| Course Code | Class Code | Assignment Title | Total Points |
| PSY-812 | PSY-812-O500 | Interpreting Test Results | 270.0 |
| Criteria | Percentage | Unsatisfactory (0.00%) | Less Than Satisfactory (73.00%) | Satisfactory (82.00%) | Good (91.00%) | Excellent (100.00%) | Comments | Points Earned |
| Content | 80.0% |
| Reflection | 5.0% | A reflection is either missing or not evident to the reader. | A reflection is present, but incomplete. A list of specific revisions made is not present. | A reflection is presented, but cursory and lacking depth of insight. A list of revisions made is present, but lacks specificity; the revisions noted are not substantive. | A reflection is present and reasonable. A list of revisions made is present and specific, and the revisions noted are reasonable. | A reflection is thoroughly presented and demonstrates thoughtful insight. A list of revisions made is present and specific, and the revisions noted are impactful. |
| Integration of Instructor Feedback | 5.0% | Integration of instructor feedback is either missing or not evident to the reader. | Integration of instructor feedback is attempted, but does not address the majority of instructor comments and suggestions. | Integration of instructor feedback is evident though it appears as a disjointed, cursory addition. Most of the instructor comments and suggestions are addressed. | Integration of instructor feedback is evident and relatively well incorporated into the natural flow of the paper. All instructor comments and suggestions are addressed. | Integration of instructor feedback is evident and meaningful. Feedback is seamlessly incorporated into the flow of the paper. All instructor comments and suggestions are addressed. |
| Revision of Thesis and Argument | 5.0% | No improvements to the thesis and argument are evident. | Thesis and/or main claim remain insufficiently developed and/or vague; purpose is not clear. The argument presented remains disorganized and unclear. There are obvious flaws in the logic. Some sources have questionable credibility. | Thesis is apparent and appropriate to purpose. The argument presents minimal justification of claims. Argument logically, but not thoroughly, supports the purpose. Sources used are credible. Introduction and conclusion bracket the thesis. | Thesis and/or main claim are clear and forecast the development of the paper. They are descriptive and reflective of the arguments and appropriate to the purpose. The argument shows logical progressions. Techniques of argumentation are evident. There is a smooth progression of claims from introduction to conclusion. Most sources are authoritative. | Thesis and/or main claim are clear and comprehensive; the essence of the paper is contained within the thesis. The argument is clear and convincing, presenting a persuasive claim in a distinctive and compelling manner. All sources are authoritative. |
| Revision of Writing Mechanics | 5.0% | No improvements to the writing mechanics are evident. | Changes to the writing components are largely cosmetic rather than substantive. Mechanical errors continue to be a distraction to the reader. Inconsistencies in language choice (register), sentence structure, and/or word choice remain present. | Changes to the writing components 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. | Changes to the writing components are present and substantive. 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. | Changes to the writing components are present and substantive. Writer demonstrates command of standard, written, academic English. |
| Synopsis of the Reliability and Validity of the Test Administered | 10.0% | A synopsis of the reliability and validity of the test administered is either missing or not evident to the reader. | A synopsis of the reliability and validity of the test administered is present, but incomplete or inaccurate. | A synopsis of the reliability and validity of the test administered is present, but is cursory and lacking in depth. Key ideas are treated casually while less important concepts are emphasized. | A synopsis of the reliability and validity of the test administered is present and thorough. Key ideas are balanced with less important concepts. | A synopsis of the reliability and validity of the test administered is present and thorough. Key ideas are emphasized while less important concepts are treated more casually. |
| Private Notes | 15.0% | Private notes are either missing or not evident to the reader. | Private notes are present, but incomplete or illogical. | Private notes are present, but they are cursory and lacking in depth. The thought process involved in conducting the analysis and drawing conclusions cannot easily be discerned. | Private notes are present and thorough. The thought process involved in conducting the analysis and drawing conclusions can be discerned. | Private notes are present and thorough. The thought process involved in conducting the analysis and drawing conclusions is readily evident to the reader. |
| Recommendations | 25.0% | A statement of recommendations is not presented. | A statement of recommendations is presented, but the conclusions are flawed or illogical. | A statement of recommendations is presented, but is cursory and lacking in depth. | A statement of recommendations is presented and thorough. The conclusions and recommendations are relatively logical and appropriate | A statement of recommendations is thoroughly presented with rich detail. The conclusions and recommendations are fully logical and appropriate. |
| Synthesis and Argument | 10.0% | No synthesis of source information is evident. Statement of purpose is not followed to a justifiable conclusion. The conclusion does not support the claim made. Argument is incoherent and uses non-credible sources. | Synthesis of source information is attempted, but is not successful. Sufficient justification of claims is lacking. Argument lacks consistent unity. There are obvious flaws in the logic. Some sources have questionable credibility. | Synthesis of source information is present, but pedantic. Argument is orderly, but may have a few inconsistencies. The argument presents minimal justification of claims. Argument logically, but not thoroughly, supports the purpose. Sources used are credible. Introduction and conclusion bracket the thesis. | Synthesis of source information is present and meaningful. Argument shows logical progressions. Techniques of argumentation are evident. There is a smooth progression of claims from introduction to conclusion. Most sources are authoritative. | Synthesis of source information is present and scholarly. Argument is clear and convincing presenting a persuasive claim in a distinctive and compelling manner. All sources are authoritative. The synthesis and argument in the paper are of publication caliber. |
| Organization and Effectiveness | 10.0% |
| Thesis Development and Purpose | 10.0% | 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. They are descriptive and reflective of the arguments and appropriate to the purpose. | Thesis and/or main claim are clear and comprehensive; the essence of the paper is contained within the thesis. The development indicated by the thesis and/or main claim is acceptable for publication. |
| Format | 10.0% |
| Mechanics of Writing | 5.0% | Mechanical 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. |
| APA Format | 5.0% | Required format is rarely followed correctly. An appropriate number of topic-related scholarly research sources and related in-text citations is not present. No reference page is included. No citations are used. | Required format is attempted, but some elements are missing or mistaken. A lack of control with formatting is apparent. Some included sources are not scholarly research or topic-related. Reference page is present. Citations are inconsistently used. | Required format is used correctly, although some minor errors may be present. Scholarly research sources are present and topic-related, but the source and quality of some references is questionable. Reference page is included and lists sources used in the paper. Sources are appropriately documented, although some errors may be present. | Required format is fully used. There are virtually no errors in formatting style. Scholarly research accounts for the majority of sources presented and is topic-related and obtained from reputable professional sources. Reference page is present and fully inclusive of all cited sources. Documentation is appropriate and citation style is usually correct. | The document is correctly formatted to publication standards. All research presented is scholarly, topic-related, and obtained from highly respected, professional, original sources. In-text citations and a reference page are complete and correct. The documentation of cited sources is free of error. The paper could readily be accepted for publication. |
| Total Weightage | 100% |
Berrioe1
Rubric_Print_Format_module7.xlsx
