Rubric
[Section II] Literature Review
Poor (Below Standards) Receives less than 80% of full points
Good (Meets Standards) Receives 80 to 95% of full points
Excellent (Exceeds Standards) Receives 96% or above of full points
Coverage of Content
16 points
Did not adequately examine existing literature regarding factors (and/or consequences) and previous interventions associated with the problem.
19 points
To certain extent, examined existing literature regarding factors (and/or consequences) and previous interventions associated with the problem.
20 points
Comprehensively examined existing literature regarding factors (and/or consequences) and previous interventions associated with the problem.
/ 20
This table lists criteria and criteria group name in the first column. The first row lists level names and includes scores if the rubric uses a numeric scoring method.[Section II] Literature Review
Poor (Below Standards) Receives less than 80% of full points
Good (Meets Standards) Receives 80 to 95% of full points
Excellent (Exceeds Standards) Receives 96% or above of full points
Synthesis of Idea
24 points
Did not appropriately synthesize the information in the broader context of the scholarly literature.
28.5 points
Synthesized the information in the broader context of the scholarly literature, demonstrating some insight into the problem and supporting the needs of developing an intervention.
30 points
Clearly analyzed and synthesized the information in the broader context of the scholarly literature, demonstrating full insight into the problem and supporting the needs of developing an intervention.
/ 30
This table lists criteria and criteria group name in the first column. The first row lists level names and includes scores if the rubric uses a numeric scoring method.[Section II] Literature Review
Poor (Below Standards) Receives less than 80% of full points
Good (Meets Standards) Receives 80 to 95% of full points
Excellent (Exceeds Standards) Receives 96% or above of full points
Organized Progression
16 points
Proposal had no clear direction and subtopics/concepts not connected.
19 points
Basic flow of ideas and all sections flew a somewhat logical order.
20 points
Proposal went from general to specific; transitions related sections.
/ 20
This table lists criteria and criteria group name in the first column. The first row lists level names and includes scores if the rubric uses a numeric scoring method.[Section II] Literature Review
Poor (Below Standards) Receives less than 80% of full points
Good (Meets Standards) Receives 80 to 95% of full points
Excellent (Exceeds Standards) Receives 96% or above of full points
Theories/ Models
16 points
Did not adequately discuss theories/models to explain the problem and guide development of the proposed intervention.
19 points
Introduced theories/models, attempting to in general explain the problem, develop the proposed intervention, and establish hypotheses.
20 points
Introduced appropriate theories/models to clearly explain the problem, develop the proposed intervention, and establish hypotheses.
/ 20
This table lists criteria and criteria group name in the first column. The first row lists level names and includes scores if the rubric uses a numeric scoring method.[Section II] Literature Review
Poor (Below Standards) Receives less than 80% of full points
Good (Meets Standards) Receives 80 to 95% of full points
Excellent (Exceeds Standards) Receives 96% or above of full points
The study purpose, research questions, & hypotheses
16 points
Did not adequately address the study purpose, research questions, and the hypotheses. The study purpose was not specific. The hypotheses were not adequately drawn from the research questions. The research questions were not answerable; the hypotheses were not measurable/testable.
19 points
Delineated the study purpose, research questions, and the corresponding hypotheses. The study purpose was general but still attainable. The hypotheses were adequately drawn from the research questions. The research questions were answerable; the hypotheses were measurable/testable.
20 points
Clearly and succinctly delineated the study purpose, research questions, and the corresponding hypotheses. The study purpose was specific and attainable. The hypotheses were adequately drawn from the research questions. The research questions were answerable; the hypotheses were measurable/testable.
/ 20
This table lists criteria and criteria group name in the first column. The first row lists level names and includes scores if the rubric uses a numeric scoring method.[Section II] Literature Review
Poor (Below Standards) Receives less than 80% of full points
Good (Meets Standards) Receives 80 to 95% of full points
Excellent (Exceeds Standards) Receives 96% or above of full points
Significance of the Study
16 points
Attempted to provide reasons why the proposed study is important, but the reasons were not persuasive. Did not adequately discussed how the proposed study would impact a quality of life and well-being among the target audience/participants, community, or policy.
19 points
Provided a few reasons why the proposed study is important. Discussed how the proposed study would impact a quality of life and well-being among the target audience/participants, community, or policy. But, the reasons and the descriptions of the impacts were general.
20 points
Provided three or more most important reasons of why the proposed study is important. Clearly discussed how the proposed study would impact a quality of life and well-being among the target audience/participants, community, or policy in a short- and long-term period.
/ 20
This table lists criteria and criteria group name in the first column. The first row lists level names and includes scores if the rubric uses a numeric scoring method.Writing & Style
Poor (Below Standards) Receives less than 80% of full points
Good (Meets Standards) Receives 80 to 95% of full points
Excellent (Exceeds Standards) Receives 96% or above of full points
Grammar & Mechanics
8 points
Grammatical errors or spelling & punctuation substantially detracted from the proposal.
9.5 points
Errors in grammar or spelling & punctuation were rare and did not detract from the proposal.
10 points
The proposal was free of grammatical errors, and spelling & punctuation did not detract from the proposal.
/ 10
This table lists criteria and criteria group name in the first column. The first row lists level names and includes scores if the rubric uses a numeric scoring method.Writing & Style
Poor (Below Standards) Receives less than 80% of full points
Good (Meets Standards) Receives 80 to 95% of full points
Excellent (Exceeds Standards) Receives 96% or above of full points
APA Style, Citations, & References
8 points
Errors in APA style detracted substantially from the proposal. Word choice was informal in tone. Writing was choppy, with many awkward or unclear passages. Errors in citations and references detracted significantly from the proposal.
9.5 points
Rare errors in APA style did not detract from the proposal. Word choice was rarely informal in tone. Writing had minimal awkward of unclear passages. A few errors in citations or references were found, but did not detract from the proposal
10 points
No error in APA style. Word choice was formal in tone. Writing was flowing and easy to follow. All citations and references were correctly written and present.
/ 10
Rubric Total Score
Total
/ 150
Overall Score
Overall Score
Poor (Below Standards) Receives less than 80% of full points
120 points minimum
Good (Meets Standards) Receives 80 to 95% of full points
142.5 points minimum
Excellent (Exceeds Standards) Receives 96% or above of full points
150 points minimum
|
|