# Quantitative Analytical Concepts

Standards for Differentiating Abilities to Use Quantitative Analytical Concepts Excellent(20–18 points)Good(17–16 points)Competent(15–14 points)Weak(13–12 points)Inadequate(11 points or under)All components ofthe analysis areincludedAll components of theanalysis are…

Standards for Differentiating Abilities to Use Quantitative Analytical Concepts

Excellent(20–18 points)Good(17–16 points)Competent(15–14 points)Weak(13–12 points)Inadequate(11 points or under)All components ofthe analysis areincludedAll components of theanalysis are included,justified, andelaborated.All components areincluded but notelaborated or some arenot elaborated whileothers are overwritten.All components areincluded butelaboration focuses onless than half of thequestion components.Some components aremissing.Most components aremissing.Creation ofhypothesisClear, with nosuperfluous language;usually a one-tailedhypothesis.Clear hypothesis withsome superfluouslanguage; frequently atwo-tailed hypothesis;less clear than anexcellent answer.States hypothesis in aminimal way or withsubstantial superfluouslanguage; usually atwo-tailed hypothesis;no clear understandingof the problem.States hypothesis in anincorrect but stillunderstandable way;mostly a two-tailedhypothesis or if a onetailed hypothesis isphrased in the incorrectdirection to avoidfurther elaboration.Hypothesis isincorrectly stated andno apparentunderstanding of whatis wrong or frequentattempt to test nullhypothesis or allhypotheses are phrasedin the incorrect directionto avoid furtherelaboration.Selection ofproper analyticaltoolCorrect analytical toolchosen afterexamination of data todetermine possibleviolation ofassumptions;justification given forchoice of tool.Correct analytical toolchosen but with littleevidence of examination for assumptionviolations; lessjustification given forchoice of tool thanexcellent answerCorrect analytical toolor a close matchchosen, no realjustification for choice,little appreciation ofassumption violations.Chosen analytical toolwill approximate onefor a needed answerbut no justificationgiven or justification isincorrect.Proper analytical tool isnot selected and nounderstanding of whythe tool selected isincorrect.Understanding ofproblem to beevaluatedDefines problem clearlyand in the very first partof the analysis.Defines problem but notas clear as excellentanswer; may do solater rather than sooner.Defines problem but notclear or, based onanalyses presented,does not appear to fullyunderstand theproblem.Undefined problemcauses issues indetermining what andhow to analyze.Problem is missing orso vague that it doesnot allow a focus forproceeding; incorrectunderstanding ofproblem.

Excellent(20–18 points)Good(17–16 points)Competent(15–14 points)Weak(13–12 points)Inadequate(11 points or under)Interpretation ofresults of applyinganalytical toolCorrect interpretation;explanation of possibleerror in acceptingresults.Interpretation correctbut less explanation ofpossible error than anexcellent answer.Interpretation is largelycorrect but missesnuances of the data orpossible error in results.Interpretation haserrors; no appreciationof nuances or possibleerror.Interpretation has majorerrors or is totallyincorrect andmisstatements arelikely.Presence of errors No errors A few minor errors Minor but frequenterrorsShows patterns of errorwith frequent minorerrors and perhaps onemajor error.Entire answer is errorfilled; major errors andmany errors

CookMyProject