Skip to main content
sign in
Username
Password
forgot?
Sign up
Share
help_outline
help
Pricing
Request Info
Please enable JavaScript on your web browser
menu
iRubric: Program Evaluation Manuscript, Part 1 rubric
find rubric
Your browser does not support iframes.
edit
print
share
Copy to my rubrics
Bookmark
test run
assess...
delete
Do more...
Program Evaluation Manuscript, Part 1
Program Evaluation Manuscript, Part 1
This rubric will be used to grade Part 1 of the Program Evaluation manuscript. This is basically the progam evaluaiton research proposal, i.e., what you PLAN to do if approved.
Rubric Code:
W6B4B9
By
KWagers
Ready to use
Public Rubric
Subject:
Psychology
Type:
Writing
Grade Levels:
Graduate, Post Graduate
Your browser does not support iframes.
Desktop Mode
Mobile Mode
PROGRAM EVALUATION MS, PART 1
Poor
0 pts
Fair
1 pts
Good
2 pts
Excellent
3 pts
Title
Poor
Title does not summarize the main idea of the tresearch study. Poor wording.
Fair
Title relates to main idea of the research study, but is poorly worded.
Good
Title is wordy, but summarizes the main idea of the research study.
Excellent
Title uses concise wording to summarize the main idea of the research study.
Abstract
Poor
Abstract is poorly worded and does not relate to content and purpose of the proposal. Omits 2 or more pieces of vital information. Over the 120-word limit.
Fair
Abstract relates to the content and purpose of the proposal but is poorly worded and contains quotations and abbreviations. Omits 1 piece of vital infromation. Over the 120-word limit.
Good
Abstract reflects the content and purpose of the proposal, but includes information found elsewhere in the proposal and is wordy although within the 120-word limit.
Excellent
The abstract accurately reflects the content and purpose of the proposal and does not include information found within the proposal. The abstract defines all abbreviations, unique terms, and does not include quotations. The abstract also contains some brief information regarding the findings of the study. Begins with the most important information and is no longer than 120 words.
INTRODUCTION
Organization
Poor
Introduction is disorganized and does not introudce the topic. Missing citations.
Fair
Introduction is not well organized and important data is difficult to locate. Missing citations.
Good
Introduction is organized but is in a format differing from the suggested one. Although the introduction introduces the topic, it either lacks national data or is disorganized. Missing citations.
Excellent
The manuscript begins with a 1-2 paragaph introduction that quickly introduces the reader to the topic, begining on the national level with national data (as appropriate).
components to be included include (1) the background of the problem, (2) statement of the problem, and (3) significance or need for the study. Also includes citations as needed.
Completeness
Poor
Introduction is missing three or more components.
Fair
Introduction is missing two components.
Good
Introduction is missing one component.
Excellent
All Introduction components are present.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Headings
Poor
Headings and subheadings are missing.
Fair
Uses generic headings and subheadings.
Good
Uses headings and subheadings that do not entirely fit the subject matter.
Excellent
Uses appropriate levels of headings and subheadings that fit the specific subject matter.
Appropriateness of literature
Poor
The literature review does not relate to the problem statement as expressed in research questions or study questions and objectives.
Fair
Much of the literature does not relate to the problem statement as expressed in research questions or study questions and objectives.
Good
Some of the literature review is not related to the problem statement as expressed in research questions or study questions and objectives.
Excellent
Review is clearly related to the problem statement as expressed in research questions or study questions and objectives
Relationship to previous research
Poor
Relationship of the study to previous research is missing.
Fair
Vaguley relates the study to previous research is missing.
Good
Does not clearly relate the study to previous research.
Excellent
Includes the relationship of the study to previous research.
Synthesis
Poor
Provides summaries only with no synthesis of the literature. Lacks theory or framework for the study.
Fair
Provides little synthesis. Either theory and/or framework is missing.
Good
Provides some sythesis along with summaries of the literature. Theory and/or framework is present, but not clear.
Excellent
Synthesizes the literature by defining the most important aspects of the theory being examined or tested (quantitative studies) or substantiate the rationale or conceptual framework for the study (qualitative studies).
Variables/Themes
Poor
Lacks a literature-based description of the research variables (quantitative studies) or potential themes or perceptions to be explored (qualitative studies)
Fair
Contains a literature-based description of some of the research variables (quantitative studies) or potential themes or perceptions to be explored (qualitative studies)
Good
Contains a literature-based description of most of the research variables (quantitative studies) or potential themes or perceptions to be explored (qualitative studies).
Excellent
Contains a literature-based description of the research variables (quantitative studies) or potential themes or perceptions to be explored (qualitative studies).
Appropriateness of citations
Poor
Content is not from acceptable peer-reviewed journals or sound academic journals.
Fair
Some of the content is drawn from acceptable peer-reviewed journals or sound academic journals
Good
Content is drawn primarily from acceptable peer-reviewed journals or sound academic journals.
Excellent
Content is drawn from acceptable peer-reviewed journals or sound academic journals.
Integration
Poor
Little of the review is an integrated, critical essay on the most relevant and current published knowledge on the topic.
Fair
Some of the review is an integrated, critical essay on the most relevant and current published knowledge on the topic.
Good
Most of the review is an integrated, critical essay on the most relevant and current published knowledge on the topic.
Excellent
Entire review is an integrated, critical essay on the most relevant and current published knowledge on the topic.
