Fluent Essays

Read Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Psychologists.  Also, provided as an attachment. Choose one of these categories (Responsibility, Competence, Relationships, Confidentiality and Privilege, Methods and Procedures, Public and Professional Communications) and relate that category to the ACA Code of Ethics. Doc should be detailed, address any conflictual information between the codes, and be well referenced. Students will also recognize diversity variables relevant to this information. Please see/read all attachments. Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Psychology American Psychological Association In the past 50 years forensic psychological practice has expanded dramatically. The American Psychological As- sociation (APA) has a division devoted to matters of law and psychology (APA Division 41, the American Psy- chology–Law Society), a number of scientific journals de- voted to interactions between psychology and the law exist (e.g., Law and Human Behavior; Psychology, Public Pol- icy, and Law; Behavioral Sciences & the Law), and a number of key texts have been published and undergone multiple revisions (e.g., Grisso, 1986, 2003; Melton, Pe- trila, Poythress, & Slobogin, 1987, 1997, 2007; Rogers, 1988, 1997, 2008). In addition, training in forensic psy- chology is available in predoctoral, internship, and post- doctoral settings, and APA recognized forensic psychology as a specialty in 2001, with subsequent recertification in 2008. Because the practice of forensic psychology differs in important ways from more traditional practice areas (Mo- nahan, 1980) the “Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Psy- chologists” were developed and published in 1991 (Com- mittee on Ethical Guidelines for Forensic Psychologists, 1991). Because of continued developments in the field in the ensuing 20 years, forensic practitioners’ ongoing need for guidance, and policy requirements of APA, the 1991 “Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Psychologists” were revised, with the intent of benefiting forensic practitioners and recipients of their services alike. The goals of these Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Psychology (“the Guidelines”) are to improve the quality of forensic psychological services; enhance the practice and facilitate the systematic development of forensic psychol- ogy; encourage a high level of quality in professional practice; and encourage forensic practitioners to acknowl- edge and respect the rights of those they serve. These Guidelines are intended for use by psychologists when engaged in the practice of forensic psychology as described below and may also provide guidance on professional conduct to the legal system and other organizations and professions. For the purposes of these Guidelines, forensic psy- chology refers to professional practice by any psychologist working within any subdiscipline of psychology (e.g., clin- ical, developmental, social, cognitive) when applying the scientific, technical, or specialized knowledge of psychol- ogy to the law to assist in addressing legal, contractual, and administrative matters. Application of the Guidelines does not depend on the practitioner’s typical areas of practice or expertise, but rather, on the service provided in the case at hand. These Guidelines apply in all matters in which psy- chologists provide expertise to judicial, administrative, and educational systems including, but not limited to, examin- ing or treating persons in anticipation of or subsequent to legal, contractual, or administrative proceedings; offering expert opinion about psychological issues in the form of amicus briefs or testimony to judicial, legislative, or ad- ministrative bodies; acting in an adjudicative capacity; serving as a trial consultant or otherwise offering expertise to attorneys, the courts, or others; conducting research in connection with, or in the anticipation of, litigation; or involvement in educational activities of a forensic nature. Psychological practice is not considered forensic solely because the conduct takes place in, or the product is presented in, a tribunal or other judicial, legislative, or administrative forum. For example, when a party (such as a civilly or criminally detained individual) or another in- dividual (such as a child whose parents are involved in divorce proceedings) is ordered into treatment with a prac- titioner, that treatment is not necessarily the practice of forensic psychology. In addition, psychological testimony that is solely based on the provision of psychotherapy and does not include psycholegal opinions is not ordinarily considered forensic practice. For the purposes of these Guidelines, forensic practi- tioner refers to a psychologist when engaged in the practice of forensic psychology as described above. Such profes- sional conduct is considered forensic from the time the practitioner reasonably expects to, agrees to, or is legally mandated to provide expertise on an explicitly psycholegal issue. The provision of forensic services may include a wide variety of psycholegal roles and functions. For example, as This article was published Online First October 1, 2012. These Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Psychology were developed by the American Psychology–Law Society (Division 41 of the American Psychological Association [APA]) and the American Academy of Foren- sic Psychology. They were adopted by the APA Council of Representa- tives