Personality Score Description

1
Personality
Score
Description
Student fails to describe
what their personality
scores on each domain
infer about their
personality. [0]
Student provides a poor
description of what their
scores on each domain
infer about their
personality, lacking detail
across most domains. [1]
Student provides a good
description of what their
scores on each domain
infer about their
personality, with detail
lacking on one or more
domains. [2]
Student provides a very
good description of what
their scores on each
domain infer about their
personality
characteristics. [3]
Student provides an
excellent, clear, and succinct
description of what their
scores on each domain infer
about their personality
characteristics. [4]
1
Peer
Personality
Comparisons
Student does not address
the level of variation from
their peers with regards to
the domains of personality.
[0]
Student provides either an
inaccurate description of
the levels of variation from
their peers on each
personality domain, or
omits a description for one
or more domains. [1]
Student provides an
accurate description of the
level of variation from their
peers on each personality
domain. [2]
Student provides an
accurate description of
the level of variation from
their peers on each
personality domain,
referring to figures in-text
to support their
description. [3]
Student provides an
accurate description of the
level of variation from their
peers on each personality
domain, supported by a
relevant statistical indicator
of this level of variation.
Figures are referred to intext, and support the
description. [4]
1
SelfPerception
Accuracy
Student does not address
or addresses poorly the
correspondence between
the domain scores and
their self-perception of
their personality. [0]
Student describes
correspondence between
scores and self-perception
without examples to
support their discussion.
[1.5]
Student describes
correspondence between
scores and self-perception.
Examples are presented
but not well-integrated
into the discussion on the
accuracy of the scale. [3]
Student describes
correspondence between
scores and selfperception. Examples are
provided for each domain,
and demonstrate the
student’s stance on the
accuracy of the scale.
[4.5]
Student clearly and
succinctly describes
correspondence between
scores and self-perception.
Examples are provided for
each domain, are highly
relevant to peer
comparisons, and
demonstrate the student’s
stance on the accuracy of
the scale. [6]
1
Figure/s Student omits to include a
figure. [0]
Student inaccurately
represents where their
scores on the NEO domains
lie in respect to their peers
in the unit. [0.5]
Student provides an
accurate demonstration of
where their scores on the
NEO domains lie in respect
to their peers in the unit.
[1]
Student graphically
provides an accurate
demonstration of where
their scores on the NEO
domains lie with respect
to their peers in the unit
via a normal distribution.
[1.5]
Student graphically provides
a clear, accurate
demonstration of where
their scores on the NEO
domains lie with respect to
their peers in the unit via a
normal distribution. [2]
2
Personality
and
Performance
The student does not
address, or addresses very
poorly, the expected
personality domain and
tertiary academic
performance relationship.
[0]
Student provides a
summary of expected
relationships between
personality domain/s and
tertiary academic
performance. Details are
lacking, and the structure
impedes clarity. [3.5]
Student provides a
summary of the expected
relationships between the
five factor personality
domains and tertiary
academic performance,
referencing academic
literature. Clarity and
structure could be
improved. [5]
Student provides a good
summary of the expected
relationships between the
five factor personality
domains and tertiary
academic performance, as
suggested by academic
literature. [6.5]
Student provides a wellintegrated summary of the
expected relationships
between the five factor
personality domains and
tertiary academic
performance, as suggested
by aggregated academic
literature. [8]
2
Personality
and
Academic
Performance
Accuracy
Student does not address,
or addresses very poorly,
whether their perceived
academic performance and
personality scores are
reflective of the expected
relationships in the
literature. [0]
Student superficially
addresses whether their
perceived academic
performance and
personality scores bear
resemblance to the
relationships suggested in
the literature. [2]
Student partially addresses
whether their perceived
academic performance and
personality scores are
reflective of the expected
relationships in the
literature, with limited
example substantiation.
[3.5]
Student provides a good
description of whether
their perceived academic
performance and
personality scores are
reflective of the expected
relationships suggested in
the literature,
substantiated by
examples. [4.5]
Student provides an
excellent description of
whether their perceived
academic performance and
personality scores are
reflective of the expected
relationships suggested in
the literature, substantiated
by highly relevant examples.
[6]
3
Critical
Thinking on
Validity
Student does not address
or addresses very poorly a
description of the relevant
validity considerations
relevant to their
personality and academic
performance. Critical
thinking is not
demonstrated in a
sufficient capacity. [0]
An unclear or vague
explanation of which
generic facets of validity
are valuable to consider.
Critical thinking is poorly
demonstrated in the
description of how these
facets of validity are
relevant to the
consideration of their
personality and academic
performance. [3]
A good explanation of
which facets of validity are
valuable to consider.
Student demonstrates
limited critical thinking
skills with regard to
explaining how these
validity facets may be
relevant to the
consideration of their
personality and academic
performance. [5]
A good explanation of
which facets of validity
are valuable to consider.
Student demonstrates
critical thinking skills
when explaining how the
suggested facets of
validity may be relevant
to the consideration of
their personality and
academic performance.
[6.5]
A clear, succinct explanation
of which facets of validity
are valuable to consider.
Student demonstrates
highly developed critical
thinking skills when
explaining how the
suggested facets of validity
may be relevant to the
consideration of their
personality and academic
performance. [8]
R
APA6/7
Referencing
Severe departures from
APA6/7 style are presented
in the submitted work. [0]
A poor demonstration of
APA6/7 style referencing
for both the in-text and
end-text components. [0.5]
A good demonstration of
APA6/7 style referencing,
with several errors noted
either in-text or end-text.
[1]
A very good
demonstration of APA6/7
style referencing. [1.5]
Almost flawless execution of
APA6/7 style for the in-text
and end-text components.
[2]
Points for each rubric category are represented in square brackets. This assessment is scored out of a maximum of 40.