Skip to main content
iRubric: Engineering Vendor Review for BME Design rubric

iRubric: Engineering Vendor Review for BME Design rubric

find rubric

edit   print   share   Copy to my rubrics   Bookmark   test run   assess...   delete   Do more...
Engineering Vendor Review for BME Design 
Engineering Vendor Review for BME Design
Students describe and evaluate current medical devices available on the market or in research trials. Product features and distinguishing characteristics are described for each of the major and minor manufacturers. Target patient groups are identified. Further product needs are identified and new design features are proposed.
Rubric Code: NX7392C
By ealdaais
Ready to use
Public Rubric
Subject: Engineering  
Type: Writing  
Grade Levels: Undergraduate

Powered by iRubric Enter rubric title
  Beginning/Unacceptable

2 pts

Developing/Fair

3 pts

Accomplished/Good

4 pts

Exemplary/Excellent

5 pts

Device Description
1 pts

Beginning/Unacceptable

No definition of the device researched in the paper, or the topic is so broad it cannot be adequately covered in the assigned length of the paper.
Developing/Fair

Device is described adequately for the reader. Topic may still be too broad for the given length and scope of the paper.
Accomplished/Good

The device researched is clearly defined and described in the paper. Topic is sufficiently narrow for adequate coverage.
Exemplary/Excellent

The device and its purpose are clearly described. The reader knows precisely what items are being reviewed and their relevance to the topic is immediately apparent.
Products Available
2 pts

Beginning/Unacceptable

Products described are not related to each other and are irrelevant to the topic. Sources appear random and unrelated.
Developing/Fair

A few relevant and inter-related products are described, but the reader is not confident that all relevant sources have been researched.
Accomplished/Good

Review of products is thorough and extensive. Major manufacturers are included, but some specialized organizations may have been omitted.
Exemplary/Excellent

Products from both major and minor manufacturers are reviewed. Quantity of products reviewed is proportional to the size of the market.
Product Specifications
4 pts

Beginning/Unacceptable

Product information is simply cut and pasted from the web. Product specifications are not included or are very difficult to find.
Developing/Fair

Product features and specifications are included but are not organized in one central location. Information appears to be mostly cut and pasted from the web, with little modification from the student.
Accomplished/Good

Product specifications are clearly presented in one central location. Information from the web is organized thoughtfully.
Exemplary/Excellent

Product features and specifications and costs are clearly presented in one central location. Product features are directly compared and evaluated objectively.
Search Quality
1 pts

Beginning/Unacceptable

Only a few keywords were Googled and only the first few hits were used in the paper. Little to no effort was made to refine the search.
Developing/Fair

List of keywords was adequate and some effort was made to refine the search. Primary search tool remains Google or similar source.
Accomplished/Good

Thorough list of keywords utilized to refine search. Some creative search methods were employed to expand search engine beyond Google, such as professional societies and manufacturer databases.
Exemplary/Excellent

Thorough list of keywords utilized to refine search. Extensive use of other search methods was employed to expand the search beyond Google, such as contacting the manufacturer directly for more information. Student used library services to optimize search process.
References
2 pts

Beginning/Unacceptable

Information sources are not listed. References in the paper are almost untraceable.
Developing/Fair

Most information sources are stated somewhere in the paper, but it may be difficult to retrace the sources or the search.
Accomplished/Good

All information sources are listed at the end of the paper. All information in the report is clearly linked to the source list.
Exemplary/Excellent

All information sources are listed at the end of the paper, along with date information was retrieved and a description of the web page, catalog, or brochure. All information in the report is clearly linked to the source list, including graphs and diagrams.
Target Patient Groups
3 pts

Beginning/Unacceptable

Only one patient population to whom the device is marketed is identified, even though there are 2 or more. It is unclear how the product features are tailored to the patient population. Market size is omitted or is estimated but unsupported by research.
Developing/Fair

Some patient populations to whom the device is marketed are identified but some major populations are omitted. How the product features are tailored to the patient groups is given for only 1 - 2 features. Reasons for product features may be unclear. Not all contraindications are identified. Size of market is very rough and not well supported by research.
Accomplished/Good

Most patient populations to whom the device is marketed are identified. The reader can identify how the product features are tailored to the patient groups, but the reasons for some product features may be unclear. Patients who should not use the device are also identified. Approximate size of market (in $ or patient numbers) is given but may be inaccurate.
Exemplary/Excellent

Patient populations to whom the device is marketed are clearly identified. How product features are tailored to the patient group(s) is described. Patients who should not use the device are also identified. Approximate size of market (in $ or patient numbers) for the products is given.
Device Modifications
2 pts

Beginning/Unacceptable

It is unclear what improvements should be made to the device. Any proposed changes do not have a direct link to the patients with unmet needs. Proposed changes may be too far-fetched given our current technology or may be too minor to have any benefit.
Developing/Fair

Some but not all the deficiencies in the device(s) are identified. Design changes are proposed but they are vague and it is difficult to tell how they will serve the patients. The proposed change may be very slight or may not be reasonable given our current technology.
Accomplished/Good

Deficiencies in the device(s) are identified. Design changes and how these changes will serve the target patient populations are described but the benefits to the patients may be unclear. The proposed change may be inadequate to serve the patients in a major way, but would offer some minor improvement.
Exemplary/Excellent

Deficiencies in the device(s) are clearly identified. Design changes are described and how these changes will serve the target patient populations is described. The proposed change is reasonable and possible to achieve given our current technology.



Keywords:
  • vendor, engineering, patent, marketing, product features

Subjects:

Types:

Discuss this rubric




Do more with this rubric:
Preview

Preview

Preview this rubric.
Edit

Edit

Modify this rubric.
Copy

Copy

Make a copy of this rubric and begin editing the copy.

Print

Print

Show a printable version of this rubric.
Categorize

Categorize

Add this rubric to multiple categories.
Bookmark

Bookmark

Bookmark this rubric for future reference.
Assess
Test run

Test run

Test this rubric or perform an ad-hoc assessment.
Grade

Grade

Build a gradebook to assess students.
Collaborate

Collaborate

Apply this rubric to any object and invite others to assess.
Share
Publish

Publish

Link, embed, and showcase your rubrics on your website.
Email

Email

Email this rubric to a friend.
Discuss

Discuss

Discuss this rubric with other members.
 

Do more with rubrics than ever imagined possible.

Only with iRubrictm.


Copyright © 2024 Reazon Systems, Inc.  All rights reserved.
n16