on August 3, 2011. The previous version of the Guidelines (“Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Psychologists”; Committee on Ethical Guidelines for Forensic Psychologists, 1991) was approved by the American Psychology–Law Society (Division 41 of APA) and the American Academy of Forensic Psychology in 1991. The current revision, now called the “Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Psychology” (referred to as “the Guidelines” throughout this document), replaces the 1991 “Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Psychologists.” These guidelines are scheduled to expire August 3, 2021. After this date, users are encouraged to contact the American Psychological Asso- ciation Practice Directorate to confirm that this document remains in effect. Correspondence concerning these guidelines should be addressed to the Practice Directorate, American Psychological Association, 750 First Street, NE, Washington, DC 20002-4242. 7January 2013 ● American Psychologist © 2012 American Psychological Association 0003-066X/12/$12.00 Vol. 68, No. 1, 7–19 DOI: 10.1037/a0029889 researchers, forensic practitioners may participate in the collection and dissemination of data that are relevant to various legal issues. As advisors, forensic practitioners may provide an attorney with an informed understanding of the role that psychology can play in the case at hand. As consultants, forensic practitioners may explain the practical implications of relevant research, examination findings, and the opinions of other psycholegal experts. As examin- ers, forensic practitioners may assess an individual’s func- tioning and report findings and opinions to the attorney, a legal tribunal, an employer, an insurer, or others (APA, 2010b, 2011a). As treatment providers, forensic practitio- ners may provide therapeutic services tailored to the issues and context of a legal proceeding. As mediators or nego- tiators, forensic practitioners may serve in a third-party neutral role and assist parties in resolving disputes. As arbiters, special masters, or case managers with decision- making authority, forensic practitioners may serve parties, attorneys, and the courts (APA, 2011b). These Guidelines are informed by APA’s “Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct” (herein- after referred to as the EPPCC; APA, 2010a). The term guidelines refers to statements that suggest or recommend specific professional behavior, endeavors, or conduct for psychologists. Guidelines differ from standards in that standards are mandatory and may be accompanied by an enforcement mechanism. Guidelines are aspirational in in- tent. They are intended to facilitate the continued system- atic development of the profession and facilitate a high level of practice by psychologists. Guidelines are not in- tended to be mandatory or exhaustive and may not be applicable to every professional situation. They are not definitive, and they are not intended to take precedence over the judgment of psychologists. As such, the Guidelines are advisory in areas in which the forensic practitioner has discretion to exercise profes- sional judgment that is not prohibited or mandated by the EPPCC or applicable law, rules, or regulations. The Guide- lines neither add obligations to nor eliminate obligations from the EPPCC but provide additional guidance for psy- chologists. The modifiers used in the Guidelines (e.g., reasonably, appropriate, potentially) are included in rec- ognition of the need for professional judgment on the part of forensic practitioners; ensure applicability across the broad range of activities conducted by forensic practitio- ners; and reduce the likelihood of enacting an inflexible set of guidelines that might be inapplicable as forensic practice evolves. The use of these modifiers, and the recognition of the role of professional discretion and judgment, also re- flects that forensic practitioners are likely to encounter facts and circumstances not anticipated by the Guidelines and they may have to act upon uncertain or incomplete evi- dence. The Guidelines may provide general or conceptual guidance in such circumstances. The Guidelines do not, however, exhaust the legal, professional, moral, and ethical considerations that inform forensic practitioners, for no complex activity can be completely defined by legal rules, codes of conduct, and aspirational guidelines. The Guidelines are not intended to serve as a basis for disciplinary action or civil or criminal liability. The stan- dard of care is established by a competent authority, not by the Guidelines. No ethical, licensure, or other administra- tive action or remedy, nor any other cause of action, should be taken solely on the basis of a forensic practitioner acting in a manner consistent or inconsistent with these Guide- lines. In cases in which a competent authority references the Guidelines when formulating standards, the authority should consider that the Guidelines attempt to identify a high level of quality in forensic practice. Competent prac- tice is defined as the conduct of a reasonably prudent forensic practitioner engaged in similar activities in similar circumstances. Professional conduct evolves and may be viewed along a continuum of adequacy, and “minimally competent” and “best possible” are usually different points along that continuum. The Guidelines are designed to be national in scope and are intended to be consistent with state and federal law. In cases in which a conflict between legal