NursingWritten assignmentTranscultural nursing

Heritage assessment benchmark paper: a planning guide

Three real interviews, one of them your own family, and a paper whose actual question is not what the families believe but whether the tool was worth using.

Aug 10, 2026

Editorial process

Last reviewed · August 10, 2026

Written by

Aaron Bishop

MA, Education

assignment interpretation and research-methods coaching across disciplines

Reviewed by

Dr. Nathan Cole

PhD, Rhetoric & Composition

Argumentation and thesis development

On this page

Interpret the task
Assignment instructions
Deliverables
Proposed outline
Research plan
Reference shortlist
Final review

What is the heritage assessment benchmark really asking?

The paper's question is narrower than the data collection suggests. You will interview three families and complete three assessment tools, but the discussion is about the usefulness of applying a heritage assessment to evaluate needs and build plans for health maintenance, protection and restoration. That is a judgement about an instrument, not a description of three cultures. A paper that reports what each family believes and stops there has produced the raw material and skipped the assignment. Every finding you report should be there because it shows the tool surfacing something — or failing to. Keep that sentence in front of you while drafting; it is the single filter that decides what belongs in 1,500 words and what does not.

Start with the data collection, because it is the part that cannot be rescued later. Three families from different cultures, one of them your own, with the tool completed for each and submitted separately to the address the brief names. Plan the interviews before you start: the tool asks about where family members were born, family size, whether relatives lived nearby, language spoken at home, religious attendance, participation in community activities and food preparation, and it works by degree rather than by category. Whoever you interview needs to be old enough and connected enough to answer those questions, which usually means a parent or grandparent rather than a peer. Allow more time than you expect for the third family, since the one hardest to recruit is usually the one outside your own networks, and a paper built on two interviews and an approximation is visible immediately.

Including your own family is not a convenience, it is the analytic control. It gives you a case where you already know the answers, which lets you see what the tool captures and what it misses. That comparison is the strongest material available for the usefulness question, and it is what most papers leave out. If the assessment placed your own family lower or higher on heritage identification than you would have, say so and explain why — an instrument that surprises you about a case you know well is either revealing something or is measuring something adjacent to what it claims. Either conclusion is a finding worth reporting; what is not worth reporting is that the tool confirmed what you already knew, which tells the reader nothing about its usefulness with a family you do not know.

The comparison the brief asks for is between health traditions, and the useful axis is not exoticism but the three functions the assignment names. Maintenance is what a family does to stay well; protection is what it does to avoid becoming ill; restoration is what it does once someone is ill. Sorting each family's practices into those three categories makes them comparable in a way a narrative account never does, and it maps directly onto the plans the paper is supposed to help you develop. Look for the differences that would actually change nursing care: who decides, who is told, who provides care at home, whether a traditional remedy is running alongside prescribed treatment, and whether the family would mention it if not asked. That last one is the most consequential and the most easily missed, because a practice a family does not consider medical will not appear in a medication history.

On the usefulness judgement, be balanced rather than promotional. Genuine strengths: it produces a degree of identification rather than a stereotype, it is quick, and it opens conversations that a standard admission history does not. Genuine limits: it measures retention of heritage rather than health beliefs directly, it says nothing about acculturation to the surrounding culture — which the evidence treats as a separate dimension rather than the opposite end of the same one — and a family can score low on heritage retention while holding health beliefs that matter enormously. A paper that names two limits and still recommends the tool is more credible than one that only praises it. Say which of the three planning functions it serves best, too — in practice it tends to be strongest for restoration, where family beliefs about what helps in illness are most likely to diverge from the plan on the chart.

On mechanics: 1,000 to 1,500 words, three tools submitted to the named address, the required citations and style guide, and a benchmark rubric to read first. Protect the families' confidentiality — describe cultures and practices, not identifiable people — and remember that the brief frames this as a clinical competency experience, so the paper should read as an assessment of a clinical tool by someone who used it, not as a cultural essay with three examples attached. Write in the register you would use for a service evaluation: what you did, what it produced, what it is good for, and where it needs supplementing. That framing also keeps the paper respectful of the families, since they appear as sources of evidence about an instrument rather than as specimens of their cultures.

Likely learning objectives

Inferred from the brief — check these against your own rubric.

01
Evaluate an assessment instrument rather than report its output.
02
Use a familiar case as a control on an unfamiliar measure.
03
Sort family practices by maintenance, protection and restoration to make them comparable.
04
State the limits of a tool while still recommending its use.

Assignment instructionsQuoted verbatim

Read the full question

Review every instruction before using the planning guidance that follows.

