
•
Focus is on
research findings.
•
Gaps and
controversies that
exist in the literature
are clearly discussed.
•
Comparison and
•
Comparison and
contrast of the findings
contrast of findings are
are provided but lack
lacking. •
Discussion of
thoroughness.
findings does not relate
•
Discussion of findings well to the main
could relate better to the
discussion points in the
main discussion points in purpose statement.
the purpose statement.
•
Gaps (what is unknown
•
Gaps and controversies
and needs to be
in the literature are
researched) and
discussed, but clarity
controversies that exist in
could be enhanced.
the literature are not
discussed.
•
Background
information is
engaging and leads
to a clear
purpose/thesis
statement.
•
Relevance to
course/topic is
articulated well.
•
Research
question(s) or
purpose statement is
clear and concise.
•
Two or 3 main
discussion points of
the literature review
are clearly identified
in the purpose
statement.
Content
Points
0 pts
10 pts
10 pts
Not
Present
•
Background information
•
Background information
is at times unclear or
is not clearly articulated.
uninteresting.
•
Relevance to
•
Relevance to
course/topic is unclear.
course/topic could be
•
Research question(s) or
more clearly articulated.
purpose statement is
•
Research question(s) or
unidentifiable. •
Main
purpose statement could
discussion points are not
be stated more clearly
identified in the purpose
and concisely. •
Main statement.
discussion points could
be more clearly
articulated.
20 pts
Research Project Draft Grading Rubric | BUSI611_B01_202230
Criteria
Conclusion
Ratings
Points
10 to >9.0 pts
9 to >7.0 pts
7 to >0.0 pts
0 pts
Advanced
Proficient
Developing
10 to >9.0 pts
9 to >7.0 pts
7 to >0.0 pts
0 pts
Advanced
Proficient
Developing
Not
Present
10 pts
Not
Present
•
A summary of the •
A summary of the main•
A summary of the main
main points is clearly points is presented, but
points is not clearly
articulated.
clarity could be enhanced. presented. •
Implications
•
Implications or
•
Implications or
or conclusions related to
conclusions related to conclusions related to
business practice(s) are
business practice(s)
business practice(s) are
absent, illogical, irrelevant,
are logical, relevant,
included but lack logic,
or unclear. •
Areas of
and clear. •
Areas ofrelevance, or clarity.
future research are not
future research are
•
Areas of future research
identified.
clearly identified.
are identified but lack
clarity.
Word Count
References
(Number of
Sources Utilized)
Title Page
•
The word count is •
The word count is
3,000–5,000.
2,000–2999.
•
The word count is
1–1,999.
10 to >9.0 pts
9 to >7.0 pts
7 to >0.0 pts
0 pts
Advanced
Proficient
Developing
Not
Present
•
A total of 15 or
more scholarly
articles from
peer-reviewed
sources is included.
A total of 10-14 more
scholarly articles from
peer-reviewed sources
are included.
•
5-9 scholarly articles
from peer-reviewed
Less
sources are included.
than 5
or not
present
6 to >5.0 pts
5 to >4.0 pts
4 to >0.0 pts
0 pts
Advanced
Proficient
Developing
Not
Present
•
All required
information is
included. •
No
extraneous
information is
included.
•
All required information•
Some required
is included. •
Some
information is included.
extraneous information is •
Extraneous information
included.
is included.
10 pts
10 pts
6 pts
Research Project Draft Grading Rubric | BUSI611_B01_202230
Criteria
Logical Flow
Ratings
Points
6 to >5.0 pts
5 to >4.0 pts
4 to >0.0 pts
0 pts
Advanced
Proficient
Developing
Not
Present
•
The reader is
•
The overall
guided smoothly
arrangement is logical but
through the logically
is occasionally difficult to
arranged paper.
follow. •
A minor
•
Current APA level formatting error or 2 are
headings are used.
noted in the headings.
•
No headings are •
No headings are left
left alone at the
alone at the bottom of a
bottom of a page.
page.
Font, Margins and 6 to >5.0 pts
Spacing
Advanced
6 pts
•
The arrangement of
content is haphazard and
difficult to follow.
•
Headings are not
present or are formatted
inappropriately. •
One (or
more) heading is alone at
the bottom of a page.
5 to >4.0 pts
4 to >0.0 pts
0 pts
Proficient
Developing
Not
Present
6 pts
•
Times New Roman•
Times New Roman or •
Times New Roman or
or Arial is used. •
A Arial is used through most Arial is not used. •
A
margin of 1 1/2 inch is of the document. •
A margin of 1 1/2 inch is not
used on the left
margin of 1 1/2 inch is
used on the left border;
border; margins of 1
used on the left border;
margins of 1 inch are not
inch are used on the
margins of 1 inch are
used on the top, right, and
top, right, and bottom used on the top, right, and bottom borders. •
Page
borders. •
Page
bottom borders. •
Pagenumber and page header
number and page
number and page header are absent or typed rather
header are inserted at are absent or typed rather than inserted at the top of
the top of each page. than inserted at the top of each page.
•
Double-spacing is each page.
•
Double-spacing is not
used between all
•
Double-spacing is used
used consistently between
lines. •
There is only
between most lines.
lines. •
There is often
1 space between
•
There is only 1 space more than 1 space
sentences.
between sentences.
between sentences.
•
Paragraphs are •
Paragraphs are
•
Paragraphs are not
indented 5 spaces.
indented 5 spaces.
indented 5 spaces.
References
(Formatting)
6 to >5.0 pts
5 to >4.0 pts
4 to >0.0 pts
0 pts
Advanced
Proficient
Developing
Not
Present
6 pts
•
Proper formatting is
•
A minor formatting error
•
Multiple formatting
used throughout the
or 2 are noted in the
errors occurred in the
reference list. •
Each
reference list. •
Each reference list. •
One or
reference has a
reference has a matching more reference does not
matching citation(s).
citation(s).
have a matching citation.
Spelling/Grammar 6 to >5.0 pts
5 to >4.0 pts
4 to >0.0 pts
0 pts
Advanced
Proficient
Developing
Not
Present
•
Spelling and
grammar are correct.
•
Spelling and grammar •
Spelling and grammar
are mostly correct with
require further review with
only 1–2 errors noted.
3–6 errors noted.
6 pts
Research Project Draft Grading Rubric | BUSI611_B01_202230
Criteria
Ratings
Points
Total Points: 100