Skip to main content
iRubric: PSY 370 - Research Proposal rubric

iRubric: PSY 370 - Research Proposal rubric

find rubric

edit   print   share   Copy to my rubrics   Bookmark   test run   assess...   delete   Do more...
PSY 370 - Research Proposal 
PSY 370 - Research Proposal
Rubric Code: K4634C
By bappold
Ready to use
Public Rubric
Subject: Psychology  
Type: Writing  
Grade Levels: (none)

Powered by iRubric PSY 370
Rubric for Research Proposal
  Exceptional

11 pts

Good

9.5 pts

Fair

8 pts

Poor

6 pts

STATEMENT OF HYPOTHESIS
5 %

Exceptional

Hypothesis or research question is clear and explicitly stated.
Good

Hypothesis or research question can be recognized, but is not explicitly or clearly stated.
Fair

The hypothesis or research question is alluded to, but never clearly stated. The reader must surmise the hypothesis on the basis of what is mentioned in the introduction.
Poor

There is no identifiable hypothesis or research question. The reader finds no words or phrases that identify the hypothesis.
QUALITY OF IDEA
8 %

Exceptional

Hypothesis or research question has a strong theoretical basis as determined by the literature review. Cited research studies all contribute to recognizing the usefulness of idea.
Good

Hypothesis or research question has adequate theoretical basis as determined by part of the literature review. A few of the cited studies seem irrelevant to the idea.
Fair

Hypothesis or research question has little or no theoretical basis. A logical argument may be used to defend the utility of the hypothesis or research question, but most of the research cited is not particularly relevant.
Poor

Hypothesis or research question has little or no theoretical basis and/or does not seem to follow any 'argument'. Difficult or impossible to determine how the cited literature is relevant to the hypothesis or research question.
ORGANIZATION OF INTRODUCTION
13 %

Exceptional

The organization is complete and logical with a progression of ideas leading to an understanding of why the research is needed. Transitions allow the reader to follow the author's line of reasoning without very much effort.
Good

There is a logical progression through the introduction. The argument gets sidetracked occasionally, disrupting the flow for the reader. Still, the reader is convinced of the need for the research.
Fair

Logical progression is minimal; ideas are disconnected even though each point may have some merit on its own. Rationale for importance of research is not clear.
Poor

There is no logical progression in the development of the thesis or topic. Ideas are disconnected, poorly expressed, and confusing. No case is made for why the research is needed, or if a case is made, it is completely irrelevant to the research presented.
LITERATURE REVIEW
13 %

Exceptional

Discusses historically relevant and current research on all aspects of the research topic in a logical and interesting way. Review is in-depth.
Good

Discusses historical and current research relevant to research topic in a logical and interesting way, although key studies appear to be missing from the review.
Fair

Discusses some research related to research topic, but many historically important or current research studies are missing.
Poor

Discusses few previous studies relevant to research topic and logical sequencing is poor.
RESEARCH DESIGN & METHODOLOGY
13 %

Exceptional

Design and methodology are appropriate and key to testing the hypothesis or answering research question. Drawbacks to design and methodology are clearly noted.
Good

Design and methodology will work, but better choices were available. Some drawbacks to the design and methodology are noted.
Fair

Design or methodology is seriously flawed. Key drawbacks to design and methodology do not appear to be recognized.
Poor

Design would not allow adequate test of hypothesis and the method is seriously flawed as well. Writer seems unaware of why such choices for design and methodology were poor ones.
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
8 %

Exceptional

Suggested data analyses are correct and clearly and completely described.
Good

Suggested data analyses are correct but additional analyses that would help assess the findings are poorly described or omitted.
Fair

Suggested data analyses might work, but better ones are clearly available. Additional analyses that would help assess the findings are poorly described or omitted.
Poor

Data analysis is not addresssed or does not match the scale of measurement being used.
REFERENCES
8 %

Exceptional

References are sufficient (probably more than 10). Key or classic references are included. All references are well-chosen for this study. Most (80% or more) are primary sources (e.g., journal articles).
Good

References are adequate (perhaps 8-10). Most references are well-chosen for this study but more than 33% are secondary or online sources.
Fair

References are minimal (fewer than 8) Some references are only marginally related to this study and most (50% or more) are secondary (from books) or online sources.
Poor

References are less than minimal (fewer than than 5). Key or classic references not included. Most references are only marginally related to this study and/or are secondary or online sources.
DISCUSSION OR CONCLUSION
10 %

Exceptional

Begins with a good summary of the important aspects of previous sections. The importance of the problem is made clear, limitations of the design and/or methodology are acknowledged, and implications of the anticipated findings are stated clearly.
Good

Begins with an adequate summary of the important aspects of previous sections. The importance of the problem is noted, but limitations of the design and/or methodology are not completely acknowledged, but implications of the anticipated findings are stated.
Fair

Summary of the important aspects of previous sections is inadequate. The importance of the problem, limitations of the design and/or methodology, and implications of the anticipated findings are not adequately acknowledged.
Poor

Summary of the other sections is very poorly written or omitted entirely. Discussion does not follow or connect in a coherent way to previous sections.
SHORT ABSTRACT
8 %

Exceptional

Abstract contains all of the following: brief but clear description of research question or hypothesis, its relationship to literature, type of research (e.g., survey, experiment), and major findings in no more than 200 words.
Good

Abstract contains most but not all of the following: brief and fairly clear description of research question or hypothesis, its relationship to literature, type of research (e.g., survey, experiment), and major findings.
Fair

Abstract is missing two or more of the following: brief description of research question or hypothesis, its relationship to literature, type of research (e.g., survey, experiment), and major findings.
Poor

Abstract is missing two or more of the following: brief description of research question or hypothesis, relationship to literature, type of research (e.g., survey, experiment), and major findings. It is also sloppily written.
APA STYLE
7 %

Exceptional

APA style is used correctly (note esp. headings, citations, references, tables and figures).
Good

APA style is used with only a few minor errors or omissions (note esp. headings, citations, references, tables and figures).
Fair

APA style is mostly incorrect. There are several major errors or omissions (note esp. headings, citations, references, tables and figures).
Poor

It appears that writer didn't make effort to learn APA style. Many mistakes are present throughout the proposal.
STYLE AND GRAMMAR
7 %

Exceptional

Vocabulary is precise and appropriate. The writing is sophisticated and demonstrates understanding. Grammar is practically error free. The appropriate voice, tense and transitions are used.
Good

Vocabulary is appropriate; some phrases need work, but the writing is generally good.
Grammar is mostly error free. Voice, tense, and transitions are mostly consistent and appropriate.
Fair

Vocabulary is weak and often inappropriate. There are several grammatical, voice, tense, and transition errors.
Poor

Vocabulary is poor. There are many grammatical, voice, tense, and transition errors. It appears the proposal was not proofread.






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.
n178