Quantitative Analysis in Criminal Justice final paper

Excellent

(20–18 points)

Good

(17–16 points)

Competent

(15–14 points)

Weak

(13–12 points)

Inadequate

(11 points or under)

All components of the analysis are included

All components of the analysis are included and elaborated.

All components are included but not elaborated. Or, some are not elaborated while others are overwritten.

All components are included but too little elaboration .

Some components are missing.

Most components are missing.

Understanding of problem to be evaluated

Defines problem clearly and in the very first part of the analysis.

Defines problem but not as clear as excellent answer; may do so later rather than sooner.

Defines problem but not clear or, based on analyses presented, does not appear to fully understand the problem.

Undefined problem causes issues in determining what and how to analyze.

Problem is missing or so vague that it does not allow a focus for proceeding; incorrect understanding of problem.

Creation of hypothesis

Clear statement with no superfluous language; usually a one-tailed hypothesis.

Clear hypothesis with some superfluous language; frequently a two-tailed hypothesis; less clear than an excellent answer.

States hypothesis in a minimal way or with substantial superfluous language; usually a two-tailed hypothesis; no clear understanding of the problem.

States hypothesis in an incorrect but still understandable way; mostly a two-tailed hypothesis or if a one-tailed hypothesis is phrased in the incorrect direction to avoid further elaboration.

Hypothesis is incorrectly stated and no apparent understanding of what is wrong or frequent attempt to test null hypothesis or all hypotheses are phrased in the incorrect direction to avoid further elaboration.

Method

The section is written in a concise and descriptive so that others could easily replicate the method and reproduce the analysis.

The section is written in a way that others could easily replicate the method and reproduce the analysis; less clear than an excellent answer

The section is written in a way that others could easily replicate the method but not easily reproduce the results.

The section is written in a way that others could not easily replicate the method or not easily reproduce the results, but could come close to an attempt.

The section is written in a way that others could not replicate the method or not reproduce the results.

Selection of proper analytical tool

Correct analytical tool chosen after examination of data to determine possible violation of assumptions and avoidance of bias. Appropriate justification given for choice of tool.

Correct analytical tool chosen but with little evidence of examination for assumption violations and avoidance of bias. Less justifi-cation given for choice of tool than excellent answer

Correct analytical tool or a close match chosen; no real justification for choice, little appreciation of assumption violations and/or avoiding bias.

Chosen analytical tool will approximate one for a needed answer but no justification given or justification is incorrect. No discussion of bias and/or assumptions.

Proper analytical tool is not selected and no understanding of why the tool selected is incorrect.

Results

All relevant and appropriate information is provided to support commonly accepted interpretations and conclusions.

All relevant and appropriate information is provided to support commonly accepted interpretations and conclusions with 1-2 exceptions.

A small amount of important information needed for interpretation is not provided to allow for commonly accepted interpretations or conclusions.

A large amount of important information needed for interpretation is not provided.

The majority of necessary information needed for interpretation is not provided.

Interpretation of results of applying analytical tool

Correct interpretation; explanation of possible error in accepting results.

Interpretation correct but less explanation of possible error than an excellent answer.

Interpretation is largely correct but misses nuances of the data or possible error in results.

Interpretation has errors; no appreciation of nuances or possible error.

Interpretation has major errors or is totally incorrect and misstatements are likely.

Discussion of Results

The discussion carefully weaves the hypothesis, literature, interpretation and implications together in a meaningful way.

The discussion weaves the hypothesis, literature, interpretation and implications together in a meaningful way, but less cogently than an excellent answer

The discussion section contains the hypothesis, literature, interpretation and implications, but they are not connected in a meaningful way throughtout.

The discussion fails to consider some of the following: hypothesis, literature, interpretation, or implications.

The discussion fails to consider most of the following: hypothesis, literature, interpretation, and implications.