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