Analyze and evaluate the results after 10 individuals complete the assessment

• Thoughtfully analyzes and evaluates the results after 10 individuals complete the assessment. Draws warranted, judicious, non-fallacious conclusions. Information and evidence are accurate, appropriate. • Thoroughly presents complete information of the tool’s reliability. Describes in-depth and with supporting evidence Draws warranted, judicious, non-fallacious conclusions. Information and evidence are accurate, appropriate. Diabetes Risk Assessment Tool.PDF. American Diabetes Association file:///C:/Users/nmunj/Downloads/Diabetes%20Risk%20Assessment%20Tool.pdf Apply Rubirics y Rubrics Health Risk Assessment 1 No Submission 0.00% 2 Unsatisfactory 75.00% 3 Less than Satisfactory 80.00% 4 Satisfactory 88.00% 5 Good 92.00% 6 Excellent 100.00% 80.0 %Content 20.0 %Health Risk Assessment Tool Description None. Does not describe the health risk assessment tool. Assignment criteria has not been met. Minimally describes the health risk assessment tool. Not all parameters are described. Lacks both scope and clarity. Describes the health risk assessment tool. Includes rationale. Description is lacking in scope or clarity. Clearly describes the health risk assessment tool. Includes brief rationale.

Thoroughly and comprehensively describes the health risk assessment tool. Includes in-depth details. Presents rationale for selection. Information and evidence are accurate, appropriate and supported. 20.0 %Analysis None. Analysis of the results after 10 individuals complete the assessment is not outlined or is outlined poorly. Ignores or superficially evaluates the results after 10 individuals complete the assessment. Draws unwarranted or fallacious conclusions. Surface level of evaluation on the results after 10 individuals complete the assessment is offered. Claims and ideas are supported. Analysis is direct, competent, and appropriate. Examines the results after 10 individuals complete the assessment. Some details are provided. Thoughtfully analyzes and evaluates the results after 10 individuals complete the assessment. Draws warranted, judicious, non-fallacious conclusions. Information and evidence are accurate, appropriate. 20.0 %Reading Level and Appropriateness for Intended Audience None. Does not describe the reading level of the tool. Assignment criteria has not been met. Minimally describes the reading level of the tool. Not all parameters of the criteria are described. Lacks both scope and clarity. Describes the reading level of the tool. Includes results and rationale, but description is basic. Clearly describes the reading level of the tool. Includes results, and examines the appropriateness for the intended audience. Thoroughly and comprehensively describes the reading level of the tool. Includes in-depth details on the results. Presents rationale for the tools appropriateness for an intended audience. Information and evidence are accurate, appropriate and supported. 20.0 %Validity and Reliability None. Description of the tools validity and reliability is either not present or incomplete. Assignment criteria has not been met. Minimally describes the tools validity and reliability. Data lacks details and/or is incomplete. Discussion significantly lacks depth. Outline the tools validity and reliability. Statements may lack depth of understanding or detail. Provides a basic clear description of the tools validity and reliability. Some details are provided. Evidence is supportive. Thoroughly presents complete information of the tools validity and reliability. Describes in-depth and with supporting evidence Draws warranted, judicious, non-fallacious conclusions. Information and evidence are accurate, appropriate.