iRubric: Statistics Survey Project Rubric

The sampling procedure is weak in all areas and there is noticeable bias in the sample.

The randomization is flawed in all three areas - labeling, number selection, and results
OR
Sampling procedure/ Method is is missing from report.

The sampling procedure is weak in all areas.
OR
There is noticeable bias in the sample.

There is some flaw in the randomization procedure itself. Some aspect of the randomization-labeling, number selection, or results is completely correct.

The procedure is weak in two of the following areas: appropriateness, description, or implementation.
There is evidence of some bias in the sample.

The randomization process does not match the chosen procedure.
OR
The randomization process matches the chosen sampling procedure, but has unclear communication.

The sampling procedure is weak in one of the following areas: appropriateness, description, or implementation. No evidence of bias is present.

The randomization process includes all three components listed at the right. However, clarity of communication would prevent easy replication of their randomization.

The randomization process matches the chosen sampling procedure.

The sampling procedure is appropriate, is described accurately and completely, and is implemented according to the stated plan. No evidence of bias is present.

The randomization process includes a clear and correct labeling of subjects, a description of the number selection process (random number table or calculator), and the results of the randomization. In addition the randomization process matches the chosen sampling procedure.

Original data is not available for review and the data is not tabulated appropriately.

Original data are unavailable for review but the data is summarized partially correct in a table.
OR
Original data are available for review but the table is not accurate.

Original data are unavailable for review but the data is summarized neatly, accurately and are clearly labeled.
OR
Original data are available for review, but there is a major flaw in the presentation of the data (but not in the accuracy of the tally).

Original data are available for review and summarized in appropriate table form. The tables however minor errors, sloppy, or not clearly labeled.

Original data are available for review and are summarized in an appropriate table form. Tables are neat, clearly labeled and accurate.

Interpretations and generalizations are missing.

Interpretations are attempted but are inadequate.

Generalizations concerning the population of interest are omitted.

Interpretations of the graphical and numerical summaries have serious errors/omissions. In addition, an attempt is made at addressing generalization concerning the population of interest.

Interpretations of the graphical and numerical summaries have minor errors or omissions. In addition some generalizations concerning the population of interest are identify.

Interpretations of the graphical and numerical summaries are thorough and accurate. In addition, generalizations concerning the population of interest are identified.

Encountered pitfalls is not discusses nor are any plausible extensions given.

Encountered pitfalls are articulated but no explanation concerning how these were dealt with is given
AND
No plausible extension of the project is given.

Some encountered pitfallas are articulated with a brief explanation of how these were dealt with
OR
No plausible extension of the project is given.

Encountered pitfalls are clearly articulated, but explanations concerning how these were dealt with are unclear.
AND
One plausible extension of the project is given.

Encountered pitfalls are clearly articulated along with explanations of how these pitfalls where dealt with.
AND
One plausible extension of the project is given.