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.