Rubrics in Terms of Development Processes and Misconceptions*

Abstract

The present study aimed to examine the development process of rubrics in theses indexed in the national thesis database and to identify any misconceptions presented in these rubrics. A qualitative research approach utilizing document analysis was employed. The sample of theses was selected based on a literature review and criteria established by expert opinions, resulting in a total of 395 theses being included in the study using criterion sampling. Data were collected through a thesis review form developed by the researchers. Descriptive analysis was employed for data analysis. Findings indicated that approximately 27% of the 395 theses contained misconceptions, with a disproportionate percentage of these misconceptions (The rating scale was called rubric and the checklist was called rubric) being found in master's theses. Regarding the field of the thesis, the highest rate of misconceptions was observed in health, social sciences, special education, and fine arts, while the lowest rate was found in education and linguistics. Additionally, theses with misconceptions tended to possess a lower degree of validity and reliability evidence compared to those without misconceptions. This difference was found to be statistically significant for both validity evidence and reliability evidence. In theses without misconceptions, the most frequently presented validity evidence was expert opinion, while the reliability evidence was found to be the percentage of agreement. The findings were discussed in relation to the existing literature, and recommendations were proposed.