Use the following information to ensure successful completion of the assignment:<\/p>\n

\n
• This assignment uses a rubric. Please review the rubric prior to beginning the assignment to become familiar with the expectations for successful completion.<\/li>\n
• Doctoral learners are required to use APA style for their writing assignments. The APA Style Guide is located in the Student Success Center.<\/li>\n
• This assignment requires that at least two additional scholarly research sources related to this topic and at least one in-text citation\u00a0for each source be included.<\/li>\n
• You are required to submit this assignment to LopesWrite. A link to the\u00a0LopesWrite technical support articles is located in\u00a0Class Resources if you need assistance.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

  Directions:<\/strong><\/h2>\n

  Perform the following to successfully complete the assignment:<\/p>\n

  \n
  1. Use the Surgeon General’s tool, “My Family Health Portrait,” located in the topic Resources, to document your own family history.<\/li>\n
  2. Designate a proband for the pedigree with a disease or condition of interest.<\/li>\n
  3. Write a summary (750-1,000 words) of your findings that includes the following: (a) Discuss of the heredity patterns discovered; (b) Evaluate the risk of transmission to other\/new family members; and (c) Propose the feasibility of using this tool in your own practice.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

      <\/p>\n

     Rubric Criteria<\/strong><\/h2>\n

     Total<\/strong>80\u00a0points<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

