Quick Guide: Types of Rubrics

for Program Assessment

This quick guide was prepared by the WSU Office of Assessment for Curricular Effectiveness (ACE) and is intended to
help WSU programs and faculty consider types of rubrics for assessing student performance on program-level student
learning outcomes (SLOs). ACE is also available to collaborate with WSU undergraduate degree programs to develop
rubrics and use them to collect measures of student performance on program-level SLOs for program assessment.
Contact us at [Link]@[Link] for more information.

Introduction
Effective program assessment typically includes the evaluation of student work products or performances
using faculty-developed rubrics to measure student learning on program-level student learning outcomes
(SLOs). In this context, a rubric is a scoring tool that identifies component skills and knowledge for the
targeted program-level SLOs, with a rating scale that provides information about the level of student
performance. For program assessment purposes, rubrics can help clarify shared faculty expectations
around student performance on program-level SLOs and make evaluation more consistent.
Note: This resource focuses on rubrics for use in program-level SLO assessment. Designing rubrics for other
purposes, such as for grading or placement, is beyond the scope of this resource.

Types of Rubrics
Rubrics come in many forms and vary to best meet the needs of a program. While the following sections
provide descriptions and examples for three different types of rubrics (analytic, holistic, and single point),
please note that each type of rubric can vary widely depending on the context of the program and
assessment (e.g., the number of program-level SLOs included, the level of detail or breakdown of the
component skills and knowledge, and the granularity of the rating scale). WSU encourages programs to
choose rubrics that provide useful information to their faculty and fit with disciplinary expectations.

Analytic Rubrics
Description: Analytic rubrics include succinct, explicit descriptions of each rating scale performance level
for each component trait/criterion for the targeted program-level SLOs. Rows identify component skills and
knowledge, and faculty and/or other professionals score student work on each row.
Example: (sample display with two program-level SLOs; also see Appendix A)
Scale Level 1 Scale Level 2 Scale Level 3 Scale Level 4 Scale Level 5
Program SLO 1
Description of Description of Description of Description of Description of
Criterion A
performance performance performance performance performance
Description of Description of Description of Description of Description of
Criterion B
performance performance performance performance performance
Description of Description of Description of Description of Description of
Criterion C
performance performance performance performance performance
Program SLO 2
Description of Description of Description of Description of Description of
Criterion A
performance performance performance performance performance
Description of Description of Description of Description of Description of
Criterion B
performance performance performance performance performance

Quick guide prepared by the WSU Office of Assessment for Curricular Effectiveness | Last updated 12-6-23 Page 1 of 7
Advantages:
• Provide detailed evaluation of specific skills and knowledge, indicating areas of strength and
weakness for each of the targeted program-level SLOs
• May be useful when many faculty and/or other professionals will be rating student work, as
descriptors can support consistency
Limitations:
• Can be time-consuming to develop and refine
• Can be time-consuming for raters to use (especially for new raters)
• May be difficult to compare overall performance on multiple program-level SLOs (depending on the
rubric, weighting of criteria, approach to data analysis, etc.)

Holistic Rubrics
Description: Holistic rubrics include short descriptions of each rating scale performance level for each
program-level SLO as a whole, enabling faculty to make an overall judgment about the quality of work for
each targeted program-level SLO. While the short descriptions typically include information about
component traits/criteria, faculty and/or other professionals provide evaluation by assigning a single
overall score for each of the targeted program-level SLOs based on the performance level description that
best fits the work.
Example: (sample display with two program-level SLOs; also see Appendix B)
Scale Level 1 Scale Level 2 Scale Level 3 Scale Level 4 Scale Level 5
Description of Description of Description of Description of Description of
Program SLO 1
performance performance performance performance performance
Description of Description of Description of Description of Description of
Program SLO 2
performance performance performance performance performance

Advantages:
• Provide overall evaluation of performance on targeted program-level SLOs, and may indicate
relative strength and weakness between program-level SLOs if multiple SLOs are evaluated
• Are fairly short and relatively easy to develop and to use
• Can save time by minimizing the number of decisions raters must make, and may be useful when
evaluating a high volume of student work or complex student work (e.g., a portfolio)
Limitations:
• Do not provide information on strengths and weaknesses (or where improvement is needed) within
a single program-level SLO, since different component skills or characteristics are grouped together
into a single score
• Can be difficult for raters to use consistently, as few pieces of student work will meet any one
performance level description precisely

Single Point Rubrics

Description: Single point rubrics describe one critical level of performance on the rating scale (generally
meets expectations), focusing evaluation relative to that performance level. Single point rubrics also include
space for raters to provide qualitative comments when the student work falls at other performance levels
on the rating scale. These rubrics can be more or less detailed, collecting one overall score for each
targeted program-level SLO (similar to a holistic rubric) or separate scores for component skills and
knowledge (similar to an analytic rubric).

