SEU Case Series Study and Cross Sectional Study Differences Discussion

SEU Case Series Study and Cross Sectional Study Differences Discussion

SEU Case Series Study and Cross Sectional Study Differences Discussion

Description

What are the major differences between a case series study and a cross-sectional study?”

SEU Case Series Study and Cross Sectional Study Differences Discussion
SEU Case Series Study and Cross Sectional Study Differences Discussion

Click here to ORDER an A++ paper from our Verified MASTERS and DOCTORATE WRITERS:SEU Case Series Study and Cross Sectional Study Differences Discussion

  • reply my classmate answer with reference “Case series studies describes the traits and results of a group of people who have either an illness or an exposure throughout time without the use of a control group. There isn’t any randomization and data are gathered either retroactively or prospective.Cross-sectional studies are a type of descriptive research that uses data gathered in a certain way from a predetermined group. One way to think of this research is as a snapshot of the prevalence of a disease or other aspects of healthat a particular time, in a population.”
  • 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