and professional obligations occurs, forensic practitioners make known their commitment to the EPPCC and the Guidelines and take steps to achieve an appropriate resolution consistent with the EPPCC and the Guidelines. The format of the Guidelines is different from most other practice guidelines developed under the auspices of APA. This reflects the history of the Guidelines as well as the fact that the Guidelines are considerably broader in scope than any other APA-developed guidelines. Indeed, these are the only APA-approved guidelines that address a complete specialty practice area. Despite this difference in format, the Guidelines function as all other APA guideline documents. This document replaces the 1991 “Specialty Guide- lines for Forensic Psychologists,” which were approved by the American Psychology–Law Society (Division 41 of APA) and the American Board of Forensic Psychology. The current revision has also been approved by the Council of Representatives of APA. Appendix A includes a discus- sion of the revision process, enactment, and current status of these Guidelines. Appendix B includes definitions and terminology as used for the purposes of these Guidelines. 1. Responsibilities Guideline 1.01: Integrity Forensic practitioners strive for accuracy, honesty, and truthfulness in the science, teaching, and practice of foren- sic psychology and they strive to resist partisan pressures to provide services in any ways that might tend to be mis- leading or inaccurate. Guideline 1.02: Impartiality and Fairness When offering expert opinion to be relied upon by a deci- sion maker, providing forensic therapeutic services, or teaching or conducting research, forensic practitioners strive for accuracy, impartiality, fairness, and indepen- dence (EPPCC Standard 2.01). Forensic practitioners rec- 8 January 2013 ● American Psychologist ognize the adversarial nature of the legal system and strive to treat all participants and weigh all data, opinions, and rival hypotheses impartially. When conducting forensic examinations, forensic practitioners strive to be unbiased and impartial, and avoid partisan presentation of unrepresentative, incomplete, or inaccurate evidence that might mislead finders of fact. This guideline does not preclude forceful presentation of the data and reasoning upon which a conclusion or professional product is based. When providing educational services, forensic practi- tioners seek to represent alternative perspectives, including data, studies, or evidence on both sides of the question, in an accurate, fair and professional manner, and strive to weigh and present all views, facts, or opinions impartially. When conducting research, forensic practitioners seek to represent results in a fair and impartial manner. Forensic practitioners strive to utilize research designs and scientific methods that adequately and fairly test the questions at hand, and they attempt to resist partisan pressures to de- velop designs or report results in ways that might be misleading or unfairly bias the results of a test, study, or evaluation. Guideline 1.03: Avoiding Conflicts of Interest Forensic practitioners refrain from taking on a professional role when personal, scientific, professional, legal, financial, or other interests or relationships could reasonably be ex- pected to impair their impartiality, competence, or effec- tiveness, or expose others with whom a professional rela- tionship exists to harm (EPPCC Standard 3.06). Forensic practitioners are encouraged to identify, make known, and address real or apparent conflicts of interest in an attempt to maintain the public confidence and trust, discharge professional obligations, and maintain re- sponsibility, impartiality, and accountability (EPPCC Stan- dard 3.06). Whenever possible, such conflicts are revealed to all parties as soon as they become known to the psy- chologist. Forensic practitioners consider whether a pru- dent and competent forensic practitioner engaged in similar circumstances would determine that the ability to make a proper decision is likely to become impaired under the immediate circumstances. When a conflict of interest is determined to be man- ageable, continuing services are provided and documented in a way to manage the conflict, maintain accountability, and preserve the trust of relevant others (also see Guideline 4.02 below). 2. Competence Guideline 2.01: Scope of Competence When determining one’s competence to provide services in a particular matter, forensic practitioners may consider a variety of factors including the relative complexity and specialized nature of the service, relevant training and experience, the preparation and study they are able to devote to the matter, and the opportunity for consultation with a professional of established competence in the sub- ject matter in question. Even with regard to subjects in which they are expert, forensic practitioners may choose to consult with colleagues. Guideline 2.02: Gaining and Maintaining Competence Competence can be acquired through various combinations of education, training, supervised experience, consultation, study, and professional experience. Forensic practitioners planning to provide services, teach, or conduct research involving populations, areas, techniques, or technologies that are new to them are encouraged to undertake relevant education, training, supervised experience, consultation, or study. Forensic practitioners make ongoing efforts to de- velop and maintain their competencies (EPPCC Standard 2.03). To maintain the requisite knowledge and skill, fo- rensic practitioners keep abreast of developments in the fields of psychology and the law. Guideline 2.03: Representing Competencies Consistent with the EPPCC, forensic practitioners ade- quately and accurately inform all recipients of their services (e.g., attorneys, tribunals) about relevant as- pects of the nature and extent of their experience, train- ing, credentials, and qualifications, and how they were obtained (EPPCC Standard 5.01). Guideline 2.04: Knowledge of the Legal System and the Legal Rights of Individuals Forensic practitioners recognize the importance of obtain- ing a fundamental and reasonable level of knowledge and understanding of the legal and professional standards, laws, rules, and precedents that govern their participation in legal proceedings and that guide the impact of their services on service recipients (EPPCC Standard 2.01). Forensic practitioners aspire to manage their profes- sional conduct in a manner that does not threaten or impair the rights of affected individuals. They may consult with, and refer others to, legal counsel on matters of law. Al- though they do not provide formal legal advice or opinions, forensic practitioners may provide information about the legal process to others based on their knowledge and ex- perience. They strive to distinguish this from legal opin- ions, however, and encourage consultation with attorneys as appropriate. Guideline 2.05: Knowledge of the Scientific Foundation for Opinions and Testimony Forensic practitioners seek to provide opinions and testi- mony that are sufficiently based upon adequate scientific foundation, and reliable and valid principles and methods that have been applied appropriately to the facts of the case. When providing opinions and testimony that are based on novel or emerging principles and methods, forensic practitioners seek to make known the status and limitations of these principles and methods. 9January 2013 ● American Psychologist Guideline 2.06: Knowledge of the Scientific Foundation for Teaching and Research Forensic practitioners engage in teaching and research ac- tivities in which they have adequate knowledge, experi- ence, and education (EPPCC Standard 2.01), and they acknowledge relevant limitations and caveats inherent in procedures and conclusions (EPPCC Standard 5.01). Guideline 2.07: Considering the Impact of Personal Beliefs and Experience Forensic practitioners recognize that their own cultures, attitudes, values, beliefs, opinions, or biases may affect their ability to practice in a competent and impartial man- ner. When such factors may diminish their ability to prac- tice in a competent and impartial manner, forensic practi- tioners may take steps to correct or limit such effects, decline participation in the matter, or limit their participa- tion in a manner that is consistent with professional obli- gations. Guideline 2.08: Appreciation of Individual and Group Differences When scientific or professional knowledge in the disci- pline of psychology establishes that an understanding of factors associated with age, gender, gender identity, race, ethnicity, culture, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, disability, language, socioeconomic status, or other relevant individual and cultural differences af- fects implementation or use of their services or research, forensic practitioners consider the boundaries of their expertise, make an appropriate referral if indicated, or gain the necessary training, experience, consultation, or supervision (EPPCC Standard 2.01; APA, 2003, 2004, 2011c, 2011d, 2011e). Forensic practitioners strive to understand how factors associated with age, gender, gender identity, race, ethnic- ity, culture, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, disability, language, socioeconomic status, or other rele- vant individual and cultural differences may affect and be related to the basis for people’s contact and involvement with the legal system. Forensic practitioners do not engage in unfair discrim- ination based on such factors or on any basis proscribed by law (EPPCC Standard 3.01). They strive to take steps to correct or limit the effects of such factors on their work, decline participation in the matter, or limit their participa- tion in a manner that is consistent with professional obli- gations. Guideline 2.09: Appropriate Use of Services and Products Forensic practitioners are encouraged to make reasonable efforts to guard against misuse of their services and exer- cise professional discretion in addressing such misuses. 3. Diligence Guideline 3.01: Provision of Services Forensic practitioners are encouraged to seek explicit agreements that define the scope of, time-frame of, and compensation for their services. In the event that a client breaches the contract or acts in a way that would require the practitioner to violate ethical, legal or professional obliga- tions, the forensic practitioner may terminate the relation- ship. Forensic practitioners strive to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in providing agreed-upon and reasonably anticipated services. Forensic practitioners are not bound, however, to provide services not reasonably anticipated when retained, nor to provide every possible aspect or variation of service. Instead, forensic practitioners may exercise professional discretion in determining the extent and means by which services are provided and agreements are