THE ASSIGNMENT HAS TO BE FREE OF PLAGIARISM..PLEASE FOLLOW ALL INSTRUCTIONS TO ANSWER THIS ASSIGNMENT Details: This is a benchmark assessment. The RN to BSN program at Grand Canyon University meets the requirements for clinical competencies as defined by CCNE and AACN using nontraditional experiences for practicing nurses. These experiences come in the form of direct and indirect care experiences in which licensed nursing students engage in learning within the context of their hospital organization, their specific care discipline, and their local communities. The learning activity and corresponding assignment in this topic requires students to perform a heritage assessment with families selected by the student from their local community. Click on http://wps.prenhall.com/wps/media/objects/663/679611/box_6_1.pdf in order to access the “Heritage Assessment Tool.” Interview three families from different cultures. One family should be from your own culture. Compare the differences in health traditions between these cultures. Assess the three families using the “Heritage Assessment Tool.” In 1,000-1,500 words discuss the usefulness of applying a heritage assessment to evaluate the needs of families and develop plans for health maintenance, health protection, and health restoration. Include the following: Perform a heritage assessment on three families. One of these families should be from your own culture. Complete the “Heritage Assessment Tool” and submit to: RNBSNclientcare@gcu.edu – one assessment for each of the three families interviewed. You are not required to include the tool in your LoudCloud submission. Identify common health traditions based on cultural heritage. Evaluate and discuss how the families subscribe to these traditions and practices. Address health maintenance, health protection, and health restoration as they relate to your assessment. Prepare this assignment according to the guidelines found in the APA Style Guide, located in the Student Success Center. An abstract is not required. Benchmark Assignment – Heritage Assessment. This assignment uses a rubric. Please review the rubric prior to beginning the assignment to become familiar with the expectations for successful completion. You are required to submit this assignment to Turnitin. Please refer to the directions in the Student Success Center. Benchmark Assignment – Heritage Assessment USE THIS RUBRIC Benchmark Assignment – Heritage Assessment 1 Unsatisfactory 0.00% 2 Less than Satisfactory 75.00% 3 Satisfactory 79.00% 4 Good 89.00% 5 Excellent 100.00% 80.0 %Content 20.0 % Discuss the Usefulness of Applying a Heritage Assessment in Evaluating the Needs of the Whole Person. Discussion of the usefulness of applying a heritage assessment in evaluating the needs of the whole person is not offered. Discussion of the usefulness of applying a heritage assessment in evaluating the needs of the whole person is offered, but incomplete, lacking relevant information, or does not meet criteria for word count. Discussion of the usefulness of applying a heritage assessment in evaluating the needs of the whole person meets requirements of the assignment. Discussion of the usefulness of applying a heritage assessment in evaluating the needs of the whole person is offered in detail. Discussion of the usefulness of applying a heritage assessment in evaluating the needs of the whole person is offered in detail, while offering insight and/or reflection. 20.0 % Family Interviews Interview of three families from different cultures not offered. Interview of three families from different cultures is offered, but incomplete, lacking relevant information regarding the comparison of the differences in health maintenance, health protection, and health restoration among the cultures. Interview of three families from different cultures that provides comparison of the differences in health maintenance, health protection, and health restoration among the cultures meets requirements of the assignment. Interview of three families from different cultures that provides comparison of the differences in health maintenance, health protection, and health restoration among the cultures is offered in detail. Interview of three families from different cultures that provides comparison of the differences in health maintenance, health protection, and health restoration among the cultures is offered in detail, while offering insight and/or reflection. 20.0 % Identifying Common Health Traditions Identification of common health traditions based on your cultural heritage is not offered. Identification of common health traditions based on your cultural heritage is offered, but is incomplete, lacking relevant information. Identification of common health traditions based on your cultural heritage meets requirements of the assignment. Identification of common health traditions based on your cultural heritage is offered in detail. Identification of common health traditions based on your cultural heritage is offered in detail, while offering insight and/or reflection. 20.0 % Evaluate How Families Subscribe to These Traditions and Practices Evaluation of how family subscribes to these traditions and practices is not offered. Evaluation of how family subscribes to these traditions and practices is offered, but is incomplete, lacking relevant information. Evaluation of how family subscribes to these traditions and practices meets requirements of the assignment. Evaluation of how family subscribes to these traditions and practices is offered in detail. Evaluation of how family subscribes to these traditions and practices is offered in detail, while offering insight and/or reflection. 15.0 %Organizatioan and Effectiveness 5.0 % Thesis Development and Purpose Paper lacks any discernible overall purpose or organizing claim. Thesis and/or main claim are insufficiently developed and/or vague; purpose is not clear. Thesis and/or main claim are apparent and appropriate to purpose. Thesis and/or main claim are clear and forecast the development of the paper. It is descriptive and reflective of the arguments and appropriate to the purpose. Thesis and/or main claim are comprehensive; contained within the thesis is the essence of the paper. Thesis statement makes the purpose of the paper clear. 15.0 %Organizatioan and Effectiveness 5.0 % Paragraph Development and Transitions Paragraphs and transitions consistently lack unity and coherence. No apparent connections between paragraphs are established. Transitions are inappropriate to purpose and scope. Organization is disjointed. Some paragraphs and transitions may lack logical progression of ideas, unity, coherence, and/or cohesiveness. Some degree of organization is evident. Paragraphs are generally competent, but ideas may show some inconsistency in organization and/or in their relationships to each other. A logical progression of ideas between paragraphs is apparent. Paragraphs exhibit a unity, coherence, and cohesiveness. Topic sentences and concluding remarks are appropriate to purpose. There is a sophisticated construction of paragraphs and transitions. Ideas progress and relate to each other. Paragraph and transition construction guide the reader. Paragraph structure is seamless. 15.0 %Organizatioan and Effectiveness 5.0 % Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use) Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice and/or sentence construction are used. Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistencies in language choice (register), sentence structure, and/or word choice are present. Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but are not overly distracting to the reader. Correct sentence structure and audience-appropriate language are used. 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. Writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English. 5.0 %Format 2.0 % Paper Format (use of appropriate style for the major and assignment) Template is not used appropriately or documentation format is rarely followed correctly. Template is used, but some elements are missing or mistaken; lack of control with formatting is apparent. Template is used, and formatting is correct, although some minor errors may be present. Template is fully used; There are virtually no errors in formatting style. All format elements are correct. 3.0 % Research Citations (In-text citations for paraphrasing and direct quotes, and reference page listing and formatting, as appropriate to assignment) No reference page is included. No citations are used. Reference page is present. Citations are inconsistently used. Reference page is included and lists sources used in the paper. Sources are appropriately documented, although some errors may be present. Reference page is present and fully inclusive of all cited sources. Documentation is appropriate and GCU style is usually correct. In-text citations and a reference page are complete. The documentation of cited sources is free of error. 100 % Total Weightage

