Rubric for Case Analysis Report



Criterion

4

A-level qualities
(90–100)

3

B-level qualities
(80–89)

2

C-level qualities
(70–79)

1 or 0

D- or F-level qualities
(60–69 or below 60)



Score

Identification of issue(s)

Identifies and demonstrates a clear and deep understanding of all pertinent issues and problems Identifies and demonstrates a deep understanding of most pertinent issues and problems Identifies and demonstrates a limited understanding of issues and problems Identifies and demonstrates a superficial understanding of issues and problems  

Research

Supplements case study with relevant and extensive research into the present situation of the company; clearly and thoroughly documents all sources of information Supplements case study with relevant research into the present situation of the company; documents all sources of information Supplements case study with limited research into the present situation of the company; provides limited documentation of sources consulted Supplements case study, if at all, with incomplete research and documentation  

Analysis and evaluation

Presents an insightful and thorough analysis of all issues identified; includes all necessary financial calculations to determine company's financial condition and recent performance Presents a thorough analysis of most issues identified; includes most necessary financial calculations Presents a superficial analysis of some of the issues identified; omits necessary financial calculations Presents an incomplete analysis of the issues identified  
Makes appropriate and powerful connections between the issues identified and the strategic concepts studied and uses all available tools of analysis to diagnose the issues and problems; demonstrates complete command of the strategic concepts and analytical tools studied Makes appropriate connections between the issues identified and the strategic concepts studied and uses many tools of analysis to diagnose the issues and problems; demonstrates good command of the strategic concepts and analytical tools studied Makes appropriate but somewhat vague connections between the issues and concepts studied and uses some tools of analysis to diagnose the issues and problems; demonstrates limited command of the strategic concepts and analytical tools studied Makes little or no connection between the issues identified and the strategic concepts studied and little or no use of tools of analysis to diagnose the issue and problems  
Supports diagnosis and opinions with logical arguments and evidence; presents a balanced and critical view drawn from multiple sources of knowledge; interpretation is both reasonable and objective Supports diagnosis and opinions with reasons and evidence; presents a fairly balanced view drawn from multiple sources of knowledge; interpretation is both reasonable and objective Supports diagnosis and opinions with limited reasons and evidence; presents a somewhat one-sided argument Supports diagnosis and opinions with few reasons and little evidence; argument is one-sided and not objective  

Recommendations (action plan)

Presents detailed, realistic, and appropriate recommendations clearly supported by the information presented and concepts from the text; recommendations address all issues and problems identified and analyzed and follow logically from the analysis Presents specific, realistic, and appropriate recommendations adequately supported by the information presented and concepts from the text; recommendations address most issues and problems identified and analyzed and follow logically from the analysis Presents realistic or appropriate recommendations supported by the information presented and concepts from the text; recommendations address some of the issues and problems identified and analyzed Presents realistic or appropriate recommendations with little, if any, support from the information presented and concepts from the text  

Overall presentation

Well-written and insightful (writing demonstrates a sophisticated clarity, conciseness, and correctness); includes thorough details and relevant data and information; extremely well-organized Well-written (writing is accomplished in terms of clarity and conciseness and contains only a few errors); includes sufficient details and relevant data and information; well-organized Carelessly written (writing lacks clarity or conciseness and contains numerous errors); gives insufficient detail and relevant data and information; lacks organization Poorly written (writing is unfocused, rambling, or contains serious errors); lacks detail and relevant data and information; poorly organized  

APA guidelines

Uses APA guidelines accurately and consistently to cite sources and format report Uses APA guidelines with minor violations to cite sources and format report Reflects incomplete knowledge of APA guidelines Does not use APA guidelines  

Total:

 

Note: Criteria are evaluated on a 4-3-2-1-0 basis. Total rubric points are converted first to a letter grade and then to a numerical equivalent based on a 0–100 scale: 30–32 = A (93–100); 29 = A– (90–92); 28 = B+ (88–89); 23–27 = B (83–87); 22 = B– (80–82); 21 = C+ (78–79); 15–20 = C (73–77); 14 = C– (70–72); 7–13 = D (60–69); 0–6 = F (below 60).