Unit 2 Assignment 2 - Evaluating DSSSubmit AssignmentDue Sunday by 11:59pm Points 40 Submitting a text entry box, a website url, a media recording, or a file uploadInstructionsRead the following two papers related to the evaluation of clinical DSSs:Berner, E.S., Webster, G.D., Shugerman, A.A., Jackson, J., Algina, J., Baker, A.L., Ball, E.V., Cobbs, G.G., Dennis, V.W., Frenkel, E.P., Hudson, L.D., Mancall, E.L., Rackley, C.E., & Taunton, O.D. (1994, June 23). Performance of four computer-based diagnostic decision support systems. New England Journal of Medicine, 330(25),1792-96. Retrieved from http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199406233...Berner, E.S., Jackson, J.R., & Algina, J. (1996). Relationships among the performance scores of four diagnostic decision support systems. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association: JAMIA, 3(3), 208-15. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11630...Identify a minimum of four (4) key elements involved in conducting an evaluation of DSS solutions.Submit your report for grading. Your report should be in Microsoft Word format. Cite all sources in APA format.Reminder: You must upload your completed document using Browse My Computer. Then, hit the Submit button to successfully complete the assignment submission process. Do not copy and paste text into the text box.RubricUnit 2 Assignment 2 - Evaluating DSSUnit 2 Assignment 2 - Evaluating DSSCriteriaRatingsPtsThis criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeContent20.0 ptsLevel 5Demonstrates the ability to construct a clear and insightful problem statement/thesis statement/topic statement with evidence of all relevant contextual factors.18.0 ptsLevel 4Demonstrates the ability to construct a problem statement, thesis statement/topic statement with evidence of most relevant contextual factors, and problem statement is adequately detailed.16.0 ptsLevel 3Begins to demonstrate the ability to construct a problem statement/thesis statement/topic statement with evidence of most relevant contextual factors, but problem statement is superficial.14.0 ptsLevel 2Demonstrates a limited ability in identifying a problem statement/thesis statement/topic statement or related contextual factors.12.0 ptsLevel 1Demonstrates the ability to explain contextual factors but does not provide a defined statement.0.0 ptsLevel 0There is no evidence of a defined statement.20.0 ptsThis criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeAnalysisPRICE-P10.0 ptsLevel 5Organizes and compares evidence to reveal insightful patterns, differences, or similarities related to focus.9.0 ptsLevel 4Organizes and interprets evidence to reveal patterns, differences, or similarities related to focus.8.0 ptsLevel 3Organizes and describes evidence according to patterns, differences, or similarities related to focus.7.0 ptsLevel 2Organizes evidence, but the organization is not effective in revealing patterns, differences, or similarities.6.0 ptsLevel 1Describes evidence, but it is not organized and/or is unrelated to focus.0.0 ptsLevel 0Lists evidence, but it is not organized and/or is unrelated to focus.10.0 ptsThis criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWriting5.0 ptsLevel 5The paper exhibits an excellent command of written English language conventions. The paper has no errors in mechanics, grammar, or spelling.4.5 ptsLevel 4The paper exhibits a good command of written English language conventions. The paper has no errors in mechanics or spelling with minor grammatical errors that impair the flow of communication.4.0 ptsLevel 3The paper exhibits a basic command of written English language conventions. The paper has minor errors in mechanics, grammar, or spelling that impact the flow of communication.3.5 ptsLevel 2The paper exhibits a limited command of written English language conventions. The paper has frequent errors in mechanics, grammar, or spelling that impede the flow of communication.3.0 ptsLevel 1The paper exhibits little command of written English language conventions. The paper has errors in mechanics, grammar, or spelling that cause the reader to stop and reread parts of the writing to discern meaning.0.0 ptsLevel 0The paper does not demonstrate command of written English language conventions. The paper has multiple errors in mechanics, grammar, or spelling that cause the reader difficulty in discerning the meaning.5.0 ptsThis criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeAPAPRICE-I5.0 ptsLevel 5The required APA elements are all included with correct formatting, including in-text citations and references.4.5 ptsLevel 4The required APA elements are all included with minor formatting errors, including in-text citations and references.4.0 ptsLevel 3The required APA elements are all included with multiple formatting errors, including in-text citations and references.3.5 ptsLevel 2The required APA elements are not all included and/or there are major formatting errors, including in-text citations and references.3.0 ptsLevel 1Several APA elements are missing. The errors in formatting demonstrate a limited understanding of APA guidelines, in-text-citations, and references.0.0 ptsLevel 0There is little to no evidence of APA formatting and/or there are no in-text citations and/or references.5.0 ptsTotal Points: 40.0PreviousNext