Evidence of extensive reading. Well referenced and expressed in own words. Demonstrates systematic, detailed and comprehensive knowledge of a field of study. Confidently handles issues which are complex or specialist in nature.

Evidence of extensive reading. Well referenced and expressed in own words. Demonstrates comprehensive & detailed knowledge of complex issues or specialist knowledge. Understanding of current issues in the field and the provisional nature of knowledge.

Evidence of wide reading. Well referenced and expressed in own words. Demonstrates familiarity with the body of relevant knowledge and some current / advanced issues.

Reading inadequate or not fully understood OR knowledge of the field of study is limited and not consistent with module learning outcomes. Very limited evidence of appropriate reading. Very limited knowledge base.

Consistently analytical. Selects and uses with confidence the most appropriate analytical frameworks to examine the key issues of an area of knowledge. Can analyse complex issues where knowledge is incomplete. Analysis is purposeful and illuminates practical considerations.

Consistently analytical. Considers abstract and contextual information. Identifies key features of advanced or complex issues. Selects from a range of methods / techniques appropriate to the subject for clarifying the information.

Identifies significant features of issues, including those which are advanced or complex. Makes appropriate use of methods / techniques for analysis. Able to consider incomplete or contradictory areas of knowledge.

Where present, analysis overlooks the key features OR uses unsuitable methods/criteria. Does not address the assessment criteria. Little evidence of analysis.

Devises an effective and imaginative structure. Shows originality in the practical application of advanced knowledge. Can discuss application of knowledge to complex or novel situations in a patient-focused way. Is able to pull together and give coherence to information and ideas from diverse sources.

Effective structure used to present arguments. Draws on a variety of sources. Consistently addresses the practical application of information and ideas with some originality. Can discuss application of knowledge to complex or novel situations in a patient-focused way.

Structures arguments adequately. Discusses the application of information and ideas in an appropriate patient-focused way.

Structure has problems with coherence or consistency. Limited application of theory to practice or lack of patient focus. Poor structure and little attempt to link theory with practice.

Evaluates alternative views of complex or novel situations, based on a clear grasp of all relevant viewpoints and an even-handed discussion of their relative merits. Justifies conclusions and recommendations and shows awareness of their limitations. Critiques the rigour and value of the different positions taken or methods used. Where appropriate, makes critical use of own experiences.

Evaluates alternative views of complex or novel situations. Discusses reliability, validity and significance of information. Draws conclusions and makes recommendations that are justified by the arguments presented. Where appropriate, makes critical use of own experiences.

Can evaluate alternative approaches or viewpoints in complex or novel situations. Shows awareness of issues of reliability, validity and significance of information. Where required, explores own experiences and views and their implications. Conclusions and recommendations are supported by the arguments presented.

Lacks a balanced approach or adequate supportive evidence. Lacks discrimination or does not reach a well-reasoned conclusion. Little attempt to formulate an argument or draw conclusions.