|
Advanced (10) |
Effective (8-9) |
Developing (6-7) |
Less Effective (3-5) |
Poor (1-2) |
| Title Page |
Title includes variables and some articulation of relations (e.g., “difference between…”; “effects of x on y”). RH shortened but complete within character limit. All relevant parts of the title page are included. No APA format mistakes. |
All relevant parts of the title page are included. Title/RH is appropriate but may not be very concise. |
Title/RH does not effectively convey all the variables in the study. Some needed elements may be missing. |
Title/RH is not appropriate for a scientific paper. Title page does not follow APA style. |
Title page is missing |
| Literature Review |
Studies are described in enough detail so that their relation to other studies and to the relevant theoretical and methodological issues can be understood by the reader. It is clear whether each general statement is a hypothesis, a result of a specific study, or a general conclusion. The review is in the author’s own words, and the focus is on the research, rather than the researchers. Limitations of prior research and contrasting views/positions are presented. |
Studies are generally described in enough detail so that their relation to other studies and to the relevant theoretical and methodological issues can be understood by the reader (although some sections could be more specific). It is usually clear whether each general statement is a hypothesis, a result of a specific study, or a general conclusion (though some statements may need clarification). The review may include unnecessary quotations or poor paraphrases of the original articles. |
Some of the reviewed literature seems to be inappropriate or not well-linked to the topic. Literature may not reviewed in enough detail for the reader to be sure of its relation to other studies or to the relevant theoretical or methodological issues or it may be one-sided, omitting contrasting viewpoints. The review may discuss key concepts from the literature without paraphrasing adequately (i.e., over-reliance on quotations). |
Too few citations are included for the reader to be confident that that literature has been adequately reviewed. Much of the reviewed literature may be inappropriate or not reviewed in enough detail for the reader to be sure of its relation to other studies or to the relevant theoretical or methodological issues. Definition or discussion of key concepts may be improperly paraphrased. |
Does not review appropriate number of articles. Too many direct quotes are included in the paper. |
| Hypothesis |
Hypotheses are all clearly stated, and directional predictions are made based on the previous literature. They are testable. |
Main hypotheses are stated clearly and directional predictions are made |
Variables in the main hypothesis must be stated, but no directional prediction about the relation between the variables is specifically stated. A hypothesis with no justification may be included. |
Direction of hypothesis does not follow from the literature presented. |
Hypothesis not feasible or is not included in the paper. |
| Research Design |
The design of the study is clear and complete and appropriate to test the hypothesis. Variables are appropriate and operationalized properly. |
Design is complete and appropriate but not clearly described. Variables are appropriately operationalized but may be simplistic. |
Design is not complete or the operationalization of the variables is not clear. Measured variables may be simplistic or lack content validity (i.e., not appropriate). |
Design is not appropriate for the hypothesis; variables are not operationalized or not valid. |
Design is not discussed. |
| Proposed Method |
Includes all three sections of the method section of the paper.
Includes citations for measures that will be used. Detailed procedures are described. |
Describes two of the three sections fully. Includes citations for measures. Procedure includes some details. |
Describes one of the three sections fully. Citations for measures may be missing. Procedure may not be complete. |
Includes method section but does not include the appropriate information. |
No method section included. |
| Discussion of Possible Limitations |
Author has considered to what extent the results are conclusive and can be generalized. Includes discussion of confounds/limitations. |
Potential confounds or methodological limits are discussed as appropriate. Has not considered extent that the results are generalizable. |
Potential confounds or methodological limits are listed but not clearly discussed |
Potential confounds and methodological limits may be listed but may be inaccurate, incomplete, or very unclear. |
No limitations addressed |
| References |
Reference page includes all and only cited articles. The articles are appropriately scholarly and appropriate to the topic. Sufficient recent sources make the review current, and classic studies are included if applicable and available. Original articles/chapters were clearly read by the student. |
Reference list may leave out some cited article or include one that was not cited. The articles are appropriately scholarly but may be somewhat tangential and were likely read by the student. Sources include a good mix of recent and classic, as necessary. |
Some references may not be appropriate for the assignment. Key references are clearly cited from other sources and not likely read by the student. Sources do not include a good mix of recent and classic, if necessary. |
Reference list is more like a bibliography of related sources. References may not be scholarly sources or otherwise not appropriate for the assignment (e.g., too many secondary sources), or they may not be current. |
No reference page |
| Spelling & Grammar |
No spelling or grammatical errors. |
Very few spelling or grammatical errors. |
Moderate number of errors |
Many grammatical and spelling errors. |
Excessive grammatical and spelling errors- Unable to follow paper |
