Assessment 2: Planning Document Rubric
| Criteria | Ratings | ||||
| Outstanding | Excellent | Good | Adequate | Unsatisfactory | |
| Demonstrates the ability to plan a quantitative research study to answer a specific research question. (Max 15 points) |
13 – 15 points | 12.5 – 11.5 points | 10 – 11 points | 7.5 – 9.5 points | 1 – 7 points |
| Interesting and novel research question developed. Research question clearly relates to the critical evaluation of current literature. Proposal has a clear aim(s) and hypothesis(es) underpinned by the literature. |
Interesting research question developed. Relevant literature described with evidence of some critical evaluation of the current literature. Aims and hypothesis stated with clear links to the literature. |
Suitable research question developed. Relevant related literature described. Aims and hypothesis stated, with some links to the available literature. |
Suitable research question stated. Provides a general discussion of relevant literature. Aims and hypotheses stated but not clearly situated within the context of the literature. |
Suitable research question not identified. No clear aims and hypothesis. Poor consideration of supporting literature. |
|
| Describes and critically evaluates the methodology of the proposed study. (Max 15 points) |
13 – 15 points | 12.5 – 11.5 points | 10 – 11 points | 7.5 – 9.5 points | 1 – 7 points |
| Proposed quantitative methods are appropriate to answer the question(s). Very clear justification of the suitability of this method. Instruments and sampling procedure clearly defined with sufficient information to allow for replication. Critical evaluation of the method. |
Proposed quantitative methods are appropriate to answer the question(s). Clear justification of the suitability of this method. Instruments and sampling procedure clearly defined. Some evidence of critical evaluation of the method. |
Proposed quantitative methods are appropriate to answer the question(s). Some justification for the research design. Instruments and sampling described. Emerging evidence of critical evaluation of the method. |
Proposed quantitative methods are appropriate to answer the question(s). Instruments and sampling described. |
Proposed quantitative research methods are not appropriate to answer the research question(s). No justification for the research design. Types of measurement and sampling not defined. |
|
| Selects and justifies the correct statistical analysis for the research question. (Max 15 points) |
13 – 15 points | 12.5 – 11.5 points | 10 – 11 points | 7.5 – 9.5 points | 1 – 7 points |
| Comprehensive identification of appropriate and correct statistical analyses identified with justification for their use. Includes consideration of potential confounding variables. Clearly |
Correct identification of appropriate and correct statistical analyses identified with justification for their use. Clearly describes how the data can be used within the analysis to answer the research question(s). |
Correct statistical analysis identified to address main question. Additional consideration of other analysis that could help the reader’s understanding of the sample and data. Describes how the data |
Correct statistical analysis identified to address the main question. States how the data can be used to address the research question(s). Includes template of how most results would be |
Incorrect statistical analysis identified OR correct analysis identified but does not link this clearly with the research question or data. Limited or no template of how results would be |
| describes how the data can be used within the analysis to answer the research question(s). Consistently reports accurate template of how the results would be reported. |
Includes template of how the results would be reported. Some minor formatting errors. |
can be used to address the research question(s). Includes template of how the results would be reported. Several different minor formatting errors. |
reported. Errors in formatting. |
reported. Frequent errors in formatting. |
|
| Identifies limitations and evaluates future avenues for associated research. (Max 10 points) |
8.5 – 10 points | 7.5 – 8 points | 6.5 – 7 points | 5 – 6 points | 1 – 4 points |
| Identifies limitations of the current study. Well justified suggestions for future research building upon knowledge gained from the current study. Limitations and suggestions supported by reference to high-quality literature. |
Recognises limitations. Suggestions for future research that builds upon the knowledge that will be gained from the research proposal. Supported by high-quality literature. |
Recognises some limitations. Suggestions for future research build upon the knowledge that will be gained from the study within research proposal. |
Identifies some limitations. May not be clearly linked with the method and/or analysis. Suggestions made for future research. |
Limitations not identified. No suggestions for future research. |
|
| The protocol for the study is well communicated, with accurate spelling and grammar and the most recent APA reference format. (Max 5 points) |
5 points | 4 points | 3 points | 2 points | 0 – 1 points |
| Consistently uses references relevant to the topic, recently published, and of high quality, to inform the discussion. Format is very well presented and clearly structured. Presents a highly cohesive discussion that is well organised and follows a logical sequence. Language is formal. Use of appropriate grammar, punctuation and spelling. All references documented in the article are presented in a |
Format is well presented and clearly structured. Presents a cohesive discussion that is organised and follows a logical sequence. Use of appropriate grammar, punctuation and spelling. Mainly uses references relevant to the topic, recently published, and of high quality, to inform the discussion. All references documented in the article are presented in a reference list. Reference list and citations |
Overall format is clear with use of appropriate formatting tools. Discussion follows a general sequence, however, tends to meander in sections or is not concise. Minimal mistakes in grammar, punctuation and/or spelling. Includes references relevant to the topic and recently published. Some use of high-quality references to inform the discussion. Citations within text and in corresponding |
Some use of formatting tools to organise the document. Discussion does not always follow a logical sequence which sometimes impacts on readability. Informal language and some mistakes in grammar, punctuation and/or spelling. Uses references related to the topic. Includes some recent and quality references. Most references documented in the article are presented in a reference list. A number of APA7 |
Presents little structure in writing. Discussion is hard to follow. Pervasive mistakes in grammar, punctuation and/or spelling. Limited or no use of relevant and recent references. References are poor quality. Frequent APA7 errors in reference list and/or citations. |
| reference list. Reference list and citations consistently presented using APA 7. |
presented with minor APA 7 errors. |
reference list were included with several different minor APA7 formatting errors. |
errors in reference list and citations. |