Quick guide prepared by the WSU Office of Assessment for Curricular Effectiveness | Last updated 12-6-23 Page 2 of 7
Example: (sample display with two program-level SLOs; also see Appendix C)
Scale Level 1 Scale Level 2 Scale Level 3 Scale Level 4
Program (Meets expectations)
SLO 1 Rater comments, if below expectations: Description of Rater comments, if above
performance expectations:

Scale Level 1 Scale Level 2 Scale Level 3 Scale Level 4

Program (Meets expectations)
SLO 2 Rater comments, if below expectations: Description of Rater comments, if above
performance expectations:

Advantages:
• Emphasize a critical performance level (such as meets expectations for a graduating senior)
• Can be designed to provide overall evaluation of performance on targeted program-level SLOs or
more detailed evaluation of specific component skills and knowledge
• Offer raters more flexibility in evaluation, including space to provide qualitative comments with
concrete detail about student’s strengths and weaknesses on specific program-level SLOs
• Are fairly short and relatively easy to develop and to use
• Minimize the amount of rubric text that raters must navigate, and may be useful when evaluating a
high volume of student work or complex student work (e.g., a portfolio)
Challenges:
• Can be difficult for raters to score consistently, especially on scale levels where performance is not
described
• Can be time-consuming for raters to provide comments, depending on the desired level of detail
• Compiling and interpreting qualitative comments may be difficult and time-consuming

Additional Considerations
• Developing a new rubric: This is an iterative process requiring effort to pilot, refine, and scale up to
obtain results that are meaningful to faculty. Successful implementation of a new assessment
measure typically requires ongoing efforts and regular attention over several semesters.
o Determine the purpose for the new rubric, in addition to how and where it will be used. For
example, programs may wish to evaluate student work using a rubric near the end of the
program, to gauge the extent to which students are achieving the program’s SLOs and to
identify areas of strength and weakness that can contribute to decisions about curriculum
and instruction.
o Choose the type of rubric that will:
 Be seen as credible to program faculty and the intended users of the results.
 Provide useful information for program improvement.
 Be feasible to use given the program’s resources, and the amount of time faculty can
devote to assessment activities.
o Programs should also consider program size, status of any existing rubrics, program faculty
familiarity with rubric-based assessment, the mode and complexity of student work to be
assessed, and software/technology needed to collect ratings (and comments).

Quick guide prepared by the WSU Office of Assessment for Curricular Effectiveness | Last updated 12-6-23 Page 3 of 7
 • Choosing a rating scale: When determining the rubric rating scale, programs should take into
account: a) the level of granularity needed to provide useful results for program faculty to support
decision-making; and b) the time and ease of using the rating scale to evaluate student work in the
context of the assessment project (e.g., the number and types of student work to be evaluated).
o For program-level SLO assessment, rubric rating scales typically have at least three and up to
seven performance levels. ACE generally recommends rating scales with four or five levels of
performance. Three levels (e.g., does not meet expectations, meets expectations, exceeds
expectations) may not provide enough detail to contribute to faculty decisions about
curriculum and instruction, while rating scales with more than five levels may be difficult for
raters to use meaningfully and consistently.
o Each level should include a brief descriptive name (not just a number) to help communicate
and distinguish levels. There is no hard and fast rule on which rating scale to use; however,
it’s generally helpful to make clear which level represents the cut point, or minimally
acceptable performance level (see ACE’s Quick Guide to Setting Meaningful Performance
Expectations for more information).
o Examples of possible rating scales include:
 Absent, Beginning, Developing, Proficient, Advanced
 Below expectations, Approaching expectations, Minimally meets expectations,
Solidly meets expectations, Exceeds expectations
 Does not meet expectations, Partially meets expectations, Meets expectations,
Exceeds expectations
 Needs improvement, Adequate, Very good, Excellent
• Approaches to evaluating student coursework using a rubric: In the context of evaluating student
coursework using a rubric for program level assessment, there are several approaches that
programs can implement to measure student performance on program-level SLOs, depending on
the context of the program, coursework, etc. See ACE’s Quick Guide: Approaches to Evaluating
Student Coursework for Program Assessment for more information.

