- Username
- Password
forgot?

iRubric: Program Evaluation Manuscript, Part 1 rubric

edit print share Copy to my rubrics Bookmark test run assess... delete Do more...
Program Evaluation Manuscript, Part 1 Program Evaluation Manuscript, Part 1 This rubric will be used to grade Part 1 of the Program Evaluation manuscript. This is basically the progam evaluaiton research proposal, i.e., what you PLAN to do if approved. Rubric Code: NXX484C By meimei84 Ready to use Public Rubric Subject: Psychology Type: Writing Grade Levels: Graduate, Post Graduate

PROGRAM EVALUATION MS, PART 1
	Poor 0 pts	Fair 1 pts	Good 2 pts	Excellent 3 pts
Title	Poor Title does not summarize the main idea of the tresearch study. Poor wording.	Fair Title relates to main idea of the research study, but is poorly worded.	Good Title is wordy, but summarizes the main idea of the research study.	Excellent Title uses concise wording to summarize the main idea of the research study.
Abstract	Poor Abstract is poorly worded and does not relate to content and purpose of the proposal. Omits 2 or more pieces of vital information. Over the 120-word limit.	Fair Abstract relates to the content and purpose of the proposal but is poorly worded and contains quotations and abbreviations. Omits 1 piece of vital infromation. Over the 120-word limit.	Good Abstract reflects the content and purpose of the proposal, but includes information found elsewhere in the proposal and is wordy although within the 120-word limit.	Excellent The abstract accurately reflects the content and purpose of the proposal and does not include information found within the proposal. The abstract defines all abbreviations, unique terms, and does not include quotations. The abstract also contains some brief information regarding the findings of the study. Begins with the most important information and is no longer than 120 words.
INTRODUCTION
Organization	Poor Introduction is disorganized and does not introudce the topic. Missing citations.	Fair Introduction is not well organized and important data is difficult to locate. Missing citations.	Good Introduction is organized but is in a format differing from the suggested one. Although the introduction introduces the topic, it either lacks national data or is disorganized. Missing citations.	Excellent The manuscript begins with a 1-2 paragaph introduction that quickly introduces the reader to the topic, begining on the national level with national data (as appropriate). components to be included include (1) the background of the problem, (2) statement of the problem, and (3) significance or need for the study. Also includes citations as needed.
Completeness	Poor Introduction is missing three or more components.	Fair Introduction is missing two components.	Good Introduction is missing one component.	Excellent All Introduction components are present.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Headings	Poor Headings and subheadings are missing.	Fair Uses generic headings and subheadings.	Good Uses headings and subheadings that do not entirely fit the subject matter.	Excellent Uses appropriate levels of headings and subheadings that fit the specific subject matter.
Appropriateness of literature	Poor The literature review does not relate to the problem statement as expressed in research questions or study questions and objectives.	Fair Much of the literature does not relate to the problem statement as expressed in research questions or study questions and objectives.	Good Some of the literature review is not related to the problem statement as expressed in research questions or study questions and objectives.	Excellent Review is clearly related to the problem statement as expressed in research questions or study questions and objectives
Relationship to previous research	Poor Relationship of the study to previous research is missing.	Fair Vaguley relates the study to previous research is missing.	Good Does not clearly relate the study to previous research.	Excellent Includes the relationship of the study to previous research.
Synthesis	Poor Provides summaries only with no synthesis of the literature. Lacks theory or framework for the study.	Fair Provides little synthesis. Either theory and/or framework is missing.	Good Provides some sythesis along with summaries of the literature. Theory and/or framework is present, but not clear.	Excellent Synthesizes the literature by defining the most important aspects of the theory being examined or tested (quantitative studies) or substantiate the rationale or conceptual framework for the study (qualitative studies).
Variables/Themes	Poor Lacks a literature-based description of the research variables (quantitative studies) or potential themes or perceptions to be explored (qualitative studies)	Fair Contains a literature-based description of some of the research variables (quantitative studies) or potential themes or perceptions to be explored (qualitative studies)	Good Contains a literature-based description of most of the research variables (quantitative studies) or potential themes or perceptions to be explored (qualitative studies).	Excellent Contains a literature-based description of the research variables (quantitative studies) or potential themes or perceptions to be explored (qualitative studies).
Appropriateness of citations	Poor Content is not from acceptable peer-reviewed journals or sound academic journals.	Fair Some of the content is drawn from acceptable peer-reviewed journals or sound academic journals	Good Content is drawn primarily from acceptable peer-reviewed journals or sound academic journals.	Excellent Content is drawn from acceptable peer-reviewed journals or sound academic journals.
