NYU Week 5 Interpersonal Health Behavior Theories Discussion
NYU Week 5 Interpersonal Health Behavior Theories Discussion
Description
Please note that each and every assignment has its own word limit.
Compare and contrast two models or theories of interpersonal health behavior. What are the strengths and weaknesses associated with each model or theory? In what situations or contexts are each of these theories or models most appropriate?
https://apastyle.apa.org/learn/quick-guide-on-refe…
Read Chapters 8-12 in Health Behavior: Theory, Research, and Practice.
URL:
Read “Integration of the Interaction Model of Client Health Behavior and Transactional Model of Stress and Coping as a Tool for Understanding Retention in HIV Care Across the Lifespan,” by Graham, from Journal of the Association of Nurses in AIDS Care (2015).
URL:
http://www.sciencedirect.com.lopes.idm.oclc.org/science/article/pii/S1055329014003161
Read “Use of Formative Research and Social Network Theory to Develop a Group Walking Intervention: Sumter County on the Move!” by Forthofer, Burroughs-Girardi, Stoisor-Olsson, Wilcox, Sharpe, and Pekuri, from Evaluation and Program Planning (2016).
URL:
http://www.sciencedirect.com.lopes.idm.oclc.org/science/article/pii/S0149718916300210
Read “Neighborhood Social Stressors, Fine Particulate Matter Air Pollution, and Cognitive Function Among Older U.S. Adults,” by Ailshire, Karraker, and Clarke, from Social Science and Medicine (2017).
URL:
http://www.sciencedirect.com.lopes.idm.oclc.org/science/article/pii/S0277953616306281
Read “Reconsidering the Effects of Poverty and Social Support on Health: A 5-Year Longitudinal Test of the Stress-Buffering Hypothesis,” by Moskowitz, Vittinghoff, and Schmidt, from Journal of Urban Health (2013).
URL:
Read “Providers Help People Regulate Affect Relationally: Implications for Perceived Support. Personal Relationships,” by Lakey, Cooper, Cronin, and Whitaker, from Personal Relationships (2014).
URL:
Read “Social Cognitive Theories Used to Explain Physical Activity Behavior in Adolescents: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis,” by Plotnikoff, Costigan, Karunamuni, and Lubans, from Preventive Medicine (2013).
URL:
MUST have at least three citations with the page numbers and three references in APA format and all questions clearly answered in paragraphs.(The List of References should not be older than 2016 and should not be included in the word count.)
Be sure to support your postings and responses with specific references to the Learning Resources.
It is important that you cover all the topics identified in the assignment. Covering the topic does not mean mentioning the topic BUT presenting an explanation from the context of ethics and the readings for this class
A
| Excellent | Good | Fair | Poor | ||
| Main Posting | 45 (45%) – 50 (50%)
Answers all parts of the discussion question(s) expectations with reflective critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources.
Supported by at least three current, credible sources.
Written clearly and concisely with no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style. |
40 (40%) – 44 (44%)
Responds to the discussion question(s) and is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.
At least 75% of post has exceptional depth and breadth.
Supported by at least three credible sources.
Written clearly and concisely with one or no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style. |
35 (35%) – 39 (39%)
Responds to some of the discussion question(s).
One or two criteria are not addressed or are superficially addressed.
Is somewhat lacking reflection and critical analysis and synthesis.
Somewhat represents knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.
Post is cited with two credible sources.
Written somewhat concisely; may contain more than two spelling or grammatical errors.
Contains some APA formatting errors. |
0 (0%) – 34 (34%)
Does not respond to the discussion question(s) adequately.
Lacks depth or superficially addresses criteria.
Lacks reflection and critical analysis and synthesis.
Does not represent knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.
Contains only one or no credible sources.
Not written clearly or concisely.
Contains more than two spelling or grammatical errors.
Does not adhere to current APA manual writing rules and style. |
|
| Main Post: Timeliness | 10 (10%) – 10 (10%)
Posts main post by day 3. |
0 (0%) – 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
Does not post by day 3. |
|
| First Response | 17 (17%) – 18 (18%)
Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings.
Responds fully to questions posed by faculty.
Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources.
Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.
Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed.
Response is effectively written in standard, edited English. |
15 (15%) – 16 (16%)
Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings.
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.
Responses to faculty questions are answered, if posed.
Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources.
Response is effectively written in standard, edited English. |
13 (13%) – 14 (14%)
Response is on topic and may have some depth.
Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication.
Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed.
Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited. |
0 (0%) – 12 (12%)
Response may not be on topic and lacks depth.
Responses posted in the discussion lack effective professional communication.
Responses to faculty questions are missing.
No credible sources are cited. |
|
| Second Response | 16 (16%) – 17 (17%)
Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings.
Responds fully to questions posed by faculty.
Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources.
Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.
Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed.
Response is effectively written in standard, edited English. |
14 (14%) – 15 (15%)
Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings.
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.
Responses to faculty questions are answered, if posed.
Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources.
Response is effectively written in standard, edited English. |
12 (12%) – 13 (13%)
Response is on topic and may have some depth.
Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication.
Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed.
Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited. |
0 (0%) – 11 (11%)
Response may not be on topic and lacks depth.
Responses posted in the discussion lack effective professional communication.
Responses to faculty questions are missing.
No credible sources are cited. |
|
| Participation | 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Meets requirements for participation by posting on three different days. |
0 (0%) – 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
Does not meet requirements for participation by posting on 3 different days. |
|
| Total Points: 100 | |||||