Additional Resources
• Association of American Colleges and Universities. (2009). VALUE rubrics.
[Link]
• Gonzales, J. (2014). Know your Terms: Holistic, Analytic, and Single Point Rubrics. Cult of Pedagogy
Blog.
• Stevens, D. and Levi, A. (2013). Introduction to Rubrics. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing.
• Suskie, L. (2018). Chapter 15: Designing Rubrics to Plan and Assess Assignments. In Assessing
Student Learning: A Common Sense Guide. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
• Suskie, L. (2015). Two Simple Steps to Better Assessment. A Common Sense Approach to
Assessment in Higher Education Blog.
• University of Hawaii at Manoa Assessment and Curriculum Support Center. Creating and Using
Rubrics Webpage.

Quick guide prepared by the WSU Office of Assessment for Curricular Effectiveness | Last updated 12-6-23 Page 4 of 7
Appendix A: Analytical Rubric Example (for illustration only; criteria adapted from AAC&U’s VALUE rubrics)

Advanced Proficient Developing Beginning Absent

Program SLO #1 – Students will be able to develop and express ideas in writing
Context of Demonstrates a thorough Demonstrates adequate Demonstrates awareness of Demonstrates minimal Does not demonstrate
and Purpose understanding of context, consideration of context, context, audience, purpose, attention to context, attention to context,
for Writing audience, and purpose that is audience, and purpose and a and to the assigned tasks(s) audience, purpose, and to the audience, purpose, or
responsive to the assigned task(s) clear focus on the assigned task(s) (e.g., begins to show assigned tasks(s) (e.g., to the assigned tasks(s).
and focuses all elements of the (e.g., the task aligns with awareness of audience's expectation of instructor or
work. audience, purpose, and context). perceptions and assumptions). self as audience).
Content Uses appropriate, relevant, and Uses appropriate, relevant, and Uses appropriate and relevant Uses appropriate and relevant Does not use
Development compelling content to illustrate compelling content to explore content to develop and content to develop simple appropriate and
mastery of the subject, conveying ideas within the context of the explore ideas through most of ideas in some parts of the relevant content to
the writer's understanding, and discipline and shape the whole the work. work. develop ideas in the
shaping the whole work. work. work.
Control of Uses graceful language that Uses straightforward language Uses language that generally Uses language that sometimes Uses language that
Syntax and skillfully communicates meaning that generally conveys meaning conveys meaning to readers impedes meaning because of frequently impedes
Mechanics to readers with clarity and fluency to readers with few errors. with clarity, although writing errors in usage. meaning because of
and is virtually error-free. may include some errors. errors in usage.
Program SLO #2 – Students will be able to explore issues, ideas, artifacts, and events before accepting or formulating opinions or conclusions
Student’s Specific position (perspective, Specific position (perspective, Specific position (perspective, Specific position (perspective, Specific position
Position thesis/hypothesis) is imaginative, thesis/hypothesis) takes into thesis/hypothesis) thesis/ hypothesis) is stated (perspective,
taking into account the account the complexities of an acknowledges different sides but is simplistic and obvious. thesis/hypothesis) is
complexities of an issue. issue. of an issue. not stated.
Influence of Thoroughly (systematically and Identifies own and others’ Questions some assumptions. Shows an emerging awareness Does not show an
Assumptions methodically) analyzes own and assumptions. May be more aware of others’ of present assumptions awareness of
others’ assumptions. assumptions than one’s own (sometimes labels assertions assumptions.
(or vice versa). as assumptions).
Conclusion Conclusion is logical and reflects Conclusion is logically tied to a Conclusion is logically tied to Conclusion is inconsistently Conclusion is not tied to
an informed evaluation and range of information, including information (because tied to some of the the information
ability to place evidence and opposing viewpoints. information is chosen to fit information discussed. discussed.
perspectives in priority order. the desired conclusion).

