Literature Evaluation Table – Rubric
Collapse All Literature Evaluation Table – RubricCollapse All
Author, Journal (Peer-Reviewed), and Permalink or Working Link to Access Article
2.5 points
Criteria Description
Author, Journal (Peer-Reviewed), and Permalink or Working Link to Access Article
5. 5: Excellent
2.5 points
Author, journal (peer-reviewed), and permalink or working link to access article section is comprehensive and thoroughly developed with supporting details.
4. 4: Good
2.23 points
Author, journal (peer-reviewed), and permalink or working link to access article section is clearly provided and well developed.
3. 3: Satisfactory
1.98 points
Author, journal (peer-reviewed), and permalink or working link to access article section is present.
2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory
1.88 points
Author, journal (peer-reviewed), and permalink or working link to access article section is present, but it lacks detail or is incomplete.
1. 1: Unsatisfactory
0 points
Author, journal (peer-reviewed), and permalink or working link to access article section is not included.
Article Title and Year Published
2.5 points
Criteria Description
Article Title and Year Published
5. 5: Excellent
2.5 points
Article title and year published section is comprehensive and thoroughly developed with supporting details.
4. 4: Good
2.23 points
Article title and year published section is clearly provided and well developed.
3. 3: Satisfactory
1.98 points
Article title and year published section is present.
2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory
1.88 points
Article title and year published section is present, but it lacks detail or is incomplete.
1. 1: Unsatisfactory
0 points
Article title and year published section is not included.
Research Questions (Qualitative) or Hypothesis (Quantitative), and Purposes or Aim of Study
5 points
Criteria Description
Research Questions (Qualitative) or Hypothesis (Quantitative), and Purposes or Aim of Study
5. 5: Excellent
5 points
Research questions (qualitative) or hypothesis (quantitative), and purposes or aim of study section is comprehensive and thoroughly developed with supporting details.
4. 4: Good
4.45 points
Research questions (qualitative) or hypothesis (quantitative), and purposes or aim of study section is clearly provided and well developed.
3. 3: Satisfactory
3.95 points
Research questions (qualitative) or hypothesis (quantitative), and purposes or aim of study section is present.
2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory
3.75 points
Research questions (qualitative) or hypothesis (quantitative), and purposes or aim of study section is present, but it lacks detail or is incomplete.
1. 1: Unsatisfactory
0 points
Research questions (qualitative) or hypothesis (quantitative), and purposes or aim of study section is not included.
Design (Type of Quantitative, or Type of Qualitative)
2.5 points
Criteria Description
Design (Type of Quantitative, or Type of Qualitative)
5. 5: Excellent
2.5 points
Design (type of quantitative, or type of qualitative) section is comprehensive and thoroughly developed with supporting details.
4. 4: Good
2.23 points
Design (type of quantitative, or type of qualitative) section is clearly provided and well developed.
3. 3: Satisfactory
1.98 points
Design (type of quantitative, or type of qualitative) section is present.
2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory
1.88 points
Design (type of quantitative, or type of qualitative) section is present, but it lacks detail or is incomplete.
1. 1: Unsatisfactory
0 points
Design (type of quantitative, or type of qualitative) section is not included.
Setting or Sample
2.5 points
Criteria Description
Setting or Sample
5. 5: Excellent
2.5 points
Setting or sample section is comprehensive and thoroughly developed with supporting details.
4. 4: Good
2.23 points
Setting or sample section is clearly provided and well developed.
3. 3: Satisfactory
1.98 points
Setting or sample section is present.
2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory
1.88 points
Setting or sample section is present, but it lacks detail or is incomplete.
1. 1: Unsatisfactory
0 points
Setting or sample section is not included.
Methods: Intervention or Instruments
2.5 points
Criteria Description
Methods: Intervention or Instruments
5. 5: Excellent
2.5 points
Methods: Intervention or Instruments section is comprehensive and thoroughly developed with supporting details.
4. 4: Good
2.23 points
Methods: Intervention or Instruments section is clearly provided and well developed.