fulfilled. Guideline 3.02: Responsiveness Forensic practitioners seek to manage their workloads so that services can be provided thoroughly, competently, and promptly. They recognize that acting with reasonable promptness, however, does not require the forensic practi- tioner to acquiesce to service demands not reasonably anticipated at the time the service was requested, nor does it require the forensic practitioner to provide services if the client has not acted in a manner consistent with existing agreements, including payment of fees. Guideline 3.03: Communication Forensic practitioners strive to keep their clients reasonably informed about the status of their services, comply with their clients’ reasonable requests for information, and con- sult with their clients about any substantial limitation on their conduct or performance that may arise when they reasonably believe that their clients expect a service that is not consistent with their professional obligations. Forensic practitioners attempt to keep their clients reasonably in- formed regarding new facts, opinions, or other potential evidence that may be relevant and applicable. Guideline 3.04: Termination of Services The forensic practitioner seeks to carry through to conclu- sion all matters undertaken for a client unless the forensic practitioner– client relationship is terminated. When a fo- rensic practitioner’s employment is limited to a specific matter, the relationship may terminate when the matter has been resolved, anticipated services have been completed, or the agreement has been violated. 4. Relationships Whether a forensic practitioner– client relationship exists depends on the circumstances and is determined by a number of factors which may include the information ex- changed between the potential client and the forensic prac- titioner prior to, or at the initiation of, any contact or service, the nature of the interaction, and the purpose of the interaction. In their work, forensic practitioners recognize that relationships are established with those who retain their services (e.g., retaining parties, employers, insurers, the 10 January 2013 ● American Psychologist court) and those with whom they interact (e.g., examinees, collateral contacts, research participants, students). Foren- sic practitioners recognize that associated obligations and duties vary as a function of the nature of the relationship. Guideline 4.01: Responsibilities to Retaining Parties Most responsibilities to the retaining party attach only after the retaining party has requested and the forensic practi- tioner has agreed to render professional services and an agreement regarding compensation has been reached. Fo- rensic practitioners are aware that there are some respon- sibilities, such as privacy, confidentiality, and privilege, that may attach when the forensic practitioner agrees to consider whether a forensic practitioner–retaining party relationship shall be established. Forensic practitioners, prior to entering into a contract, may direct the potential retaining party not to reveal any confidential or privileged information as a way of protecting the retaining party’s interest in case a conflict exists as a result of pre-existing relationships. At the initiation of any request for service, forensic practitioners seek to clarify the nature of the relationship and the services to be provided including the role of the forensic practitioner (e.g., trial consultant, forensic exam- iner, treatment provider, expert witness, research consul- tant); which person or entity is the client; the probable uses of the services provided or information obtained; and any limitations to privacy, confidentiality, or privilege. Guideline 4.02: Multiple Relationships A multiple relationship occurs when a forensic practitioner is in a professional role with a person and, at the same time or at a subsequent time, is in a different role with the same person; is involved in a personal, fiscal, or other relation- ship with an adverse party; at the same time is in a rela- tionship with a person closely associated with or related to the person with whom the forensic practitioner has the professional relationship; or offers or agrees to enter into another relationship in the future with the person or a person closely associated with or related to the person (EPPCC Standard 3.05). Forensic practitioners strive to recognize the potential conflicts of interest and threats to objectivity inherent in multiple relationships. Forensic practitioners are encour- aged to recognize that some personal and professional relationships may interfere with their ability to practice in a competent and impartial manner and they seek to mini- mize any detrimental effects by avoiding involvement in such matters whenever feasible or limiting their assistance in a manner that is consistent with professional obligations. Guideline 4.02.01: Therapeutic–Forensic Role Conflicts Providing forensic and therapeutic psychological services to the same individual or closely related individuals in- volves multiple relationships that may impair objectivity and/or cause exploitation or other harm. Therefore, when requested or ordered to provide either concurrent or se- quential forensic and therapeutic services, forensic practi- tioners are encouraged to disclose the potential risk and make reasonable efforts to refer the request to another qualified provider. If referral is not possible, the forensic practitioner is encouraged to consider the risks and benefits