QUAL5005: Assessment 4 Evaluating Quality Marking Matrix QUAL5005 Introducing Qualitative Health Research (last amended 0.032017); Assessment 4 Quality Marking Matrix F P C D HD Content - evaluate the qualitative paper (18 marks) Did not address question. Serious misinterpretation of paper’s content and argument. No meaningful evaluation of content. No use/lacked awareness of recognised standards of qualitative research. Claims not backed up with evidence from paper/ literature. Some parts of question addressed. Little evaluation of the paper’s content and argument/irrelevant/ overly critical. Little use of recognised standards of qualitative research Claims rarely backed up with evidence from paper/literature. Moderately addressed question. Moderate evaluation of paper’s content and argument. Moderate use of recognised standards of qualitative research. Claims backed up with evidence from paper/literature. Addressed key aspects of question. Systematic and thorough evaluation of paper’s content and argument. Good use of recognised standards of qualitative research. Claims consistently backed up with evidence from paper/literature. Thoroughly addressed question. Comprehensive evaluation of paper’s content and argument. Extensive use of recognised standards of qualitative research. Claims comprehensively backed up with evidence from paper/literature. Original, meaningful and novel observations. Content – evaluate contribution to knowledge of the paper (8 marks) Did not address question. No attempt to evaluate contribution to knowledge. Claims not backed up with evidence from paper/ literature. Some parts of the question. Some evaluation of contribution to knowledge. Claims rarely backed up with evidence from paper/literature. Moderately addressed question. Moderate evaluation of contribution to knowledge. Claims backed up with evidence from paper/literature. Addressed key aspects of question. Assured evaluation of contribution to knowledge. Well-synthesized and coherent argument. Claims consistently backed up with evidence from paper/literature. Thoroughly addressed question. Very confident evaluation of contribution to knowledge. Claims comprehensively backed up with evidence from paper/literature. Structure and Organisation (3 marks) Unstructured or over structured (mostly lists). No clear sections or headings Information poorly organized, no flow. Some structure. Inadequate use of sections or headings. Some information poorly organized and at times did not flow logically. Structure generally solid. Distinct sections with marginal use of headings. Most information is well organized and generally logical. Good structure. Clear sections with good use of headings. Information was well organized and logical. Appropriately structured. Clear and well organized sections with good use of headings. Flow of the assignment was logical. Sources and References (3 marks) Incomplete acknowledgement of work of others. No references/very poor referencing style. At minimum, evaluation tool cited. Referencing style required improvement. Some relevant sources cited, including evaluation tool. Sound referencing style. Relevant sources cited, including evaluation tool. Good use of referencing style. All relevant sources cited, including evaluation tool. Well referenced. Style and Format (3 marks) A lot of grammatical, spelling, punctuation errors. Errors in English construction rendered text incomprehensible. Many grammatical, spelling, punctuation errors. Problems with English construction. Some grammatical, spelling, punctuation errors. Sound use of English language. Minor grammatical, spelling, punctuation errors. Good use of English language. No grammatical, spelling or punctuation errors. Excellent use of English language (with a strong and engaging voice).