Variety of references
Poor
Provides few or no resources
Fair
Provides a poor variety of resources
Good
Provides a good variety of resources
Excellent
Provides an excellent variety or resources
Research questions
Poor
Research questions missing.
Fair
Research quesitons not clearly drelated to the literature review.
Good
Most of the research quesitons are related to the literature review.
Excellent
Presents the research questions, connecting them directly and clearly to the literature review.
METHOD
Organization
Poor
Method is disorganized.
Fair
Method is not well organized and important data is difficult to locate.
Good
Method is organized but is in a format differing from the suggested one.
Excellent
Methods section is organized into logical sections
Evaluation type
Poor
Does not identify the evaluation as summative, formative, or a mixture of the two.
Fair
Misidentifes the evaluation as summative or formative.
Good
Somewhat identifies evaluation as summative, formative, or a mixture of the two.
Excellent
Clearly identifies the evaluation as summative, formative, or a mixture of the two.
Evaluation setting
Poor
Overview of program and setting is missing.
Fair
Overview of program and setting is vague.
Good
Overview of program and setting is presnt although wordy.
Excellent
Begins with a brief overview of the progam being evaluated, including the specific setting.
Sampling
Poor
Sampling procedures incomplete and vague.
Fair
Omits part of the sampling procedure.
Good
All parts of the sampling procedure are included although not clearly worded.
Excellent
Specifies appropriate criteria for selection of participants. Includes a justification for the number of participants, balanced with the depth of inquiry i.e., the fewer the participants, the greater the depth of inquiry per individual. Includes the sample size and describes the sampling method used.
Instruments
Poor
Instrumentation is vague or missing.
Fair
Mising some of the instruments and some information.
Good
All instruments are discussed bbut missing some information.
Excellent
Contains a section on each instrument/measure being used to collect data, describing the instrument and detailing its appropriateness, reliability, and validity (when applicable). Uses citaitons.
Procedures
Poor
Procedures missing.
Fair
Process has too many gaps to replicate. Dat a not triangulated.
Good
Process is decribed but is not always clear, making replication difficult. Data is triangulated.
Excellent
Provides a step-by-step process for collecting data, using each instrument noted above. Procedures can be replicated as described. Describes how and when the data were generated, gathered, and recorded (i.e., tape recording, note taking). Addresses how the data was validated (i.e., triangulation)
Appropriateness of methods
Poor
Research methods are missing.
Fair
Research methods are unclear and/or irrelevant.
Good
Research methods are clear but lack relevance.
Excellent
Research methods described are clear and relevant.
Data Management
Poor
Decription of data management system is neiter clear nor relevant.
Fair
Decription of data management system is somewhat clear and relevant.
Good
Decription of data management system is primarily clear and relevant.
Excellent
Describes the systems used for keeping track of data and emerging understandings (i.e., research logs, reflective journals, cataloging systems)
Data Analysis
Poor
Disorganized and lacks citaitons.
Fair
Important information is diffiuclt to locate. What can be identified lacks citations.
Good
Provides the datials but organized in a manne rdiffering from the suggested one.
Excellent
Details how the data will be anlayzed, organized by research question. Data anlysis techniques are appropriate, and citaitons are used to support the choices.
REFERENCES
General
Poor
References are inappropriate, are secondary sources, and are outdated. Three or more citations do not appear in the references section. Three or more references do not appear in the text. Not in APA format.
Fair
Many of the references are inappropriate to the topic and are not from within the past 5 years. Includes non-primary references. Two citations do not appear in the references section, or two references do not appear in the text. Not in APA format.
Good
Most of the references are appropriate to the topic,but less than 90% were written within in the last 5 years. One citation does not appear in the references section or one reference does not appear in the text. Minor APA errors.
Excellent
References are organized according to APA, are appropriate to the topic, focus on primary resources, and contain at least 90% references written within the last 5 years. All citations in the text appear in the references section, and all references appear in the text.
APPENDIX(ces)
General
Poor
Appendix is missing or disorganized.
Fair
Appendix is missing the consent form. Text does not refer to Appendix.
Good
Appendix is present but is in a different format from the suggested one.
Excellent
Appendix is organized and presented in accordance with APA, and contains the consent form and copies of all other necessary items (i.e., interview protocol/questions, focus group questions/protocol). Text contains references to items in Appendix.
Keywords:
manuscript, research, program evaluation
Subjects:
English
Psychology
Social Sciences
Types:
Project
Assignment
Writing
Discuss this rubric
You may also be interested in:
More rubrics by this author
More English rubrics
More Project rubrics
Do more with this rubric:
Preview
Preview this rubric.
Edit
Modify this rubric.
Copy
Make a copy of this rubric and begin editing the copy.
Print
Show a printable version of this rubric.
Categorize
Add this rubric to multiple categories.
Bookmark
Bookmark this rubric for future reference.
Assess
Test run
Test this rubric or perform an ad-hoc assessment.
Grade
Build a gradebook to assess students.
Collaborate
Apply this rubric to any object and invite others to assess.
Share
Publish
Link, embed, and showcase your rubrics on your website.
Email
Email this rubric to a friend.
Discuss
Discuss this rubric with other members.
Do more with rubrics than ever imagined possible.
Only with iRubric
tm
.
Copyright © 2024
Reazon Systems, Inc.
All rights reserved.
n202
Your browser does not support iframes.
Your browser does not support iframes.
Your browser does not support iframes.