to all parties and to the legal system or entity likely to be impacted, the possibility of separating each service widely in time, seeking judicial review and direction, and consult- ing with knowledgeable colleagues. When providing both forensic and therapeutic services, forensic practitioners seek to minimize the potential negative effects of this circumstance (EPPCC Standard 3.05). Guideline 4.02.02: Expert Testimony by Practitioners Providing Therapeutic Services Providing expert testimony about a patient who is a par- ticipant in a legal matter does not necessarily involve the practice of forensic psychology even when that testimony is relevant to a psycholegal issue before the decision maker. For example, providing testimony on matters such as a patient’s reported history or other statements, mental status, diagnosis, progress, prognosis, and treatment would not ordinarily be considered forensic practice even when the testimony is related to a psycholegal issue before the decision maker. In contrast, rendering opinions and pro- viding testimony about a person on psycholegal issues (e.g., criminal responsibility, legal causation, proximate cause, trial competence, testamentary capacity, the relative merits of parenting arrangements) would ordinarily be con- sidered the practice of forensic psychology. Consistent with their ethical obligations to base their opinions on information and techniques sufficient to sub- stantiate their findings (EPPCC Standards 2.04, 9.01), fo- rensic practitioners are encouraged to provide testimony only on those issues for which they have adequate founda- tion and only when a reasonable forensic practitioner en- gaged in similar circumstances would determine that the ability to make a proper decision is unlikely to be impaired. As with testimony regarding forensic examinees, the fo- rensic practitioner strives to identify any substantive limi- tations that may affect the reliability and validity of the facts or opinions offered, and communicates these to the decision maker. Guideline 4.02.03: Provision of Forensic Therapeutic Services Although some therapeutic services can be considered fo- rensic in nature, the fact that therapeutic services are or- dered by the court does not necessarily make them forensic. In determining whether a therapeutic service should be considered the practice of forensic psychology, psychol- ogists are encouraged to consider the potential impact of the legal context on treatment, the potential for treatment to impact the psycholegal issues involved in the case, and whether another … The purpose of written assignments is to provide the student with an opportunity to demonstrate integration of the information and critical thought processes at a graduate level as it applies to the material presented in the course. 1. Papers must follow current APA guidelines in terms of type, margins, and citations. 2. The paper addresses the following areas: a. Was the actual assignment topic(s) addressed? (Please ensure that you read and understand the assignment) b. Was the topic(s) covered in sufficient detail and depth? (Superficial or minimal information suggests rushed efforts and fails to demonstrate integration of information) c. Was there clear evidence of reading and materials integrated into the assignment? (Verification of student preparation for the assignment) 3. The student was able to provide evidence of investment and consideration of their own perspective with adequate elaboration. Grading Areas Poor Basic Good Exceptional Total APA style and grammar Poor attention to structure and form of APA style for citations, text, and/or body of the paper. 4 or more errors in citations, text, or body of the paper. There were 4 or more repetitive errors in grammar, and/or the writing style is casual, disorganized, and unclear. 0 - 1 points Basic structure of APA followed with 3 or more errors in citations, text, or body of the paper. There were 3 or more errors in grammar, and/or the writing style is casual, lacks a professional approach, and is marginally appropriate for graduate level. 2 - 3 points Structure of APA followed with no more than 2 errors in citations, text, or body of the paper. There were 2 or more errors in grammar, and/or the writing style is adequate for graduate level. 4 points Structure of APA followed with no more than 1 error in citations, text, or body of the paper. No more than 1 minimal error in grammar that is not repeated throughout the assignment. Writing style is professional and exceptional for graduate level. 5 points 5 pts Thorough and detailed coverage of the assignment. Paper demonstrates a poor understanding of the topic as more than 3 (or half) of the requirements are missing, or more than 3 (or half) of the areas are missing required detail or depth of explanation. 0 - 5 points Paper evidences a basic y e t l i m i t e d understanding of the chosen topic and is missing at least 2 significant requirements or at least 2 areas are missing significant detail or depth of explanation. 6 - 11 points Paper evidences a general understanding of the chosen topic but is missing at least 1 significant requirement or at least 1 area is missing significant detail or depth of explanation. 12 - 13 points Paper evidences a full understanding of the chosen topic and addresses all required elements in full, with no more than 1 minor requirement missing or lacking sufficient detail. 14 - 15 points 15 pts Total: 20 points Online and On-ground Blended Written Assignment Rubric