Rubrics

Internal assessor

Behavioural analysis   (BCW Step 1)

Weighting: 35%

Distinction Merit Pass Fail(condonable) Fail

Defines the problem precisel… Defines the problem and clearl… Defines the problem and states … Fails to demonstrate engagem… Fails to demonstrate engagem…

The public health issue is clearly defined and explained. The epidemiological health impact is well explained with good references as evidence to support quantitative

estimates of the public health issue identified. Analysis of behaviour barriers and enablers used the COM-B model successfully. The target population is well justified and

clearly defined. The target behaviour is also clearly stated.

Intervention identification (BCW Step 2)

Weighting: 20%

Distinction Merit Pass Fail(condonable) Fail

Logically and robustly presents… Presents a step-wise approa… Presents behavioural findings i… Fails to demonstrate appropriat… Fails to demonstrate appropriat…

Intervention identification is based within the COM-B model and clear links are made between the target behaviour and interventions. Additionally, links to policy are clearly

presented. The context of the behaviours and interventions is well explained.

Proposing practicable intervention options

Weighting: 10%

Distinction Merit Pass Fail(condonable) Fail

Succinctly proposes interesti… Proposes three practicable opti… Proposes three practicable opti… Brings forward fewer than three… Brings forward no practicable i…

Three appropriate interventions are set clearly out. The interventions are relevant to the public health problem and target behaviour identified. Similar interventions in other

settings which have been effective are referenced.

Identification of key risks, strengths and limitations of the overall approach

Weighting: 10%

Distinction Merit Pass Fail(condonable) Fail

Articulates key risks and key li… Identifies the key risks and k… Identifies some risks and some… Demonstrates little evaluative o… Demonstrates no evaluative or …

There is a good summary of overall strengths and limitations of the proposal, however more evaluation of risks and feasibility of the suggested interventions would benefit

this.

Clarity and flow of overall argument (including understanding and completeness)

 Weighting: 10%

Distinction Merit Pass Fail(condonable) Fail

Clearly and persuasively arg… Well-argued, but some lack of … Outlines of argument are prese… Little attempt to develop a cohe… No attempt to develop a cohere…

Overall the report flows well throughout. The interventions and use of the COM-B model are clearly justified and are relevant based on the selection of the public health

problem identified.

Writing style and referencing  Style including delivery, language, tone, and grammar

Weighting: 15%

Distinction Merit Pass Fail(condonable) Fail

Negligible grammatical and spe… Only minor grammatical and … Greater care required in spellin… Significant spelling and gramm… Significant spelling and gramm…

The writing style is clear and professional. Some spelling and grammatical errors were present. References were consistent and clearly displayed.