3. 3: Satisfactory
1.98 points
Methods: Intervention or Instruments section is present.
2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory
1.88 points
Methods: Intervention or Instruments section is present, but it lacks detail or is incomplete.
1. 1: Unsatisfactory
0 points
Methods: Intervention or Instruments section is not included.
Analysis
5 points
Criteria Description
Analysis
5. 5: Excellent
5 points
Analysis section is comprehensive and thoroughly developed with supporting details.
4. 4: Good
4.45 points
Analysis section is clearly provided and well developed.
3. 3: Satisfactory
3.95 points
Analysis section is present.
2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory
3.75 points
Analysis section is present, but it lacks detail or is incomplete.
1. 1: Unsatisfactory
0 points
Analysis section is not included.
Key Findings
5 points
Criteria Description
Key Findings
5. 5: Excellent
5 points
Key findings section is comprehensive and thoroughly developed with supporting details.
4. 4: Good
4.45 points
Key findings section is clearly provided and well developed.
3. 3: Satisfactory
3.95 points
Key findings section is present.
2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory
3.75 points
Key findings section is present, but it lacks detail or is incomplete.
1. 1: Unsatisfactory
0 points
Key findings section is not included.
Recommendations
5 points
Criteria Description
Recommendations
5. 5: Excellent
5 points
Recommendations section is comprehensive and thoroughly developed with supporting details.
4. 4: Good
4.45 points
Recommendations section is clearly provided and well developed.
3. 3: Satisfactory
3.95 points
Recommendations section is present.
2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory
3.75 points
Recommendations section is present, but it lacks detail or is incomplete.
1. 1: Unsatisfactory
0 points
Recommendations section is not included.
Explanation of How the Article Supports EBP or Capstone
5 points
Criteria Description
Explanation of How the Article Supports EBP or Capstone
5. 5: Excellent
5 points
Explanation of how the article supports EBP or capstone section is comprehensive and thoroughly developed with supporting details.
4. 4: Good
4.45 points
Explanation of how the article supports EBP or capstone section is clearly provided and well developed.
3. 3: Satisfactory
3.95 points
Explanation of how the article supports EBP or capstone section is provided.
2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory
3.75 points
Explanation of how the article supports EBP or capstone section is present, but it lacks detail or is incomplete.
1. 1: Unsatisfactory
0 points
Explanation of how the article supports EBP or capstone section is not included.
Presentation
5 points
Criteria Description
Presentation
5. 5: Excellent
5 points
The work is well presented and includes all required elements. The overall appearance is neat and professional.
4. 4: Good
4.45 points
The overall appearance is generally neat, with a few minor flaws or missing elements.
3. 3: Satisfactory
3.95 points
The overall appearance is general, and major elements are missing.
2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory
3.75 points
The work is not neat and includes minor flaws or omissions of required elements.
1. 1: Unsatisfactory
0 points
The piece is not neat or organized, and it does not include all required elements.
Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, and language use)
5 points
Criteria Description
Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, and language use)
5. 5: Excellent
5 points
The writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English.
4. 4: Good
4.45 points
Prose is largely free of mechanical errors, although a few may be present. The writer uses a variety of effective sentence structures and figures of speech.
3. 3: Satisfactory
3.95 points
Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but they are not overly distracting to the reader. Correct and varied sentence structure and audience-appropriate language are employed.
2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory
3.75 points
Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistencies in language choice (register) or word choice are present. Sentence structure is correct but not varied.
1. 1: Unsatisfactory
0 points
Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice or sentence construction is employed.
Documentation of Sources
2.5 points
Criteria Description
Documentation of Sources (citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc., as appropriate to assignment and style
5. 5: Excellent
2.5 points
Sources are completely and correctly documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is free of error.
4. 4: Good
2.23 points
Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is mostly correct.
3. 3: Satisfactory
1.98 points
Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, although some formatting errors may be present.
2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory
1.88 points
Documentation of sources is inconsistent or incorrect, as appropriate to assignment and style, with numerous formatting errors.
1. 1: Unsatisfactory
0 points
Sources are not documented.
Total 50 points