Criteria for Evaluation of Literature Reviews

© Rosemary Green and Mary Bowser

Criteria and Qualities Deficient Undeveloped Average Developed Exemplary

1 2 3 4 5
Content
1. Historical and No theoretical literature or Brief reference to Some reference to key Adequate to good Explicit and thorough
theoretical historical depth theoretical or historical historical literature and reference to key historical reference to key historical
background. Seminal demonstrated. No literature. Brief reference theoretical material. Some and theoretical literature. literature and theoretical
literature. reference to seminal to seminal studies. reference to seminal Adequate to good material. Thorough
studies. studies. reference to seminal reference to most
studies. important seminal studies.

2. Breadth of subtopics. No subtopics present. Narrow focus. Subtopics
too specific or too broad.
Literature supporting
subtopics is inadequate.
Several subtopics
examined. Most subtopics
are appropriate. Literature
supporting subtopics is
inadequate.
Adequate to good
presentation of subtopics
inherent in research.
Adequate supporting
literature.
Inherent subtopics
thoroughly and
appropriately presented
through relevant and
sufficient literature.

3. Quality of literature. No research-based Overemphasis upon Equal mix of non-research Adequate to good Thorough reference to
literature. popular and non-research and research -based emphasis upon important most important research
literature. Little research- literature. Importance of research studies. studies. Little or no
based literature. studies not established. Importance of studies reference to popular
partially established. literature. Importance of
studies established.

4. Relevance of Relevance of published Brief mention of Some explanation of Adequate to good Explicit relationship
published studies to studies to current topic not relationship of literature to relationship of literature to explanation of literature’s between relevant literature
current topic. addressed. current topic; explanation current topic provided. relationship to current and current topic
lacking. topic provided. demonstrated.

5. Relevance of Relevance of published Brief mention of Some explanation of Adequate to good Thorough development of
published studies to studies to each other not relationships among some relationships among explanation of relationships among
each other. addressed. published studies; published studies provided. relationships among published studies.
explanation lacking. published studies.
 Criteria for Evaluation of Literature Reviews
© Rosemary Green and Mary Bowser

Criteria and Qualities Deficient Undeveloped Average Developed Exemplary

1 2 3 4 5
Presentation
6. Organization Inconsistent or confusing Organization present but Organization outlined. Organization clearly Organization clearly
to reader. not outlined. Subtopics are Subtopics do not follow outlined. Most subtopics outlined and followed.
not clearly established or logical sequence or are are appropriate and follow Literature discussion
are inappropriate. inappropriate. logical sequence. organized into appropriate
subtopics which follow
logical sequence.
7. Transitions No apparent transition Despite transitional Basic sentence, paragraph, Clear, logical transitions Clear, logical, appropriate
between sentences, devices, structural section sequences are throughout. Paragraphs transitions and coherent
between paragraphs, or sequence is unclear. demonstrated. Some are not consistently paragraphs facilitate
between sections. sentences, paragraphs, presented as coherent chapter organization.
sections do not follow units.
logical order.

8. Current study Rationale for current study Stated rationale is unclear Rationale stated but not Rationale stated and Clear, logical explanations
rationale and not stated. Contribution of or follows poor logic. supported by discussion of marginally supported by for rationale and for
contribution current study to body of Contribution of current the literature. Contribution discussion of the literature. contribution of current
knowledge not stated. study not stated. of current study not Contribution of current study established.
clarified. study not clarified or not Rationale and
supported by the literature. contributions are supported
by the literature.
Writing/Format
9. Clarity of writing and Writing does not clearly Writing occasionally Writing is generally clear. Writing is clear and free of Writing is free of
interpretation of express interpretation of expresses interpretation of Adequate understanding of grammatical and spelling grammatical and spelling
literature literature. Grammatical literature. Grammatical research literature not errors, and expresses errors, and expresses
and spelling errors present. and spelling errors are demonstrated. Occasional single voice. Analysis and single voice. Writing is
Inconsistent voice. present. Inconsistent voice. grammatical or spelling understanding of research evaluative, interpretive,
errors present. Inconsistent literature are partially and clear. Understanding
voice. demonstrated. of research literature
thoroughly demonstrated.
10. Bibliographic (APA) Text and bibliography Text and bibliography Citations within text and Citations within text and All citations present and
format citations missing. citations are occasionally bibliography present with bibliography present. Few correctly formatted.
present. Format is frequent inconsistencies or inconsistencies or errors.
inconsistent or incorrect. errors.
Criteria for Evaluation of Literature Reviews
© Rosemary Green and Mary Bowser