Quick guide prepared by the WSU Office of Assessment for Curricular Effectiveness | Last updated 12-6-23 Page 5 of 7
Appendix B: Holistic Rubric Example (for illustration only; criteria adapted from AAC&U’s VALUE rubrics)

Advanced Proficient Developing Beginning Absent

Program SLO • Demonstrates a thorough • Demonstrates adequate • Demonstrates awareness • Demonstrates minimal • Does not
#1 – Students understanding of context, consideration of context, of context, audience, attention to context, demonstrate
will be able to audience, and purpose that is audience, and purpose and a purpose, and to the audience, purpose, and to attention to context,
develop and responsive to the assigned clear focus on the assigned assigned tasks(s) (e.g., the assigned tasks(s) (e.g., audience, purpose,
express ideas task(s) and focuses all task(s) (e.g., the task aligns begins to show awareness expectation of instructor or to the assigned
in writing elements of the work. with audience, purpose, and of audience's perceptions or self as audience). tasks(s).
• Uses appropriate, relevant, context). and assumptions). • Uses appropriate and • Does not use
and compelling content to • Uses appropriate, relevant, • Uses appropriate and relevant content to appropriate and
illustrate mastery of the and compelling content to relevant content to develop simple ideas in relevant content to
subject, conveying the writer's explore ideas within the develop and explore ideas some parts of the work. develop ideas in the
understanding, and shaping context of the discipline and through most of the work. • Uses language that work.
the whole work. shape the whole work. • Uses language that sometimes impedes • Uses language that
• Uses graceful language that • Uses straightforward language generally conveys meaning meaning because of errors frequently impedes
skillfully communicates that generally conveys to readers with clarity, in usage. meaning because of
meaning to readers with meaning to readers with few although writing may errors in usage.
clarity and fluency and is errors. include some errors.
virtually error-free.
Program SLO • Specific position (perspective, • Specific position (perspective, • Specific position • Specific position • Specific position
#2 – Students thesis/hypothesis) is thesis/hypothesis) takes into (perspective, (perspective, thesis/ (perspective,
will be able to imaginative, taking into account the complexities of thesis/hypothesis) hypothesis) is stated but is thesis/hypothesis) is
explore account the complexities of an issue. acknowledges different simplistic and obvious. not stated.
issues, ideas, an issue. • Identifies own and others’ sides of an issue. • Shows an emerging • Does not show an
artifacts, and • Thoroughly (systematically assumptions. • Questions some awareness of present awareness of
events before and methodically) analyzes • Conclusion is logically tied to a assumptions. May be more assumptions (sometimes assumptions.
accepting or own and others’ assumptions. range of information, aware of others’ labels assertions as • Conclusion is not
formulating • Conclusion is logical and including opposing assumptions than one’s assumptions). tied to the
opinions or reflects an informed viewpoints. own (or vice versa). • Conclusion is information
conclusions evaluation and ability to place • Conclusion is logically tied inconsistently tied to some discussed.
evidence and perspectives in to information (because of the information
priority order. information is chosen to fit discussed.
the desired conclusion).

Quick guide prepared by the WSU Office of Assessment for Curricular Effectiveness | Last updated 12-6-23 Page 6 of 7
Appendix C: Single Point Rubric Example (for illustration only; criteria adapted from AAC&U’s VALUE rubrics)

Program SLO #1 – Students will be able to develop and express ideas in writing
Context of Advanced Proficient Developing Beginning Absent
and Purpose
Comments where performance Demonstrates adequate Comments where performance is below expectations:
for Writing
exceeds expectations: consideration of context, audience,
and purpose and a clear focus on
the assigned task(s) (e.g., the task
aligns with audience, purpose, and
context).
Content Advanced Proficient Developing Beginning Absent
Development
Comments where performance Uses appropriate, relevant, and Comments where performance is below expectations:
exceeds expectations: compelling content to explore ideas
within the context of the discipline
and shape the whole work.
Control of Advanced Proficient Developing Beginning Absent
Syntax and
Comments where performance Uses straightforward language that Comments where performance is below expectations:
Mechanics
exceeds expectations: generally conveys meaning to
readers with few errors.

Program SLO #2 – Students will be able to explore issues, ideas, artifacts, and events before accepting or formulating opinions or conclusions
Student’s Advanced Proficient Developing Beginning Absent
Position
Comments where performance Specific position (perspective, Comments where performance is below expectations:
exceeds expectations: thesis/hypothesis) takes into
account the complexities of an
issue.
Influence of Advanced Proficient Developing Beginning Absent
Assumptions
Comments where performance Identifies own and others’ Comments where performance is below expectations:
exceeds expectations: assumptions.

Conclusion Advanced Proficient Developing Beginning Absent

Comments where performance Conclusion is logically tied to a Comments where performance is below expectations:
exceeds expectations: range of information, including
opposing viewpoints.

Quick guide prepared by the WSU Office of Assessment for Curricular Effectiveness | Last updated 12-6-23 Page 7 of 7