Direct answer: Track evidence for a rubric criterion by linking the criterion to the question or claim it requires, the source, data, calculation, scenario fact, statistical output, reflection, or other artifact that supports it, what that evidence shows, any important limitation, where the support appears in the draft, and what still needs revision. A criterion evidence map is a planning and revision tool; it cannot determine a scoring outcome.
What does a criterion evidence map do?
A criterion evidence map makes the relationship between the scoring guide and the draft visible. Instead of collecting material broadly and deciding later where it belongs, the learner starts with the current criterion and records what kind of evidence or analysis would actually demonstrate it.
The current courseroom instructions and scoring guide control the assessment requirements. The map can be a table, spreadsheet, checklist, or notes document. Its format is optional unless the assessment specifically requires one.
Start with the current scoring-guide criterion
Read the criterion closely before searching for evidence. Identify the action being requested and the object of that action: for example, explain a problem, compare alternatives, interpret a result, evaluate a source, justify a recommendation, or reflect on professional practice.
The rubric verbs guide can help distinguish actions such as describe, analyze, evaluate, compare, and recommend. The goal is to turn the criterion into a question that the draft must answer.
Translate the criterion into a claim or evidence question
A useful evidence question states what must be established. Examples include: What evidence demonstrates the current problem? What result answers this statistical question? Which facts support the comparison? What limitation changes the recommendation?
Some criteria require several claims rather than one broad statement. Break the criterion into smaller questions when doing so makes the required reasoning easier to verify.
Separate the claim from the supporting material
The claim is the point the learner needs to establish. The supporting material is what allows the reader to evaluate that point. Keeping those roles separate helps prevent a source, table, or output from replacing the learner’s analysis.
For source-based claims, use the academic source evaluation checklist when relevance, method, applicability, or limitations need closer review.
Record the evidence or artifact and what it actually shows
Evidence can take different forms depending on the criterion. It may be a scholarly source, professional standard, scenario fact, local data point, calculation, JASP output, course resource, learner-created table, reflection, or another required artifact.
Record the specific finding, value, pattern, statement, or observation that matters. A citation or file name alone does not show how the material supports the criterion.
Identify the evidence function
Labeling the function can make gaps easier to see. Evidence may define a concept, establish a problem, explain a mechanism, compare options, report an outcome, show implementation, provide counterevidence, support a measurement decision, or serve another criterion-specific role.
This taxonomy is a planning aid rather than a fixed required list. Use only the categories that help clarify the current assessment.
Check applicability and limitations
Ask whether the evidence applies to the population, setting, variable, decision, or scenario in the criterion. Record limitations that materially affect interpretation, such as a different population, weak design, small sample, short follow-up, missing subgroup, uncertain measurement, or conflicting findings.
Evidence tracking should not become a list of sources that all support a preferred conclusion. Counterevidence and unresolved uncertainty belong in the map when they affect the final analysis.
Map the support to its draft location
Record the section, heading, paragraph, table, figure, appendix, or other location where the evidence is used. This creates traceability between the criterion, the supporting material, and the draft.
Update the map when sections move or claims change. The purpose is to make it possible to answer two questions quickly: Where is this criterion addressed, and what evidence or analysis supports it?
Track coverage and the next revision action
A simple status field can show whether a criterion is unresolved, partially supported, drafted, or checked. The exact labels or colors are optional; use a system that makes the remaining work clear.
When a gap appears, record the next action rather than only marking the criterion incomplete. The action may be to find stronger evidence, rerun an analysis, explain a limitation, add interpretation, clarify a calculation, revise a paragraph, or verify the current instructions.
A practical criterion evidence map
| Field | What to record |
|---|---|
| Criterion | The current scoring-guide requirement or a concise paraphrase that preserves its meaning. |
| Question or claim | What the draft must establish to address the criterion. |
| Evidence or artifact | The source, data, output, calculation, scenario fact, reflection, or other material used. |
| What it shows | The exact finding, value, pattern, or fact relevant to the claim. |
| Applicability or limitation | Important conditions that strengthen, qualify, or restrict the evidence. |
| Draft location | Where the support and analysis appear. |
| Status / next action | What is complete and what still needs to be revised or verified. |
How is the map used during revision?
Compare the map with the actual draft rather than assuming that planned evidence was eventually used. The draft comparison guide can help check whether each criterion is visible in the finished work.
When evaluator feedback identifies a gap, use the evaluator response process to connect the comment to the affected criterion, evidence, and revision. The editing and revision hub provides the broader revision workflow.
What evidence counts for a rubric criterion?
The criterion determines what counts as evidence. Scholarly sources may be essential for a research claim, while another criterion may depend on scenario facts, calculations, statistical output, professional reflection, a learner-created artifact, or direct application of course material.
Do not add citations simply to increase source count. Use attribution when source-derived ideas or evidence require it, and follow the citation style and source requirements stated in the current assessment.
Common evidence-tracking problems
- Collecting sources before deciding what each criterion actually asks.
- Tracking citations without recording the claim or finding they support.
- Treating one source type as appropriate for every criterion.
- Ignoring applicability, limitations, or counterevidence.
- Marking a criterion complete because evidence exists even though the draft does not interpret it.
- Using a fixed source count or status system that the assessment does not require.
- Failing to update the map after the draft changes.
- Storing confidential or restricted information in an unsecured planning document.
Criterion evidence map checklist
- Each current criterion has been translated into a clear question or claim.
- The evidence or artifact type fits the criterion.
- The exact finding, output, fact, or calculation is recorded rather than only a source title.
- Applicability and important limitations are visible.
- The draft location shows where the criterion is actually addressed.
- The learner’s interpretation is distinguishable from the source or output itself.
- Unresolved gaps have a specific next action.
- Citation and confidentiality requirements are checked where relevant.
- The final map is compared with the current draft and scoring guide.
Frequently asked questions
How many sources should each criterion have?
There is no universal number. Use the amount and type of evidence needed for the criterion and follow any explicit source requirements in the current assessment.
Can one source support several criteria?
Yes, when the source genuinely supports each use. Record the relevant finding and its role separately so the connection to each criterion remains clear.
What if a criterion needs no scholarly citation?
Record the evidence it does require, such as scenario facts, calculations, statistical output, professional reflection, course materials, or a learner-created artifact.
Does the evidence map have to be submitted?
Not unless the current assessment requires it. The map is primarily a planning and revision tool for checking coverage and traceability.