Marking Criteria:
Marking Rubric for the Protocol
A Marking Rubric as set out below has been established and used to guide the marking process. In terms of WSU policy it is acceptable for the marker to identify a box in the table without writing further comments than the standardised comments given in the table. In Epidemiology, however, extra comments will be provided below the table to give students the guidance they need to attend to specific details of approach.
Please also see General requirements/performance objectives for both assignments (Module Exercises and Protocol) as set out above.
Student number:
Student Name:
Criteria Does not address the criteria, or considerable improvement is needed in addressing the criteria (Mark in range 0-2.9) Does not address some of the criteria, or improvement is needed in addressing the criteria (Mark in range 3.0-4.9) Addresses most or all of the criteria, offering a good to high quality discussion (Mark in range 5-7.4) Addresses all the criteria, offering excellent to outstanding discussion (Mark in range 7.5-10) Clarity of intention, as Intention is not clear at all or there is lack of consistency and direction as indicated by different components such as title, contents, introduction, questionnaire direction, etc. Some components may even be missing Intention needs much clarification in order to articulate what the study is about, and where it is going. There are some mismatches between the different components such as title, contents, introduction, questionnaire direction, etc. Intention clearly and adequately articulated in terms of the items mentioned under Criteria. Study well motivated. Parts, however, could be improved. Intention is exceptionally consistent and well integrated, and direction explicitly clear in terms of title, contents, introduction, design, questionnaire direction, etc., All exceptionally well-articulated to the reader shown through consistency and direction of ideas in terms of title, contents, introduction, design, objectives, direction of questionnaire, etc. (weighting=1, nominal mark=10) Feasibility/importance, as Feasibility is extremely doubtful in terms of clarity or practicality of the proposed design, method, objectives or analysis. The importance of the study is very low or particularly unclear in terms of the information given Feasibility is doubtful in terms of the current design, method, objectives or analysis. The importance of the study is low or unclear in terms of the information given Design is clearly and adequately stated and study should be feasible although some adjustments may be needed. Method is sufficiently developed to ensure feasibility. Study is important but some modification might optimise this Design is excellent and very thorough with little further required for study execution. Analytical method exhaustive, well elucidated. Topic is very important and well chosen. Protocol is “field ready” with little or no modification required. shown through design, method, introduction, intended analysis, etc,(weighting=i, nominal ark=10) Validity of approach, as Approach is either not shown or is not scientifically valid in terms of stated approach, methods, statistical test (if stated), etc. Approach is partially shown or is unclear or invalid in terms of stated approach, method, statistical test (where stated), etc. It is likely to generate low quality results. Approach is clear and valid in terms of most or all of the stated criteria, and should generate good results Approach is excellent in terms of all components and will lead to the generation of very high quality results shown through scientific nature of approach, methods, analysis, etc. (weighting=i, nominal mark=10) Data quality, as shown The study is unlikely to generate useful results or will produce inaccurate results. There are insufficient controls (eg: questionnaire criteria) to ensure data quality. The study may generate some results but they are likely to be of low quality. The study should generate quality results which will be useful in addressing the health state or problem. The study has an approach with the needed controls to generate very high quality data which will be extremely useful in addressing the health state or problem. through questionnaire quality and other proposed collection, monitoring methods, etc. (weighting=1, nominal mark=10) Concept support, as shown Most components of concept support are missing or are short, or are not properly addressed. Some components of concept support need further development or completion to be useful to the study. Most or all components of concept support are adequate to good and will support the study. All components of concept support are outstanding and will support the study to the point where it could easily be funded or executed. through journal review, product plans, budget, timeline, etc. (weighting=1, nominal mark=10)
MARK: (/50)
EXAMINER’S COMMENTS:
21
