| Abstract | Fluent, clear, concise description of the project and its findings, including relevant information on aim/hypotheses, sample, design, procedure and conclusion. | The aim, method, and findings are clearly described. There may be some lack of conciseness or clarity in a limited number of aspects. | The aim, method and findings are evident, but several aspects may lack clarity and some details may be missing. | The aim method and findings are somewhat unclear, and there are missing details (e.g., aims, sample, design, and/or procedure). | The aim, method, and findings are very unclear or missing. | Introduction | Description of literature | The relevant literature is clearly and concisely described. | The relevant literature is clearly described, but there is some omission. | The literature is described relatively clearly, but there is some omission or irrelevant detail. | Important details are missing, or irrelevant details are included, and there is some lack of focus. | The literature review is very unclear. It lacks important details and includes many irrelevant details. | | Relation of literature to research question | Consistently demonstrates application of literature to topic and critical analysis is well integrated. | Clear relation of literature to topic. Critical analysis/critical thought is clearly displayed. | Demonstrates application of literature to topic with some evidence of critical analysis. | The literature is somewhat related to the research topic, critical analysis is lacking. | Little or no relation of the literature to the topic, critical analysis is lacking. | | Hypotheses | Hypothesis clearly reflects the research aim and the variables being tested. | Hypothesis reflects the research aim and variables being tested with only minor lack of clarity. | Hypotheses are somewhat related to the research aim and variables being tested, but there is some lack of clarity. | Hypotheses are somewhat unclear and their link with the research aim and variables being tested is tenuous. | * Hypotheses are absent or are unclear and do not reflect the research aim and the variables being tested. | Method & results | Method | There is a clear, concise description of the methodology, with sufficient detail to permit replication. (e.g., scale details, procedure, recruitment strategy, participant information). | The methodology is described with only minor omissions or irrelevant detail in one aspect (e.g., missing response format for scales). | The methodology is described, but there are significant omissions or irrelevant detail in one aspect (e.g., scant participant information and scale response or redundant procedural information). | Significant omissions or irrelevant detail in one or two aspects make replication difficult or are unnecessary (e.g., we used a pencil). | Significant omissions and lack of clarity make replication impossible. | | Results | Descriptive data are clearly described and demonstrate an understanding of the data, analyses, and conclusions. | Descriptive data are clearly described with only minor misunderstanding of the data, analyses, or conclusions. | There is some misunderstanding of the data, analyses or conclusions, some details may be missing. | Descriptive data are described but lack clarity or important details or there is misunderstanding of some aspect of the results. | Descriptive data are poorly described and do not demonstrate an understanding of the data, analyses, and conclusions. | | Figures or tables | The appropriate use of tables or figures clearly and concisely describes and demonstrates an understanding of the data. | Data are clearly presented in a table or figure with only minor errors of presentation or understanding. | Data are presented in a comprehensible form with some errors of presentation and understanding. | Data is presented in a comprehensible form in either a table or figure, although there may be significant errors. | Data are