5.0 %Research Citations (In-text citations for paraphrasing and direct quotes, and reference page listing and formatting, as appropriate to assignment and style) No reference page is included. No citations are used. Reference page is present. Citations are inconsistently used. Reference page is included and lists sources used in the paper. Sources are appropriately documented, although some errors may be present. Reference page is present and fully inclusive of all cited sources. Documentation is appropriate and citation style is usually correct. In-text citations and a reference page are complete and correct. The documentation of cited sources is free of error.

5.0 %Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use) Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice and/or sentence construction are used. Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistencies in language choice (register), sentence structure, and/or word choice are present. Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but 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. 10.0 %Format 5.0 %Paper Format (Use of appropriate style for the major and assignment) Template is not used appropriately, or documentation format is rarely followed correctly. Appropriate template is used, but some elements are missing or mistaken. A lack of control with formatting is apparent.

8.0 %Argument Logic and Construction Statement of purpose is not justified by the conclusion. The conclusion does not support the claim made. Argument is incoherent and uses noncredible 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 progression. Techniques of argumentation are evident. There is a smooth progression of claims from introduction to conclusion. Most sources are authoritative. Clear and convincing argument presents a persuasive claim in a distinctive and compelling manner. All sources are authoritative.

20.0 %Organization and Effectiveness 7.0 %Thesis Development and Purpose Paper lacks any discernible overall purpose or organizing claim. Thesis and/or main claim are insufficiently developed and/or vague; purpose is not clear. Thesis and/or main claim are apparent and appropriate to purpose. Thesis and/or main claim are clear and forecast the development of the paper. It is descriptive and reflective of the arguments and appropriate to the purpose. Thesis and/or main claim are comprehensive. The essence of the paper is contained within the thesis. Thesis statement makes the purpose of the paper clear.

15.0 %Recommendations for action No recommendations were provided or are not made evident. Few recommendations were outlined to support the assignment. The recommendations stated are adequate and standard in relevance and/or quality, but lacking in sufficient rationale and/or justification. Recommendations for action are clearly described and rationale is evident. Recommendations are relevant to the issues stated in the assignment criteria. Recommendations to mitigate adverse health effects and promote positive health effects are well-described and include justification and purpose. Addresses all of the issues stated in the assignment criteria. 10.0 %Conclusion: Dissemination to decision makers Conclusion is either not present or not evident to the reader. Conclusion is insufficiently developed and/or vague and lacks any discernible purpose. Conclusion is present and some decision makers are identified, but justification and support is lacking.

30.0 %Explains the information needed to estimate the effects of the proposed project on population health Analysis of the criteria is not outlined or outlined poorly. Fails to describe the information needed. Minimally describes the information needed of the project and/or of the community. Provides some description of the information needed, but lacks sufficient rationale and/or justification. Analysis of information needed is competent and appropriate for the criteria. Clear descriptions and rationale of the information needed is evident. Thoughtfully analyzes and evaluates the information that needs to be researched to determine the effects of the proposed project and the health of the population.

Health Impact Assessment (Benchmark Assignment) 1 Unsatisfactory 0.00% 2 Less than Satisfactory 74.00% 3 Satisfactory 79.00% 4 Good 87.00% 5 Excellent 100.00% 70.0 %Content 15.0 %Overview and description of HIA Overview of an HIA is either not present or not evident to the reader. Overview is insufficiently developed and/or vague. Purpose is not clear, and paper lacks any discernible overall purpose or organizing claim. Overview is present but lacks clarity and/or depth. Does not provide a comprehensive description of an HIA. Overview and description of HIA is clear, forecasting development of paper. Overview is comprehensive and provides sufficient description of an HIA. A clear analysis regarding how an HIA differs from other assessments is provided.