Rubric for Review of Literature

When you are learning a topic, you learn better by teaching it.  To accomplish this goal, from time to time we ask you to comment on another student's work.  To help you do so we provide a rubric that you need to follow closely.  This rubric applies to the review of literature for satisfaction surveys and existing questionnaires.

Where do I get the student's work?

It is your responsibility to arrange to receive a student's work.  You can find other students currently in class by visiting a password protected page.  You can exchange your work with the same student.  Keep in mind that you are required to make your comments within 48 hours of receiving a copy of the work.

Where do I send the comments?

Send your comments to the instructor and the student, from whom you received the work.  Maintain a copy for yourself as at end of class you may be asked to provide it again.

What should be included?

You need to comment on the following topics:

1. Title:  Include the title of the work received.
2. Names and dates:  Include your email and name and the email and name of the student who provided the work.  Include date received and date respond sent.

3. No Adjectives Do not use adjectives in your comments. Instead, describe why you liked the write up  by giving details of what you liked.

   Presentation:  Provide a comment in every category.  Start with positive comments.  Talk about what worked well before you provide any suggestions for improvement. 

   1. Was the presentation well structured meaning that it had various subheadings that allowed you to follow the review easily?
   2. Did the presentation use color to help in understanding of the material?
   3. Was the presentation in good English:
      • Were there any spelling errors? 
      • Were there any grammatical errors? 
      • Did the first sentence of a paragraph tell you what was being discussed in the paragraph?  Would reading the first sentence of each paragraph tell you what the entire review covers.
      • Could the writing style be improved? 
   4. Did the presentation include judicious use of graphics to illustrate major points?  Were figures titled and referenced to the source?  Would figures be understood without reading the review?
   5. Did the presentation reference original work and were the references following appropriate and consistent format?
4. Content:  Provide a comment in every category.  Start with positive comments.   Talk about what worked well.   Include the following:
   1. Did the review of satisfaction surveys discuss the history and evolution of the field? 
   2. Did the review of satisfaction survey identify major issues in the field? 
   3. Did the review discuss prevalence of satisfaction surveys in health care? 
   4. Did the review discuss validity of satisfaction surveys?
   5. Did the review provide evidence that conducting satisfaction surveys leads to subsequent improvements in delivery of care? 
   6. Did the review identify by name the most popular survey instruments used in the field?
   7. Were the components of survey instruments discussed? 
   8. Did the review discuss the advantages and disadvantages of constructing one's own survey instrument as opposed to relying on an existing instrument?
5. Suggestions for Improvements:  In this section give specific ideas of what can be done for the next revision of the work:
   1. Contrast the student's work to your own and discuss what you learned from conducting this review and how you would revise your own work.
   2. Suggest additional reading that could help the student discover new information that they had missed.
   3. Invite the student to contact you to understand your comments more.

This page is part of the course on Quality / Process Improvement.  It was first created in 2006.  It was last edited on 01/15/2017 by Farrokh Alemi, Ph.D.  © Copyright protected.