Three assessments and one discussion

01
Heritage assessments performed on three families from different cultures, one of them your own.
02
A completed Heritage Assessment Tool for each family, submitted to the address given in the brief.
03
A comparison of health traditions across the three cultures.
04
A 1,000–1,500 word discussion of the usefulness of heritage assessment for evaluating needs and developing plans for health maintenance, health protection and health restoration.

Collect, compare, then judge the tool

The assessments and how they were done

Describe the three families in general terms, who was interviewed and how the tool was administered.

Comparing health traditions

Set the three families side by side across maintenance, protection and restoration practices.

What the tool surfaced, including in your own family

Identify what the assessment revealed that a standard history would not, using your own family as the control case.

Usefulness for maintenance, protection and restoration

Judge the tool against each of the three planning functions, with its limits stated.

Preparing the interviews and reading the instrument

Recommended databases

The Heritage Assessment Tool linked in the brief
PubMed Central
EthnoMed and other clinician-facing culture profiles
Transcultural Nursing Society

Search sequence

1.
Read the tool's items before scheduling anything, so your interview questions follow the instrument rather than your curiosity.
2.
Search the acculturation literature for evidence that heritage retention and host-culture adoption are independent dimensions; it is the strongest available critique of a single-scale instrument.
3.
Look up a clinician-facing culture profile for at least one of your families, so the comparison rests on more than one interview.
4.
Search culturally competent care standards for the practice functions the tool is supposed to support, which gives your usefulness judgement a benchmark.

Sources on heritage, acculturation and cultural care

These are authoritative starting points, not a ready-made bibliography. A qualified reviewer must confirm that each source fits the assignment and supports the claim beside which it is cited.

Nothing here is cleared for citation until you have read it.

01
Acculturation and Health Beliefs: Interactions between Host and Heritage Culture Underlie Latina/o Caregivers' Beliefs about HPV Vaccination
Journal of Immigrant and Minority Health · 2021
Shows heritage retention and host-culture adoption as independent dimensions predicting health beliefs. The key evidence for the limitation that a single heritage score cannot capture where a family actually sits.
02
Standards
Transcultural Nursing Society · 2014
The ten guidelines for culturally competent nursing care. Use them as the benchmark against which the tool's usefulness is judged — particularly knowledge of cultures and culturally competent practice.
03
Vietnamese
EthnoMed, Harborview Medical Center and the University of Washington · 2024
An example of a clinician-facing culture profile covering health beliefs and traditional practices. Useful for checking whether what one family told you is characteristic or particular to them; find the equivalent profile for whichever cultures you assess.
04
Cultural diversity in health and illness
Rachel E. Spector, via the Internet Archive lending library · 2004
The text the Heritage Assessment Tool comes from, including the maintenance, protection and restoration framework the paper is organised around. Borrow the edition your course uses, since pagination and wording differ between editions.

Before you submit

Common mistakes

Describing what three families believe without ever judging the instrument.
Interviewing peers who cannot answer the tool's questions about earlier generations.
Treating your own family as a filler case rather than as the control that reveals what the tool misses.
Comparing cultures on interest rather than on maintenance, protection and restoration.
Reporting practices that would not change nursing care.
Presenting heritage retention as the opposite of assimilation, when the two operate independently.
Recommending the tool without naming a limitation.
Forgetting to submit the three completed tools separately as instructed.

Submission checklist

Three families interviewed, from different cultures, one your own.
Three completed tools submitted to the named address.
Practices sorted into maintenance, protection and restoration.
At least one difference identified that would change nursing care.
Your own family's result is used analytically, not just reported.
At least two limitations of the tool are stated.
A clear judgement on usefulness is given.
No family or individual is identifiable in the paper.
Word count sits between 1,000 and 1,500.

Use this guide to plan and review your own work. Follow your institution's rules and read our academic-integrity policy.