| Course | NUR 673 Producing and Evaluating Programs for Academic and Practice Settings |
|---|---|
| Module | Module 4 |
| Paper type | Written assignment design with analytic rubric |
| Length | About 555 words, 5 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Arizona State University |
| Program | MS in Nursing |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for NUR 673 Module 4
A Clinical Reasoning Brief and Its Rubric: Designing a Written Assignment on Hyponatremia in an Older Adult
Student Name
Edson College of Nursing and Health Innovation, Arizona State University
NUR 673: Producing and Evaluating Programs for Academic and Practice Settings
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
A Clinical Reasoning Brief and Its Rubric: Designing a Written Assignment on Hyponatremia in an Older Adult
Purpose and Alignment
The written assignment supports the same unit as my test blueprint: fluid, electrolyte and acid-base imbalances in Adult Health II. The quiz samples knowledge broadly; this assignment asks students to show reasoning in depth on one patient. It aligns with unit outcome 3: analyze laboratory and assessment data to identify and prioritize imbalances. The domain is cognitive, and the level is analysis, with an evaluation element in the final section. The four tasks track Tanner's phases of clinical judgment, so the brief puts the student's reasoning on paper step by step (Tanner, 2006).
Student Instructions
Read the case of Mr. H., an 81-year-old man admitted with confusion after starting a thiazide diuretic, whose serum sodium is 122 mEq/L. In a brief of no more than two pages, (1) identify the assessment and laboratory cues that are relevant and those that are not; (2) explain what the cues mean, including the likely cause of his low sodium; (3) state the two nursing priorities and the actions for each, with rationales; and (4) describe how you would know whether your actions worked. Cite at least two current sources in APA format. The brief is worth 50 points and is graded with the rubric below.
Analytic Rubric
| Criterion (points) | Exemplary | Proficient | Developing | Beginning |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Noticing: relevant cues (12) | 11-12: Identifies all key cues (sodium, confusion, new thiazide, age, fall risk) and names at least two irrelevant cues with reasons | 9-10: Identifies most key cues; irrelevant cues named without reasons | 6-8: Lists cues without separating relevant from irrelevant | 0-5: Misses the sodium value or the medication link |
| Interpreting: explanation (14) | 13-14: Explains the thiazide mechanism, links sodium level to confusion and fall risk, considers one alternative cause | 10-12: Explains cause and effect correctly without an alternative | 6-9: Partly correct explanation or a gap in the link to symptoms | 0-5: Incorrect cause or no explanation |
| Responding: priorities and actions (14) | 13-14: Two correct priorities (safety and sodium correction rate) with specific actions and rationales, including avoiding rapid correction | 10-12: Correct priorities with general actions | 6-9: One correct priority or actions without rationales | 0-5: Unsafe action or no priority |
| Reflecting and writing: evaluation, sources, APA (10) | 9-10: Measurable indicators of improvement, two current sources, clear writing, correct APA | 7-8: Indicators present, minor APA or writing errors | 4-6: Vague indicators or one source | 0-3: No evaluation or no sources |
| Total (50) |
Design Decisions
I chose an analytic rubric rather than a holistic one because it gives students feedback on each part of their reasoning and helps faculty score consistently across sections. The criteria describe qualities of the work that matter for the outcome rather than surface features, following the principle that rubric criteria should be appropriate to the learning being assessed (Brookhart, 2018). Points are weighted toward interpreting and responding, the two criteria closest to analysis. The safety element appears in the Beginning level of the responding criterion, so that an unsafe action, such as rapid correction of chronic hyponatremia, cannot earn more than a failing score on that criterion.
Reliability Plan
Before grading, two faculty members will score three anonymous samples independently, compare scores and refine any descriptors that produced disagreement. This calibration step improves consistency between graders (Oermann et al., 2024).
References
Brookhart, S. M. (2018). Appropriate criteria: Key to effective rubrics. Frontiers in Education, 3, Article 22. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2018.00022
Oermann, M. H., Gaberson, K. B., & De Gagne, J. C. (Eds.). (2024). Evaluation and testing in nursing education (7th ed.). Springer Publishing.
