Skip to main content
iRubric: Journal Article Critique rubric

iRubric: Journal Article Critique rubric

find rubric

edit   print   share   Copy to my rubrics   Bookmark   test run   assess...   delete   Do more...
Journal Article Critique 
Journal Article Critique
Journal Critique
Rubric Code: C226443
By lisafitz
Ready to use
Public Rubric
Subject: Psychology  
Type: Assessment  
Grade Levels: Undergraduate

Powered by iRubric Journal Critique Assessment
  Missing

(N/A)

Inadequate

(N/A)

Needs Improvement

(N/A)

Good

(N/A)

Excellent

(N/A)

RATING

(N/A)

Summary of article's major points

15%
Missing

Article summary is not present.
Inadequate

Understanding of the article major points is incomplete or many misconceptions are demonstrated.
Needs Improvement

Shows an understanding of the information in the article, but has not included some major points and/or supporting details.
Good

Demonstrates complete understanding of the article and has highlighted most major points.
Excellent

Presents a thorough summary of the article and correct in both major points and supporting details.
RATING
Critique of the literature review

15%
Missing

Critique of the literature/theoretical review is not present.
Inadequate

Judgments are not constructed or are not supported by the facts contained within the article.
Needs Improvement

Constructs a judgment about the article; however, important elements are omitted or not supported.
Good

Constructs a valid judgment about the article and explains the basis of the judgment. Some elements are omitted when they should be addressed.
Excellent

Addresses all elements and offers a complete and clear critique of weak or missing elements.
RATING
Critique of the study design

15%
Missing

Critique of the study design and methods is not present.
Inadequate

Judgments are not constructed or are not supported by the facts contained within the article.
Needs Improvement

Constructs a judgment about the article; however, important elements are omitted or not supported.
Good

Constructs a valid judgment about the article and explains the basis of the judgment. Some elements are omitted when they should be addressed.
Excellent

Addresses all elements and offers a complete and clear critique of weak or missing elements.
RATING
Critique of the results

15%
Missing

Critique of the results and discussion is not present.
Inadequate

Judgments are not constructed or are not supported by the facts contained within the article.
Needs Improvement

Constructs a judgment about the article; however, important elements are omitted or not supported.
Good

Constructs a valid judgment about the article and explains the basis of the judgment. Some elements are omitted when they should be addressed.
Excellent

Addresses all elements and offers a complete and clear critique of weak or missing elements.
RATING
Evidence of critical thinking

15%
Missing

Judgments regarding the article or study design are not present.
Inadequate

Incorrect judgments are made that are not based on the course content or misrepresent the article content.
Needs Improvement

Judgments about the article and relation to course content are not clear, lack specificity, or are only partially correct.
Good

A few accurate judgments about the article are made, based on research principles, some omissions or inconsistencies. Incomplete in thought as it relates to course content.
Excellent

Judgments are based upon content research, specific and additional insight is provided.
RATING
Conclusion

15%
Missing

Conclusion paragraph is not present.
Inadequate

Strengths and limitations of the article and study are not discussed, or are limited and can't provide a conclusion with evidence. No or very limited reflection on the clinical relevance of the article.
Needs Improvement

Strengths and limitations are not clearly or thoroughly discussed. Supporting details are not provided. Weak or inconclusive conclusions regarding the clinical relevance or the article.
Good

Strengths and limitations are discussed, but not appropriately supported with supporting details. Clinical relevance is addressed, but a convincing rationale for the overall implications are omitted.
Excellent

Strengths and limitations are clearly and thoroughly summarized with appropriate supporting details. Clinical relevance is clearly addressed, and a convincing rationale for the overall implications.
RATING
Timeliness

10%
Missing

The journal critique was sent beyond 6 hours after the set deadline.
Inadequate

The journal critique was sent beyond 4 - 6 hours after the set deadline.
Needs Improvement

The journal critique was sent beyond 2 - 4 hours after the set deadline.
Good

The journal critique was sent beyond 1-2 hour after the set deadline.
Excellent

The journal critique was sent on or before the set deadline.
RATING






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.
n98