Paper (i.e., first paragraph or two) begins in a broad manner and clearly explains the problem to be investigated. Appropriate topic in level and in content (e.g., makes an interesting point to grab reader’s attention and mentions variables of interest in first paragraph, etc.).

Rubric for the Introduction Draft
Topic Advanced (90-100%) Effective/Developing (80-89%) Less Effective/Introductory (60-79%) Poor (0-59%) SECTION SCORE
Introduction: Topic & Context
10 points Paper (i.e., first paragraph or two) begins in a broad manner and clearly explains the problem to be investigated. Appropriate topic in level and in content (e.g., makes an interesting point to grab reader’s attention and mentions variables of interest in first paragraph, etc.). Paper starts somewhat broadly, and provides some theoretical or real-world context for the main concept in the study. An explanation of the key concept or question is provided, but it could be clearer. More clarity in the opening may be needed or the paper may begin with a definition of the topic but provide very little context for the idea (e.g., may begin immediately with review of previous research). The paragraph, while generally on topic, may be simplistic, or both variables are not mentioned clearly. Paper focuses immediately on the method, or no context for the topic is provided. The topic is not appropriate or is overly simplistic for the class level. 7
Literature review
20points 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 if those limitations provide rationale for new study. At least three articles are utilized to provide an overview of the state of the field. 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, but could be clearer in places. May include unnecessary quotations. Some of the reviewed literature seems to be inappropriate or not well-linked to the topic. Literature may not be 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. 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. 16
Study Rationale and connection to Literature
10 points At least two article summaries of appropriate literature are provided, and there is a specific, clear description of what is missing from this literature or what researchers do not yet know. A clear explanation of how the proposed study will answer this question or fill this research gap is included. Specific issues, variables, populations, or methods are mentioned. A brief summary of the literature is provided, but the description of what is missing from this literature or what researchers do not yet know could be stated more clearly. An explanation of how the proposed study will answer this question or fill this research gap is included, but it could be more specific. A brief summary of the literature is not provided. The description of what is missing from this literature or what researchers do not yet know is unclear. There is little justification why the proposed study will be important to this literature, or the author makes a vague call for more research without any specificity. A brief summary of the literature is not provided. The description of what is missing from this literature or what researchers do not yet know is absent or very unclear. There is no discussion of why the proposed study will be important to this literature, or no study is proposed at this point. 9
Hypothesis
10 points Hypothesis(es) clearly stated, and directional predictions are made based on the previous literature. They are testable. It is clear what the experimental groups/variables will be and what will be measured, and language is appropriate to methodology. Main hypotheses are stated clearly and directional predictions are made, but it is somewhat unclear what the experimental groups will be or what will be measured. It may be unclear how the hypothesis links to the literature. Variables in the main hypothesis must be stated, but no directional prediction about the relation between the variables is specifically stated. It is unclear what the experimental groups will be and what will be measured. Direction of hypothesis does not follow from the literature presented. 5
Topic Advanced (90-100%) Effective/Developing (80-89%) Less Effective/Introductory (60-79%) Poor (0-60%)
APA Formatting
10 points Reference page includes all and only cited articles. The articles are appropriately scholarly and appropriate to the topic. Title page, in-text citations, paper format, and Reference page are in APA style with no mistakes. Title includes variables and some articulation of relations (e.g., “difference between…”; “effects of x on y”). RH shortened but informative. All relevant parts of the title page are included. 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. Style is generally correct and must include correct spacing, fonts, and margins. Page breaks must be in appropriate places, and sections must be in order. May have minor mistakes in punctuation of references, in-text citations, statistical copy, or headers. Some references may not be appropriate for the assignment. Key references are clearly cited from other sources and not likely read by the student. Consistent APA style errors in referencing, spacing,statistical copy, or citations.Some needed elements may be missing from title page. References may not be scholarly sources or otherwise not appropriate for the assignment (e.g., too many low-value sources). Consistent style errors, or many inconsistent style errors. 10
Scientific Writing Style 10 points There is a clear organization to the paper, and transitions are smooth and effective. Tone is appropriately formal. Topic sentences are appropriate for paragraphs, and key ideas are explained/described as needed. Punctuation and grammar are almost completely correct, including proper tenses and voice. Sentences are concise and word choice is precise, with nonbiased language. Proper paraphrases are usually used, but quotation marks are used appropriately if necessary. Organization is effective although improvements could be made. Transitions are generally there, but are occasionally not smooth, and paragraphs may stray from the central idea. Tone is appropriately formal. Punctuation and grammar are almost completely correct. Sentences are generally concise and word choice is usually precise. Paraphrases are usually used, and quotation marks are used appropriately if necessary. Organization is less adequate, making the paper difficult to follow. Transitions are sometimes there, and those that are there could be improved. Tone is occasionally colloquial. Punctuation and grammar are usually correct, but there are consistent mistakes. Sentences are not always concise and word choice is sometimes vague. The author may include many quotes. Organization is confusing. Transitions are missing or are very weak. Tone is consistently too informal. Punctuation and grammar mistakes throughout the paper. Sentences are not concise and word choice is vague. The author strings together quotations without enough original input. 9
TOTAL
POSSIBLE: 70 TOTAL
RECEIVED: 56

Methods Rubric for Correlational Paper
Topic Advanced (90-100%) Effective/Developing (80-89%) Less Effective/Introductory (60-79%) Poor (0-59%) SECTION SCORE
Method: Participants

10 points
Sample is described in enough detail to be able to determine generalizability of results. Participant information includes number of participants and all necessary demographic characteristics with the proper statistics. Recruitment procedures or special arrangements (e.g., compensation) are explained.
Sample may be mostly explained, but a relevant characteristic of the participants may be missing from the description. Must include recruitment procedures.
Sample descriptive statistics are not included or specific, but sample is well described in words. Does not include recruitment criteria. Sample descriptive information is not complete with either statistics or information about participants. Participants are poorly described; replication would not be possible.
10
Method: Materials

10 points Materials are appropriate given hypotheses and checked for reliability. It’s cleat what construct is being measured by which materials, and what scores on those measures would mean. All materials are described with enough detail that a reader could replicate the study and appended if self-created, cited if not.
Materials are appropriate but not complete or not checked for reliability. The description is adequate but could use more detail. May have described scoring system, but it could be missing some info or unclear. The measures are appended or cited, as needed.
Materials are not checked for reliability. The description is lacking in details and it’s not exactly clear what material is measuring which construct, but the measures are appended or cited, as needed. Scoring may have been mentioned, but not consistently for all materials.
Materials are incomplete and lacking in reliability information. They are not fully described or included in an appendix. It’s unclear how each construct is being measured in this study.
7
Topic Advanced (90-100%) Effective/Developing (80-89%) Less Effective/Introductory (60-79%) Poor (0-59%) SECTION SCORE
Method: Procedure

10 points

Procedure is described, in order, with enough detail that a reader could replicate the study; instructions and protocol are included. Condition assignments are clear (if experimental design); randomization and counterbalancing are explained as necessary.
Procedure description is primarily complete but some minor details may be missing, or some procedural aspects could be explained more clearly.
Procedure description is not in order or difficult to follow, or a few major details are absent.
Procedure description is unclear, or many major details are absent. May have incorrect details or timeline.
7
TOTAL POSSIBLE FOR METHODS SECTION: 30330 TOTAL
RECEIVED: 24