Tanner, C. A. (2006). Thinking like a nurse: A research-based model of clinical judgment in nursing. Journal of Nursing Education, 45(6), 204-211. https://doi.org/10.3928/01484834-20060601-04
NUR 673 Module 4 instructions, in plain terms
The portfolio's third part falls due as Week 4 of NUR 673 ends, Designing Valid and Reliable Assessments, Part 3, which covers the assessment of written assignments and peer review. Ten points are at stake. Two linked products are required: a written task matched to the outcome, domain and level it serves, and a rubric able to tell one level of performance from the next. Ideally the assignment belongs to the same course or unit as your test blueprint, so the portfolio shows two complementary ways of assessing the same outcomes. The Week 4 readings in the Oermann text on written assignments and rubrics are the main source for design decisions.
Inside the NUR 673 Module 4 example
The sample starts with a statement of purpose that explains why a written assignment complements the quiz, names the outcome, domain and level and ties the task to Tanner's clinical judgment model. Student instructions follow as they would appear in the course, with a case, four numbered tasks, a page limit, a source requirement and a point value. The analytic rubric has four criteria that match the four tasks, four performance levels with point ranges and descriptors that differ in quality rather than quantity, and a built-in safety threshold. A design decisions section explains the choice of an analytic rubric, the criteria and the weighting with a source on rubric criteria. A short reliability plan describes faculty calibration before grading.
Where the marks sit in the NUR 673 Module 4 rubric
Ten points are available for Part 3 under the Canvas rubric. Submissions are usually judged on the alignment between the assignment, the stated outcome, the domain and the level of learning, clear student instructions, a rubric whose criteria match the tasks, descriptors that genuinely separate performance levels, sensible point weighting and a rationale for design choices. They lose points when the rubric criteria assess formatting more than learning, when levels differ only by words such as "good" and "excellent," when the assignment's verbs do not match the outcome level and when the instructions and rubric do not correspond. A clear rationale shows the educator judgment the course is developing.
NUR 673 Module 4 help from the desk
The most frequent problem in rubric design is descriptors that repeat the same sentence with different adjectives. Describe what the work actually looks like at each level. Another is a rubric where APA and grammar carry as many points as reasoning; weight the criteria toward the outcome. Number your instructions so each task maps to a criterion. Decide whether an unsafe answer should cap the score, and build that into the descriptors. Explain why you chose an analytic or holistic rubric. Keep the assignment in the same unit as your blueprint if you can. If you share your outcome and draft rubric with the desk, it can review the alignment.
Write yours, or have the desk draft it
This paper is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Arizona State University document. Read it for the moves, then write your own to the instructions in your classroom. If you want one built to your exact prompt and rubric, the first custom sample is free and arrives in 24 to 48 hours.
More NUR 673 and MS in Nursing sample papers
- NUR 673 Module 1: Paper: Meaningful Assessment and Evaluation in Nursing Education
- NUR 673 Module 2: Assessment Portfolio, Part 1: Test Blueprint
- NUR 673 Module 3: Assessment Portfolio, Part 4: Peer Review of Draft Test Questions
- NUR 673 Module 5: Assessment Portfolio, Part 2: Final Test Questions
- NUR 673 Module 6: Case Study: Course Evaluation
- NUR 673 Module 7: Case Study: Program Evaluation
- NUR 673 Module 8: Paper: Reflection on Learning
- NUR 501 Module 7: Innovation in Practice Paper
- NUR 503 Module 6: Case Study Presentation on a Pressure Injury After Spinal Cord Injury
- NUR 670 Module 6: Checkpoint: How Do Educators Know When Curriculum Connections Are Working?
- NUR 521 Module 7: Integrating Informatics and Health Care Final Project
NUR 673 Module 4 questions, answered
Where can I find a free NUR 673 Module 4 sample paper?
The full NUR 673 Module 4 sample is on this page: a clinical reasoning brief on hyponatremia and its four-criterion analytic rubric, with alignment and design rationale.
What is the difference between an analytic and a holistic rubric?
Analytic rubrics score each criterion on its own, giving feedback on every part; holistic rubrics give a single score for the work as a whole.
How do you write rubric levels that differentiate performance?
Write each level as a description of what the work does, not the same sentence with a stronger adjective.
What does NUR 673 Part 3 require?
A written assignment aligned with outcomes, domains and levels of learning, and a rubric that assesses learning and separates levels of performance.
When is the NUR 673 written assignment and rubric due?
At the end of Week 4, in the module on assessing written assignments, for 10 of the course's 100 points.