Excellent Good Satisfactory Needs Improvement Poor Category 10 9‐8 7‐5 4‐2 1‐0 Total Title Page & Abstract All required information is included. No  extraneous information is included. An  accurate and concise description of the  literature review is provided, including  background, purpose, method, results and  conclusion. All required information is  included. Some extraneous  information is included. The  abstract is a description of the  literature review, but is  sometimes unclear or wordy. Some required information is  missing. Extraneous information  is included.The abstract is not a  good reflection of the literature  review. The abstract is  excessively wordy. Required information missing.  The abstract is excessively  wordy and very difficult to  follow. The reader cannot  ascertain the description of the  literature review.  Title page present but the  abstract is not included.  /10 Organization The reader is guided smoothly through the  logically arranged paper. The overall arrangement is logical  but is occasionally difficult to  follow. Arrangement is less than clear,  or organization is clear but  some digressions, Arrangement is unclear and/or  paper strays substantially from  topic The arrangement of content  is haphazard and difficult to  follow. /10 Category 20 19‐16 15‐12 11‐6 5‐0 Introduction Clear overview of paper, demonstrates importance of topic. Aim and scope are repeated and topic is  introduced, and rationale is explained.  Aim and scope are repeated and  topic is introduced. Rationale is  not explained. Aim and scope are not  repeated. Topic is introduced  and rationale is explained. Aim and scope is not repeated.  Topic is introduced and  rationale is explained.  Aim and scope are not  repeated. Topic is  introduced, but rationale is  not explained.  /20 Category 30 29‐24 23‐17 16‐9 8‐0 Methodology At least five disciple specific articles published  since 2002 are included. All articles are relevant  to the topic. Identifies research methods and  connects them to proposed research problem.  Evidence of a comprehensive and systematic  search and selection of material. Wide use of  databases, experts, handbooks, and web  resources. Use of high quality sources, like  peerreviewed articles and empirical studies  (quantitative and qualitative). At least five  disciple specific articles  published since 2002  are selected.  At least 5 discipline specific  articles. The connection between   the articles and some of the  topics are unclear. Research  methods reviewed but limited  link made to proposed research  problem.Evidence of a broad  search and selection of material.  Consistent use of databases,  experts, handbooks, and web  resources. Selection of high quality material,  like peer.  At least 5 discipline specific  articles. Evidence of a limited  search. Limited use of  databases, experts, handbooks,  and web resources.                         A few well selected materials,  but mostly non‐sch ...

1. Excellent Good Satisfactory Needs Improvement Poor
Category 10 9‐8 7‐5 4‐2 1‐0 Total
Title Page & Abstract All required information is included. No
extraneous information is included. An
accurate and concise description of the
literature review is provided, including
background, purpose, method, results and
conclusion.
All required information is
included. Some extraneous
information is included. The
abstract is a description of the
literature review, but is
sometimes unclear or wordy.
Some required information is
missing. Extraneous information
is included.The abstract is not a
good reflection of the literature
review. The abstract is
excessively wordy.
Required information missing.
The abstract is excessively
wordy and very difficult to
follow. The reader cannot
ascertain the description of the
literature review.
Title page present but the

2. abstract is not included.
/10
Organization The reader is guided smoothly through the
logically arranged paper.
The overall arrangement is logical
but is occasionally difficult to
follow.
Arrangement is less than clear,
or organization is clear but
some digressions,
Arrangement is unclear and/or
paper strays substantially from
topic
The arrangement of content
is haphazard and difficult to
follow.
/10
Category 20 19‐16 15‐12 11‐6 5‐0
Introduction
Clear overview of paper,
demonstrates importance of
topic.
Aim and scope are repeated and topic is
introduced, and rationale is explained.
Aim and scope are repeated and
topic is introduced. Rationale is
not explained.

3. Aim and scope are not
repeated. Topic is introduced
and rationale is explained.
Aim and scope is not repeated.
Topic is introduced and
rationale is explained.
Aim and scope are not
repeated. Topic is
introduced, but rationale is
not explained. /20
Category 30 29‐24 23‐17 16‐9 8‐0
Methodology At least five disciple specific articles published
since 2002 are included. All articles are relevant
to the topic. Identifies research methods and
connects them to proposed research problem.
Evidence of a comprehensive and systematic
search and selection of material. Wide use of
databases, experts, handbooks, and web
resources. Use of high quality sources, like
peerreviewed articles and empirical studies
(quantitative and qualitative). At least five
disciple specific articles published since 2002
are selected.
At least 5 discipline specific
articles. The connection between
the articles and some of the
topics are unclear. Research
methods reviewed but limited
link
made to proposed research
problem.Evidence of a broad

4. search and selection of material.
Consistent use of databases,
experts, handbooks, and web
resources.
Selection of high quality material,
like peer.
At least 5 discipline specific
articles. Evidence of a limited
search. Limited use of
databases, experts, handbooks,
and web resources.
A few well selected materials,
but mostly non‐scholarly
resources. Research methods
discussed but taken at face
value.
Fewer than five articles and
out‐dated articles selected.
The connection between the
articles and the topic is missing
or unclear. No evidence of
systematic or sufficient search.
No use of databases, experts,
handbooks, and web
resources. Poor selection of
material.
Methodology is not
discsused in depth. Fewer
than five articles, articles
are outdated, articles are
not relevant to the topic. No
evidence of a systematic or
sufficient search.

5. /30
Literature Review Rubric
MHA 6501
Discussion Thorough comparison and contrast of findings
are provided and relate to the main discussion
points. Gaps and controversies that exist in the
literature are clearly discussed.
Comparison and contrast of
findings are provided but lack
thoroughness. Discussion of
findings could relate better to the
main discussion points in the
research problem. Gaps and
controversies in the literature are
discussed, but clarity could be
enhanced.
Comparison and contrast of
findings are lacking. Discussion
of findings does not relate well
to the main discussion points in
the research problem. Gaps
(what is unknown and needs to
be researched) and
controversies that exist in the
literature are not discussed.
Comparison and contrast of
findings are lacking or unclear
and incomplete. There is no

6. relation of the discussion of
findings to the research
problem. Gaps and
controversies are not
discussed.
There is not comparison and
contrast of findings present.
There is no relation of the
discussion of findings to the
research problem. Gaps and
controversies are not
discussed.
/30
Total Points Earned /100