     Criterion<\/strong><\/td>\n	1.\u00a0Unsatisfactory<\/strong><\/td>\n	2.\u00a0Less Than Satisfactory<\/strong><\/td>\n	3.\u00a0Satisfactory<\/strong><\/td>\n	4.\u00a0Good<\/strong><\/td>\n	5.\u00a0Excellent<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
     Evaluation of the Risk of Transmission to Other\/New Family Members<\/strong><\/p>\n Evaluation of the Risk of Transmission to Other\/New Family Members<\/td>\n	0\u00a0points<\/strong><\/p>\n Evaluation of the risk of transmission to other\/new family members is not present.<\/td>\n	16\u00a0points<\/strong><\/p>\n Evaluation of the risk of transmission to other\/new family members is present but incomplete.<\/td>\n	17.6\u00a0points<\/strong><\/p>\n Evaluation of the risk of transmission to other\/new family members is present but done at a perfunctory level.<\/td>\n	18.4\u00a0points<\/strong><\/p>\n Evaluation of the risk of transmission to other\/new family members is clearly present. Discussion is convincing. Information presented is from scholarly but dated sources.<\/td>\n	20\u00a0points<\/strong><\/p>\n Evaluation of the risk of transmission to other\/new family members is clearly present. Discussion is insightful. Information presented is from current scholarly sources.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
     Proposal of the Feasibility of Using This Tool in Practice<\/strong><\/p>\n Proposal of the Feasibility of Using This Tool in Practice<\/td>\n	0\u00a0points<\/strong><\/p>\n Proposal of the feasibility of using this tool in practice is not presented.<\/td>\n	12.8\u00a0points<\/strong><\/p>\n Proposal of the feasibility of using this tool in practice is presented but incomplete.<\/td>\n	14.08\u00a0points<\/strong><\/p>\n Proposal of the feasibility of using this tool in practice is presented but done at a perfunctory level.<\/td>\n	14.72\u00a0points<\/strong><\/p>\n Proposal of the feasibility of using this tool in practice is clearly presented. Discussion is convincing. Information presented is from mostly current scholarly sources, but some outdated sources are used.<\/td>\n	16\u00a0points<\/strong><\/p>\n Proposal of the feasibility of using this tool in practice is clearly presented. Discussion is insightful and detailed. Information presented is from current scholarly sources.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
     Paper Format (Use of appropriate style for the major and assignment)<\/strong><\/p>\n Paper Format (Use of appropriate style for the major and assignment)<\/td>\n	0\u00a0points<\/strong><\/p>\n Template is not used appropriately, or documentation format is rarely followed correctly.<\/td>\n	3.2\u00a0points<\/strong><\/p>\n Appropriate template is used, but some elements are missing or mistaken. A lack of control with formatting is apparent.<\/td>\n	3.52\u00a0points<\/strong><\/p>\n Appropriate template is used. Formatting is correct, although some minor errors may be present.<\/td>\n	3.68\u00a0points<\/strong><\/p>\n Appropriate template is fully used. There are virtually no errors in formatting style.<\/td>\n	4\u00a0points<\/strong><\/p>\n All format elements are correct.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
     Documentation of Sources (citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc., as appropriate to as<\/strong><\/p>\n Documentation of Sources (citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc., as appropriate to assignment and style)<\/td>\n	0\u00a0points<\/strong><\/p>\n Sources are not documented.<\/td>\n	3.2\u00a0points<\/strong><\/p>\n Documentation of sources is inconsistent or incorrect, as appropriate to assignment and style, with numerous formatting errors.<\/td>\n	3.52\u00a0points<\/strong><\/p>\n Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, although some formatting errors may be present.<\/td>\n	3.68\u00a0points<\/strong><\/p>\n Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is mostly correct.<\/td>\n	4\u00a0points<\/strong><\/p>\n Sources are completely and correctly documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is free of error.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
     Thesis Development and Purpose<\/strong><\/p>\n Thesis Development and Purpose<\/td>\n	0\u00a0points<\/strong><\/p>\n Paper lacks any discernible overall purpose or organizing thesis.<\/td>\n	4.48\u00a0points<\/strong><\/p>\n Thesis is insufficiently developed or vague; purpose is not clear.<\/td>\n	4.93\u00a0points<\/strong><\/p>\n Thesis is apparent and appropriate to purpose.<\/td>\n	5.15\u00a0points<\/strong><\/p>\n Thesis is clear and forecast the development of the paper. It is descriptive and reflective of the arguments and appropriate to the purpose.<\/td>\n	5.6\u00a0points<\/strong><\/p>\n Thesis is comprehensive. The essence of the paper is contained within the thesis. Thesis statement makes the purpose of the paper clear.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
     Discussion of the Heredity Patterns Discovered<\/strong><\/p>\n Discussion of the Heredity Patterns Discovered<\/td>\n	0\u00a0points<\/strong><\/p>\n Discussion of the heredity patterns discovered is not present.<\/td>\n	16\u00a0points<\/strong><\/p>\n Discussion of the heredity patterns discovered is present but incomplete.<\/td>\n	17.6\u00a0points<\/strong><\/p>\n Discussion of the heredity patterns discovered is present but done at a perfunctory level.<\/td>\n	18.4\u00a0points<\/strong><\/p>\n Discussion of the heredity patterns discovered is clearly present and convincing. Information presented is from scholarly but dated sources.<\/td>\n	20\u00a0points<\/strong><\/p>\n Discussion of the heredity patterns discovered is clearly present and insightful. Information presented is from current scholarly sources.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
     Argument Logic and Construction<\/strong><\/p>\n Argument Logic and Construction<\/td>\n	0\u00a0points<\/strong><\/p>\n Statement of purpose is not justified by the conclusion. The conclusion does not support the thesis. Argument is incoherent and uses noncredible sources.<\/td>\n	5.12\u00a0points<\/strong><\/p>\n Sufficient justification of thesis is lacking. Argument lacks consistent unity. There are obvious flaws in the logic. Some sources have questionable credibility.<\/td>\n	5.63\u00a0points<\/strong><\/p>\n Argument is orderly but may have a few inconsistencies. The argument presents minimal justification of the thesis. Argument logically, but not thoroughly, supports the purpose. Sources used are credible. Introduction and conclusion bracket the thesis.<\/td>\n	5.89\u00a0points<\/strong><\/p>\n Argument shows logical progressions. Techniques of argumentation are evident. There is a smooth progression in support of the thesis from introduction to conclusion. Most sources are authoritative.<\/td>\n	6.4\u00a0points<\/strong><\/p>\n Clear and convincing argument that presents persuasive evidence in support of the thesis in a distinctive and compelling manner. All sources are authoritative.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
     Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use)<\/strong><\/p>\n Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use)<\/td>\n	0\u00a0points<\/strong><\/p>\n Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice and\/or sentence construction are used.<\/td>\n	3.2\u00a0points<\/strong><\/p>\n Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistencies in language choice (register), sentence structure, and\/or word choice are present.<\/td>\n	3.52\u00a0points<\/strong><\/p>\n Some mechanical errors or typos are present but are not overly distracting to the reader. Correct sentence structure and audience-appropriate language are used.<\/td>\n	3.68\u00a0points<\/strong><\/p>\n 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.<\/td>\n	4\u00a0points<\/strong><\/p>\n Writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n Click here to ORDER an A++ paper from our Verified MASTERS and DOCTORATE WRITERS: DNP 810 Family History GCU<\/strong><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n