Comprehensive Exam Rubric

After completing coursework, Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.) students have two years to prepare for, and pass, a comprehensive examination. The exam is intended to assess students’ ability to integrate substantive knowledge within the broad field of Human Development and Family Science. Students are expected to synthesize, critically analyze, and evaluate the literature in the field and articulate this scientific information. Doctoral students must successfully complete the exam before they can advance to candidacy. The comprehensive examination will be scored using a standard evaluation rubric. The scoring rubric utilizes rating responses on a scale ranking from highest (Exemplary) to lowest (Unsatisfactory) in 11 areas outlined below.

Criteria 1 – Focus/Scope of Inquiry: Identifies and establishes significance of the topic area.

Exemplary

Explicitly articulated and sophisticated focus that is systematically and comprehensively addressed; cohesive approach to inquiry.

Proficient

Explicitly articulated focus that is well addressed; could be more cohesive, systematic, or comprehensive.

Emerging

Inquiry is well formed and clearly stated; focus still needs some refinement; some gaps in the review.

Unsatisfactory

Focus of inquiry is too broad or too narrow and/or not clearly articulated; multiple topics or threads of inquiry are presented that are not relevant and/or not clearly distinguished.


Criteria 2 – Defines key concepts and terms relevant to topic area.

Exemplary

Key concepts and terms are clearly defined and their relevance to the topic area is explained in detail.

Proficient

Key concepts and terms are defined and used consistently throughout the document.

Emerging

Key concepts and terms are introduced, but definitions are vague and may vary across the document.

Unsatisfactory

Key concepts and terms are not clearly defined or are inaccurate.


Criteria 3 – Demonstrates ability to take a position on a topic and support it or compare/contrast perspectives related to the topic.

Exemplary

Applies scholarly literature and discussion supporting the topic, identifying assumptions and impartially considering multiple perspectives in a comprehensive and clear way.

Proficient

Applies scholarly literature and discussion supporting the topic in a comprehensive and clear way.

Emerging

Applies scholarly literature related to the topic, but the discussion is not comprehensive or clear.

Unsatisfactory

Does not apply scholarly literature and discussion supporting the topic in a comprehensive and clear way.


Criteria 4 – Substantiates claims by citing specific research and relevant literature.

Exemplary

Discusses and integrates previous research findings to clearly summarize the scientific merit of the topic in comprehensive and clear way.

Proficient

Identifies and discusses previous research findings to support the scientific merit of the topic; integration or summary across studies could be improved.

Emerging

Discusses but does not adequately review previous research findings on the topic.

Unsatisfactory

Review of the previous research findings on the topic are limited in scope; important research from the field is missing from the review.


Criteria 5 – Identifies and reviews theoretical frameworks relevant to the topic area.

Exemplary

Clearly identifies relevant theoretical framework(s) and provides a solid rationale for selection.

Proficient

Identifies relevant theoretical framework(s) and connects them to the topic.

Emerging

Identifies framework(s) with incomplete connection to the topic.

Unsatisfactory

Selects inappropriate theoretical framework and/or makes no connection to the topic.


Criteria 6 – Demonstrates ability to analyze, synthesize and critique current and relevant literature and theory.

Exemplary

Excellent familiarity with foundational and current relevant literature apparent; logical presentation of important theories related to topic; critical synthesis of the literature demonstrates a mature understanding of the field.

Proficient

Familiarity with foundational and current relevant literature apparent; logical presentation of important theories related to topic; critical synthesis of the literature attempted.

Emerging

Some evidence of familiarity with foundational and current relevant literature; some presentation of important theories related to topic; analysis of the literature lacking in critical synthesis.

Unsatisfactory

Little evidence of ability to link foundational and current relevant literature and theory on the topic.


Criteria 7 – Demonstrates ability to critique current methodologies (research design and statistical analyses) related to the topic.

Exemplary

Evaluates research concepts and methodology for the topic, including clear rationale for critique in a comprehensive and clear way.

Proficient

Interprets research concepts and methodology for the topic in a comprehensive and clear way.

Emerging

Identifies but does not interpret research concepts and methodology relevant to topic in a comprehensive and clear way.

Unsatisfactory

Does not interpret research concepts and methodology for the topic in a comprehensive and clear way.


Criteria 8 – Articulates implications and future directions related to the topic.

Exemplary

Demonstrates advanced understanding of the state of research on the topic; implications for future research are practical and innovative.

Proficient

Summarizes the gaps in topic area and articulates the implications of the review for future research.

Emerging

Summarizes the gaps in the topic area exposed by the review; future directions are included, but are vague.

Unsatisfactory

Does not include implications of the review with respect to our current understanding of the topic; areas for future research are not identified.


Criteria 9 – Writes with proper paragraph development, transitions, academic tone, and APA citations.

Exemplary

Writes with proper grammar using APA format; meets professional publication standards.

Proficient

Makes minor errors in sentence structure and/or grammar that do not impede understanding; generally uses correct APA style in text and references.

Emerging

Makes some errors in sentence structure and/or grammar that affects understanding; citation style may have errors.

Unsatisfactory

Makes frequent errors in sentence structure and/or grammar that affects understanding; citation style has errors.


Criteria 10 – Potential for publication.

Exemplary

Sophisticated integration of existing literature with especially promising and/or novel approach for constructing new knowledge; high likelihood for publication.

Proficient

Effective review of literature with sound approach to constructing new knowledge. May need some refinement to foreground originality and significance for publication.

Emerging

Shows methodical and competent approach to laying the foundation for future research. May not be fully integrated into preparation for publication.

Unsatisfactory

Use of literature and theory does not seem to be aligned with the topic; little potential for publication.


Criteria 11 – Overall scholarship.

Exemplary

Well prepared for proposed doctoral research; work embodies strong personal and professional capacities expected of a scholar.

Proficient

Demonstrates emerging capacities for author to function as independent scholar in chosen area of interest.

Emerging

Demonstrates some of the attributes of a successful independent scholar; work needed on some dimensions (e.g., independence, synthesis) necessary.

Unsatisfactory

Skills and capacities necessary for success as independent scholar nascent or underdeveloped in this draft; work on agency and/or sophistication in approach to writing and scholarship needed.