1
Unsatisfactory
0.00%
2
Less Than Satisfactory
74.00%
3
Satisfactory
79.00%
4
Good
87.00%
5
Excellent
100.00%
70.0 %Content
15.0 %Study Design
Does not fully describe the chosen study design. Information is ambiguous and leaves the audience questioning.
States the chosen study design. Provides a brief rationale behind selection. Information is not developed or comprehensive
Presents a detailed outline of the chosen study design. Outlines rationale, justifying selection of study design. Minimal use of details is present.
Presents a basic description of the chosen study design. Provides convincing rationale, justifying selection of study design. Details are provided.
Presents a full description of the chosen study design. Provides detailed and convincing rationale, justifying selection of study design. Details are in-depth and expanded upon.
15.0 %Statistical Measures
Gives vague and/or incomplete description of a statistical measure to describe the association between body mass index and asthma. More than one major component of the criteria is missing.
Suggests a statistical measure to describe the association between body mass index and asthma. Little to no supportive information is given.
Presents a statistical measure to describe the association between body mass index and asthma Provides some detail although limited.
Presents a detailed outline of a statistical measure to describe the association between body mass index and asthma. Supplies the rationale. Information is accurate, appropriate, and integrated effectively.
Presents a full detailed in-depth description of a statistical measure to describe the association between body mass index and asthma. Presents specific details and rationale. Demonstrates an understanding of the principles and elements and reflects a sophisticated understanding of the subject knowledge. Information is accurate, appropriate, and integrated effectively.
15.0 %Subject Selection
Does not fully describe the subject selection process. Information is ambiguous and leaves the audience questioning.
Outlines the subject selection process but the information is not developed or comprehensive.
Outlines the subject selection process. Minimal use of examples and details is present.
Presents a detailed outline of the subject selection process. Examples are provided.
Presents a full description of the subject selection process. Examples and details are in-depth and expanded upon.
25.0 %Measurement Issues
Description of issues relating to the measurement of both the exposure and the outcome is minimal. Only lists potential biases that the study might be prone to and/or possible confounding factors and effect modifiers Details are lacking. More than one major component of the criteria is missing.
Description of issues relating to the measurement of both the exposure and the outcome is minimal. Lists potential biases that the study might be prone to, as well as possible confounding factors and effect modifiers but does not provide solutions or effects. Details are lacking.
Surface level description of issues relating to the measurement of both the exposure and the outcome is offered. Outlines potential biases that the study might be prone to, and how they might be handled as well as possible confounding factors and effect modifiers and how to overcome their effect. Claims and ideas are supported.
Presents direct, competent, and appropriate analysis of plans to issues relating to the measurement of both the exposure and the outcome. Outlines, in detail, potential biases that the study might be prone to, and how they might be handled as well as possible confounding factors and effect modifiers and how to overcome their effect. Provides examples and details.
Thoughtfully analyzes, evaluates, and describes issues relating to the measurement of both the exposure and the outcome. Supports rationale. Describes in detail potential biases that the study might be prone to, and how they might be handled. Proposes possible confounding factors and effect modifiers and how to overcome their effect. Provides in-depth examples and details throughout.
20.0 %Organization and Effectiveness
7.0 %Thesis Development and Purpose
Paper lacks any discernible overall purpose or organizing claim.
Thesis and/or main claim are insufficiently developed and/or vague; purpose is not clear.
Thesis and/or main claim are apparent and appropriate to purpose.
Thesis and/or main claim are clear and forecast the development of the paper. It is descriptive and reflective of the arguments and appropriate to the purpose.
Thesis and/or main claim are comprehensive. The essence of the paper is contained within the thesis. Thesis statement makes the purpose of the paper clear.
8.0 %Argument Logic and Construction
Statement of purpose is not justified by the conclusion. The conclusion does not support the claim made. Argument is incoherent and uses noncredible sources.
Sufficient justification of claims is lacking. Argument lacks consistent unity. There are obvious flaws in the logic. Some sources have questionable credibility.
Argument is orderly, but may have a few inconsistencies. The argument presents minimal justification of claims. Argument logically, but not thoroughly, supports the purpose. Sources used are credible. Introduction and conclusion bracket the thesis.
Argument shows logical progressions. Techniques of argumentation are evident. There is a smooth progression of claims from introduction to conclusion. Most sources are authoritative.
Clear and convincing argument that presents a persuasive claim in a distinctive and compelling manner. All sources are authoritative.
5.0 %Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use)
Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice and/or sentence construction are used.
Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistencies in language choice (register), sentence structure, and/or word choice are present.
Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but are not overly distracting to the reader. Correct sentence structure and audience-appropriate language are used.
Prose is largely free of mechanical errors, although a few may be present. A variety of sentence structures and effective figures of speech are used.
Writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English.
10.0 %Format
5.0 %Paper Format (Use of appropriate style for the major and assignment)
Template is not used appropriately or documentation format is rarely followed correctly.
Appropriate template is used, but some elements are missing or mistaken. A lack of control with formatting is apparent.
Appropriate template is used. Formatting is correct, although some minor errors may be present.
Appropriate template is fully used. There are virtually no errors in formatting style.
All format elements are correct.
5.0 %Research Citations (In-text citations for paraphrasing and direct quotes, and reference page listing and formatting, as appropriate to assignment and style)
No reference page is included. No citations are used.
Reference page is present. Citations are inconsistently used.
Reference page is included and lists sources used in the paper. Sources are appropriately documented, although some errors may be present.
Reference page is present and fully inclusive of all cited sources. Documentation is appropriate and citation style is usually correct.
In-text citations and a reference page are complete and correct. The documentation of cited sources is free of error.
100 %Total Weightage