Integration	Poor Little of the review is an integrated, critical essay on the most relevant and current published knowledge on the topic.	Fair Some of the review is an integrated, critical essay on the most relevant and current published knowledge on the topic.	Good Most of the review is an integrated, critical essay on the most relevant and current published knowledge on the topic.	Excellent Entire review is an integrated, critical essay on the most relevant and current published knowledge on the topic.
Variety of references	Poor Provides few or no resources	Fair Provides a poor variety of resources	Good Provides a good variety of resources	Excellent Provides an excellent variety or resources
Research questions	Poor Research questions missing.	Fair Research quesitons not clearly drelated to the literature review.	Good Most of the research quesitons are related to the literature review.	Excellent Presents the research questions, connecting them directly and clearly to the literature review.
METHOD
Organization	Poor Method is disorganized.	Fair Method is not well organized and important data is difficult to locate.	Good Method is organized but is in a format differing from the suggested one.	Excellent Methods section is organized into logical sections
Evaluation type	Poor Does not identify the evaluation as summative, formative, or a mixture of the two.	Fair Misidentifes the evaluation as summative or formative.	Good Somewhat identifies evaluation as summative, formative, or a mixture of the two.	Excellent Clearly identifies the evaluation as summative, formative, or a mixture of the two.
Evaluation setting	Poor Overview of program and setting is missing.	Fair Overview of program and setting is vague.	Good Overview of program and setting is presnt although wordy.	Excellent Begins with a brief overview of the progam being evaluated, including the specific setting.
Sampling	Poor Sampling procedures incomplete and vague.	Fair Omits part of the sampling procedure.	Good All parts of the sampling procedure are included although not clearly worded.	Excellent Specifies appropriate criteria for selection of participants. Includes a justification for the number of participants, balanced with the depth of inquiry i.e., the fewer the participants, the greater the depth of inquiry per individual. Includes the sample size and describes the sampling method used.
Instruments	Poor Instrumentation is vague or missing.	Fair Mising some of the instruments and some information.	Good All instruments are discussed bbut missing some information.	Excellent Contains a section on each instrument/measure being used to collect data, describing the instrument and detailing its appropriateness, reliability, and validity (when applicable). Uses citaitons.
Procedures	Poor Procedures missing.	Fair Process has too many gaps to replicate. Dat a not triangulated.	Good Process is decribed but is not always clear, making replication difficult. Data is triangulated.	Excellent Provides a step-by-step process for collecting data, using each instrument noted above. Procedures can be replicated as described. Describes how and when the data were generated, gathered, and recorded (i.e., tape recording, note taking). Addresses how the data was validated (i.e., triangulation)
Appropriateness of methods	Poor Research methods are missing.	Fair Research methods are unclear and/or irrelevant.	Good Research methods are clear but lack relevance.	Excellent Research methods described are clear and relevant.
Data Management	Poor Decription of data management system is neiter clear nor relevant.	Fair Decription of data management system is somewhat clear and relevant.	Good Decription of data management system is primarily clear and relevant.	Excellent Describes the systems used for keeping track of data and emerging understandings (i.e., research logs, reflective journals, cataloging systems)
Data Analysis	Poor Disorganized and lacks citaitons.	Fair Important information is diffiuclt to locate. What can be identified lacks citations.	Good Provides the datials but organized in a manne rdiffering from the suggested one.	Excellent Details how the data will be anlayzed, organized by research question. Data anlysis techniques are appropriate, and citaitons are used to support the choices.
REFERENCES
General	Poor References are inappropriate, are secondary sources, and are outdated. Three or more citations do not appear in the references section. Three or more references do not appear in the text. Not in APA format.	Fair Many of the references are inappropriate to the topic and are not from within the past 5 years. Includes non-primary references. Two citations do not appear in the references section, or two references do not appear in the text. Not in APA format.	Good Most of the references are appropriate to the topic,but less than 90% were written within in the last 5 years. One citation does not appear in the references section or one reference does not appear in the text. Minor APA errors.	Excellent References are organized according to APA, are appropriate to the topic, focus on primary resources, and contain at least 90% references written within the last 5 years. All citations in the text appear in the references section, and all references appear in the text.
APPENDIX(ces)
General	Poor Appendix is missing or disorganized.	Fair Appendix is missing the consent form. Text does not refer to Appendix.	Good Appendix is present but is in a different format from the suggested one.	Excellent Appendix is organized and presented in accordance with APA, and contains the consent form and copies of all other necessary items (i.e., interview protocol/questions, focus group questions/protocol). Text contains references to items in Appendix.

Keywords:

manuscript, research, program evaluation

Subjects:

Types:

Discuss this rubric