GW DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY LITERATURE REVIEW RUBRIC

Selects appropriate literature to review
Inadequate / Minimally Developed / Moderately Developed / Substantially Developed
Too few (per assignment), wrong kind (e.g., not empirical studies), not all on the same well-defined focal topic / Most but not all choices are appropriate to focus / All choices are appropriate or relevant to focus / All choices are appropriate and most are excellent (e.g., strong contributions to the literature)
Develops focused research question(s) or thesis
Inadequate / Minimally Developed / Moderately Developed / Substantially Developed
Focus of review is unclear, e.g., too broad or vague; not clear about what the guiding questionor thesis is / Has identified an appropriate topic but could better convey the specific research question(s),thesis, or hypothesis (if appropriate) to be considered / Clearly developed focus laying out question(s), thesis, or hypotheses to be considered in the review / Clearly developed focus laying out question(s) or hypotheses to be considered in review; breaks focus down clearly, conveys complexities
Provides a sound review of research
Inadequate / Minimally Developed / Moderately Developed / Substantially Developed
Reviewofresearchis
seriouslylacking.
Elements of studies are not described clearly. Manyerrors, omissions,inconsistencies make understanding studies difficult / Discussion of studies omitsimportantinformation now and then and/or contains some errors & inconsistencies / Key information about studies is usually provided and is conveyed accurately and clearly in a reasonably organized way. / Very clear and accurate descriptions of studies, showing deep understanding. Presentation is logically ordered.
Engages in critical thinking about studies
Inadequate / Minimally Developed / Moderately Developed / Substantially Developed
Lacks any meaningful identification of strengths and weaknesses of each study; accepts study conclusions uncritically.
Does not tie study back to focal question/thesis. / Identifies one or two obvious strengths and weaknesses of studies (e.g., ones noted by study authors).
Can differentiate very strong vs. very weak research.
Makes at least vague connection between study findings and focal question/thesis. / Identifies and discusses multiple strengths and weaknesses of studies reviewed. Can differentiate strong vs. weak studies and shows some awareness of the implications of methodology for findings.
Connects each study’s findings back to focal question/thesis. / Provides an insightful analysis of thestrengths and weaknesses of studies reviewed.
Can explain why some studies are better than others, showing clearrecognition of implications of methodological choices.
Discusses implications of each study’s findings for focal question/thesis
Integrates material and draws sound conclusions
Inadequate / Minimally Developed / Moderately Developed / Substantially Developed
States few conclusions or conclusions are not justified or are not consistent with research.
Does little to relate studies to one another, compare/contrast them, or integrate their findings to speak to research question or thesis.
Says little about the broader implications of findings. / Draws some reasonable conclusions from findings but they are general.
Makes some effort to compare/contrast studies and draw overall conclusions.
Considers implications of findings but only superficially. / Draws sound and fairly specific conclusions from the body of findings.
Makes a serious attempt to integrate findingsin sound conclusions that answer the focal question or reflect on the thesis; notes major inconsistenciesif they exist.
Perceives and discusses broader implications of the findings. / Drawssoundand specific conclusionsfrom the body of findings.
Thoughtfully integrates findings to draw sound conclusions that answer the focal question or reflect on the thesis; not only identifies but attempts toexplain or resolve inconsistencies.
Sees larger implications of the literature review (e.g., application of findings to practice, next steps in research, implications for theory, as per assignment) while mindful of its limitations.
Writes effectively
Inadequate / Minimally Developed / Moderately Developed / Substantially Developed
Poor grammar, many typos
Hard to follow progression of ideas
Use of APA style very poor / Some grammatical problems, typos
Usually can follow logic
Basics of APA style, but with errors / Few grammatical problems, typos
Well organized, easy to follow
Basics of APA style solid / Excellent grammar, no or almost no errors or typos
Logical progression of ideas, flows well
APA style well mastered

George Washington University Department of Psychology. Starting point was theWashingtonStateCritical ThinkingRubric,withmodificationsmadebyCeciliaShorewiththehelpofBeverleyTaylor.