Program Assessment Review (PAR) Rubric
This rubric evaluates the completeness and quality of program assessment reports. Each category is rated as Exemplary, Good, Developing, or Needs Improvement.
Legend
- Exemplary — 🟩 Green
- Good — 🟨 Yellow
- Developing — 🟧 Orange
- Needs Improvement — 🟥 Red
Download the PAR Rubric S25
Program Assessment Review (PAR) Rubric
| Exemplary | Good | Developing | Needs Improvement | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Program Information | ||||
| Program Information | All program information sections complete. | Most program information sections complete. | Less than 50% of program information section complete. | Program information not started. |
| Outcomes | ||||
| Learning Outcomes | Three or more distinct learning outcomes are present. | Three or more learning outcomes are present, but additional differentiation may be needed. | A) Fewer than three learning outcomes are present; OR B) Learning outcomes are not distinct. | A) Fewer than three learning outcomes are present; AND B) Learning outcomes are not distinct. |
| Assessment Schedule | All outcomes are assessed within a two-year assessment review cycle (Accreditation and Assessment Office). | All outcomes are assessed within a four-year assessment cycle (Higher Learning Commission). | Most outcomes are assessed within a four-year assessment cycle (Higher Learning Commission). | Fewer than 50% of outcomes are assessed within a four-year assessment cycle (Higher Learning Commission). |
| Methods | ||||
| Outcome-Method Alignment | Clearly defined alignment between the outcome(s) and selected method(s) as described in the report. | Somewhat clearly defined alignment between the outcome(s) and selected method(s) as described in the report. | Alignment between outcome(s) and method(s) is not clear. | No evidence of alignment between outcome(s) and method(s). |
| Method & Method Type | Method(s) are clear; have face validity for specific purpose and student learning; use both direct and indirect method(s). | Method(s) are clear; have face validity for specific purpose and student learning; use ONLY direct OR indirect method(s). | Method(s) are clear; lack face validity for specific purpose OR student learning; use ONLY direct OR indirect method(s). | Method(s) lack clarity; lack face validity for specific purpose OR student learning; use ONLY direct OR indirect method(s). |
| Method Target | Clear student-focused target (i.e., rubric percentages by category; overall test and item performance; licensure exam scores; etc.). Rationale for choosing target is articulated (e.g., based on local standards, historical trends, external standards, etc.). | Clear student-focused target; target is not delimited (i.e., lacks rubric percentages by category; overall test and item performance; licensure exam scores; etc.). Rationale for choosing target is articulated (e.g., based on local standards, historical trends, external standards, etc.). | Clear student-focused target; target is not delimited (i.e., lacks rubric percentages by category; overall test and item performance; licensure exam scores; etc.). No rationale for choosing target is articulated (e.g., based on local standards, historical trends, external standards, etc.). | Unclear target OR not student-focused target; target is not delimited (i.e., lacks rubric percentages by category; overall test and item performance; licensure exam scores; etc.). No rationale for choosing target is articulated (e.g., based on local standards, historical trends, external standards, etc.). |
| Findings | ||||
| Data Reported (e.g., data collection/method of sampling, item analysis, frequency counts, instrument norming statistics, etc.) |
Results presented in a clear, easy to interpret format; explanation of data collection method clearly articulated to include such items as sample size, sampling method and background of students. | Results presented but take some time to find and/or interpret; some information about data collection methodology provided. | Results presented but were not clear or easy to interpret; very little information about data collection methodology provided. | Results are not presented. |
| Analysis & Reflection | Interpretation of results clearly presented and appropriate based on analysis of the data; if possible, combines analysis of direct and indirect measures. | Interpretation of results is somewhat clear and appropriate based on analysis of the data. | Interpretation of results is unclear or inappropriate based on analysis of the data. | Interpretation of results not reported. |
| Action Plan | Clearly identifies plans for action based on assessment results, including timeline for implementation and persons responsible for implementation; action plans may include the following scenarios: 1) Target Exceeded—Consider longitudinal data and whether the assessment method should change, 2) Target Met—Continue to monitor over an identified timeline, 3) Target Not Met—Improvement Plan articulated, OR recognition of invalid/unreliable assessment process changes needed. | Evidence of plans for action tied to assessment results, but may not identify a timeline for implementation or persons responsible for implementation and/or all possible scenarios of assessment results. | Evidence of plans for action not clearly tied to assessment results and does not identify a timeline for implementation or all scenarios of assessment results. | Does not specify plans for action based on assessment results. |
| Personnel | Personnel are listed and more than the assessment leader are involved in the full assessment process. The Process is described. | Personnel are listed and more than the assessment leader are involved in the full assessment process. | The assessment leader is listed. | No personnel are listed. |
| Evidence (e.g., raw data, rubrics, meeting minutes, student artifacts (free of all identifying information), etc.) |
Sufficient evidence is provided to corroborate all data reported, such as rubrics; spreadsheets with rubric scores; spreadsheets with rubric scores; interrater reliability information; aggregated test/item analysis; test psychometric statistics; disaggregated test/item analysis by groups of students with relevant characteristics; licensure exam scores; surveys; survey results; focus group themes/transcripts; meeting minutes; advisory board feedback or analysis; etc. Evidence is a mixture of direct and indirect measures. This is true for ALL findings. | Supporting evidence provided is linked to data, but partially substantiates data reported and is a mixture of direct and indirect measures; this is true for MOST findings. | The link between finding and supporting evidence is difficult to determine; this is true for SOME findings. There is not a mixture of direct and indirect measures. | No substantiating evidence provided. |
| Curriculum Mapping | ||||
| Completion | All courses map to at least one outcome on the curriculum map; All maps (i.e., University Learning Outcomes, curriculum, accreditation, etc.) are complete within the workspace. | All courses map to at least one outcome on the curriculum map, but no other maps are complete. | The curriculum map is incomplete. | No work appears on the curriculum map. |
| Assessment Over Time | Assessments appear consistently throughout the curriculum map (some assessments appear in lower-level courses while others appear in upper-level courses). | Assessments appear inconsistently on the curriculum map. | Assessments are concentrated in one area of the program. | Assessments do not appear on the curriculum map. |