APD Assessment using GMC
Terms of Reference (10%) / Presentation, Style & Referencing (10%) / Research Methodology (20%) / Analysis and interpretation of research (to include literature review) (30%) / Conclusions & Recommendations (25%) / Critical Review of learning (5%)70%+
Distinction / Considerable precision in the identification and understanding of the assessment brief which is fully and authoritatively addressed / Concise and systematically structured. Articulate and effective for its intended purpose and audience. Referencing is complete and accurate. / Comprehensive evidence of research awareness and methods.
Excellent use of appropriate research evidence which has been skilfully and effectively presented. / An outstanding ability to analyse and interpret a wide range of research, inter-relate concepts, ideas and theories in order to sustain an evidence-based argument throughout the work.
Demonstrates sensitivity to political aspects of organisational life. / Conclusions are developed effectively and provide a sophisticated review of the preceding discussion.
Recommendations are convincing and would have considerable organisational impact. / Comprehensive review of own personal learning utilising relevant learning theory to examine current and future performance.
60-69%
Credit / A thorough understanding of the assessment brief which is clearly addressed / There is a logical structure and it is coherently written. Referencing is complete and accurate. / Thorough evidence of research awareness, methods and data collection.
Evidence has been collected and presented efficiently and effectively. / A clear and logical analysis of the information with considerable research evidence and a good ability to inter-relate concepts, ideas and theories to partly sustain an evidence-based argument throughout the work.
Some display of political acumen of organisational life. / Conclusions are a concise review of the preceding discussion.
Recommendations are persuasive and would have organisational relevance. / Thorough review of own personal learning to examine current and future performance.
50-59%
Pass level / A broad understanding of the assessment / Presentation is reasonably accurate and is readable. Referencing is generally complete and accurate some minor errors. / Evidence of research awareness, methods and data collection which has been systematically collected and presented. / Analysis of the evidence gathered is appropriate with some attempt to inter-relate concepts, ideas and theories. Limited use of evidence-based argument.
May demonstrate political naivety in places. / Conclusions drawn are a summary of the preceding discussion.
Recommendations are broadly logical, but may lack detail for successful implementation. / Evidence of own personal learning with some consideration of current and future performance.
45-49%
Marginal fail / Some understanding of the assessmentbrief but it is not fully addressed / Presentation and structure may be unfocused or poorly structured in places. Some minor errors in presentation and referencing. / Limited evidence of research awareness and description of methods could be clearer. / Evidence is broadly discussed; but approach may be descriptive rather than analytical.
Little grasp of corporate dynamics and political life / Conclusions do not fully link to preceding discussion and/or weak unspecific recommendations. / Limited evidence of own personal learning lacking in examination of current and future performance.
44%
Fail / Aim is unstated and/or brief is not addressed / Poor standard of presentation, illegible in places and/or difficult to follow. Referencing incomplete or absent. / Little evidence of research awareness or rationale for research methods. / Work is primarily descriptive with little evidence of an analytical approach; may rely on unjustified assertions.
Exhibits no understanding of corporate dynamics and political life. / Difficult to see logic of conclusions and/or weak recommendations. / No evidence of personal learning.
Mapping of BPP Generic Marking Criteria to CIPD GAC for Management Research Reports
BPP Generic Marking Criteria for PDS / Terms of Reference (10%) / Presentation, Style & Referencing (10%) / Research Methodology (20%) / Analysis and interpretation of research(to include literature review)(30%) / Conclusions & Recommendations (25%) / Critical Review of learning (5%)CIPD Generic Assessment Criteria for Management Research Report / Clarity and relevance of proposal/terms of reference/aims and objectives / Professional presentation of material and argument, and clear and accurate referencing / Justification and use of appropriate methods of data collection / Critical analysis of the most significant contributions to the literature, drawing on books, journals and recent research
Focused and relevant discussion of organisational context, evidence of systematic data collection and clear presentation of findings
Comprehensive analysis and interpretation of findings in a holistic/integrated manner / Appropriateness of conclusions in the light of terms of reference and empirical work
Realistic, timely and cost effective recommendations and action plan / Evidence that personal learning has been reviewed including comments from organisation if appropriate