Discussion: Developmental stages of children

A detailed comparison of physical assessments among different school-aged children is presented. How assessment techniques would be modified depending on the age and developmental stage of the child is thoroughly described. Insight is demonstrated into the physical assessment of school age children.

A comparison of physical assessments among different school-aged children is presented. How assessment techniques would be modified depending on the age and developmental stage of the child is described. Some information is needed for clarity.

A general comparison of physical assessments among different school-aged children is summarized. How assessment techniques would be modified depending on the age and developmental stage of the child is generally described. More information or support is needed for clarity or accuracy.

An incomplete comparison of physical assessments among different school-aged children is summarized. How assessment techniques would be modified depending on the age and developmental stage of the child is omitted or contains significant inaccuracies.

A comparison of physical assessments among different school-aged children is omitted.

The typical developmental stage of a child between the ages 5 and 12 is accurately and thoroughly described.

The typical developmental stage of a child between the ages 5 and 12 is described. The overall description is accurate. Some information is needed for clarity.

The typical developmental stage of a child between the ages 5 and 12 is generally described. The description contains some inaccuracies for the age of the child.

The typical developmental stage of a child between the ages 5 and 12 is summarized. The summary contains significant inaccuracies for the age of the child.

The typical developmental stage of a child between the ages 5 and 12 is not described.

A child assessment based on a developmental theory is thoroughly described. Well-developed strategies to gain cooperation and for how explanations would be offered during the assessment are presented. The potential findings expected from the assessment are all accurate and described in detail.

A child assessment based on a developmental theory is described. Appropriate strategies to gain cooperation and for how explanations would be offered during the assessment are presented. The potential findings expected from the assessment are described. Some information is needed for clarity.

A child assessment based on a developmental theory is generally described. General strategies to gain cooperation and for how explanations would be offered during the assessment are presented. The potential findings expected from the assessment are summarized. There are minor inaccuracies.

A child assessment based on a developmental theory is partially summarized. Partial strategies to gain cooperation and for how explanations would be offered during the assessment are presented. The potential findings expected from the assessment are omitted or are incorrect. There are significant inaccuracies.

A child assessment based on a developmental theory is omitted.

Thesis is comprehensive and contains the essence of the paper. Thesis statement makes the purpose of the paper clear.

Thesis is clear and forecasts the development of the paper. Thesis is descriptive and reflective of the arguments and appropriate to the purpose.

Thesis is apparent and appropriate to purpose.

Thesis is insufficiently developed or vague. Purpose is not clear.

Paper lacks any discernible overall purpose or organizing claim.

Clear and convincing argument that presents a persuasive claim in a distinctive and compelling manner. All sources are authoritative.

Argument shows logical progressions. Techniques of argumentation are evident. There is a smooth progression of claims from introduction to conclusion. Most sources are authoritative.

Argument is orderly but may have a few inconsistencies. The argument presents minimal justification of claims. Argument logically, but not thoroughly, supports the purpose. Sources used are credible. Introduction and conclusion bracket the thesis.

Sufficient justification of claims is lacking. Argument lacks consistent unity. There are obvious flaws in the logic. Some sources have questionable credibility.

Statement of purpose is not justified by the conclusion. The conclusion does not support the claim made. Argument is incoherent and uses noncredible sources.

Writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English.

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.

Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but they are not overly distracting to the reader. Correct sentence structure and audience-appropriate language are used.

Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistencies in language choice (register), sentence structure, or word choice are present.

Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice or sentence construction is used.

All format elements are correct.

Template is fully used; There are virtually no errors in formatting style.

Template is used, and formatting is correct, although some minor errors may be present.

Template is used, but some elements are missing or mistaken; lack of control with formatting is apparent.

Template is not used appropriately, or documentation format is rarely followed correctly.

Sources are completely and correctly documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is free of error.

Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is mostly correct.

Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, although some formatting errors may be present.

Documentation of sources is inconsistent or incorrect, as appropriate to assignment and style, with numerous formatting errors.

Sources are not documented.