Social Work

Section III] Research Methodology

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

Research Design Plan

8 points

Did not adequately identify the study design. Did not clearly address the intervention and the procedures of the participant assignment and the intervention. 

9.5 points

Identified the study design. Generally addressed the intervention and the procedures of the participant assignment and the intervention. 

10 points

Specifically identified the study design and provided its rationales. Clearly addressed the intervention and the procedures of the participant assignment and the intervention. 

/ 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.[Section III] Research Methodology

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

Sampling Plan

8 points

Did not adequately identify the study participants and the sample size. Did not provide the description of the selected sampling method and techniques.

9.5 points

Identified the study participants and the sample size, attempting to describe the criteria for inclusion and exclusion of the sample without clear justification. Provided the description of the selected sampling method and techniques without their strong rationales for the selections.

10 points

Specifically identified the study participants and the sample size, elaborating the criteria for inclusion and exclusion of the sample and their justifications. Provided the detailed description of the selected sampling method and techniques along with their strong rationales for the selections.

/ 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.[Section III] Research Methodology

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

Data Collection Plan

8 points

Did not appropriately identify data collection method and the data collection setting. Inadequately described the data to collect, measures to use, and the collection procedure

9.5 points

Identified data collection method and the data collection setting. Described the data to collect, measures to use, and the collection procedure in brief.

10 points

Appropriately identified data collection method and the data collection setting. Described the data to collect, measures to use, and the collection procedure in detail

/ 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.[Section III] Research Ethics

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

Participant Protection Plan

24 points

Did not adequately discuss the potential ethics associated with the study and the participant protection plan, including administration of informed consent, protection of privacy and confidentiality, and evaluation of the potential of risk and harm to research participants.

28.5 points

Generally discussed the potential ethics associated with the study and the participant protection plan, including administration of informed consent, protection of privacy and confidentiality, and evaluation of the potential of risk and harm to research participants.

30 points

Specifically discussed the potential ethics associated with the study and the participant protection plan, including administration of informed consent, protection of privacy and confidentiality, and evaluation of the potential of risk and harm to research participants.

/ 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 III] Research Ethics

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

Limitations of the Study

16 points

Did not appropriately identify the challenges of the study.

19 points

Identified some challenges of the study and provided general suggestions for the future studies.

20 points

Appropriately identified challenges of the study and provided the insightful suggestions for the future studies.

/ 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 paper.

9.5 points

Errors in grammar or spelling & punctuation were rare and did not detract from the paper.

10 points

The proposal was free of grammatical errors, and spelling & punctuation did not detract from the paper.

/ 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 paper.

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 paper

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

/ 100

Overall Score

Overall Score

Poor (Below Standards) Receives less than 80% of full points

80 points minimum

Good (Meets Standards) Receives 80 to 95% of full points

95 points minimum

Excellent (Exceeds Standards) Receives 96% or above of full points

100 points minimum