Diaz/ OChange Section A51 2016-2017

THE RUBRIC FOR ASSESSING THE AUDIT REPORT

The Introduction (15%)

Note1: The term "GST errors" refers to grammar, spelling and typing errors.
Note 2: An "explicit and and excellent discussion" is marked by writing that is clear, coherent, and concise.
50% Either of the two criteria merits this grade:
beginning
1. The orgcom issue or the focal area discussed in the Audit Report are inconsistent with what was
approved in the Diagnostic Proposal.
2. Of the parts mentioned in number 2 for a 4.0-level introduction, three parts are missing.
74% (1.0) 1. The focal area and the orgcom issue discussed in the Audit Report are consistent with what was
beginning
approved in the Diagnostic Proposal. Both orgcom issue and focal area are discussed but the
explanation as to how the orgcom issue can be classified as belonging to the focal area is of poor
quality.
2. Of the parts mentioned in number 2 for a 4.0-level introduction, either two parts are missing or three
parts (although discussed explicitly) were not discussed excellently.
3. There were GST errors or errors in citation.
79% (1.5) 1. The focal area and the orgcom issue discussed in the Audit Report are consistent with what was
developing
approved in the Diagnostic Proposal. Both orgcom issue and focal area are discussed but the
explanation as to how the orgcom issue can be classified as belonging to the focal area is of fair
quality.
2. Of the parts mentioned in number 2 for a 4.0-level introduction, either two parts are missing or three
parts (although discussed explicitly) were not discussed excellently.
3. There were GST errors or errors in citation.
84% (2.0) 1. The focal area and the orgcom issue discussed in the Audit Report are consistent with what was
developing
approved in the Diagnostic Proposal. There is an explicit and good discussion of how the orgcom
issue can be classified as belonging to the focal area.
2. Of the parts mentioned in number 2 for a 4.0-level introduction, either two parts are missing or three
parts (although discussed explicitly) were not discussed excellently.
3. There were GST errors or errors in citation.
88% (2.5) 1. The focal area and the orgcom issue discussed in the Audit Report are consistent with what was
satisfactory
approved in the Diagnostic Proposal. There is an explicit and good discussion of how the orgcom
issue can be classified as belonging to the focal area.
2. Of the parts mentioned in number 2 for a 4.0-level introduction, either one part is missing or two
parts (although discussed explicitly) were not discussed excellently.
3. There were GST errors or errors in citation.
92% (3.0) 1. The focal area and the orgcom issue discussed in the Audit Report are consistent with what was
satisfactory
approved in the Diagnostic Proposal. There is an explicit and excellent discussion of how the orgcom
issue can be classified as belonging to the focal area.
2. Of the parts mentioned in number 2 for a 4.0-level introduction, one part (although discussed
explicitly) was not discussed excellently.
3. There were GST errors or errors in citation.
96% (3.5) The only difference between a 3.5-level introduction and one that deserves a 4.0 is that of the parts
exemplary
mentioned in number 2 for a 4.0-level introduction, one part (although discussed explicitly) was not
discussed excellently.
97% (4.0) 1. The focal area and the orgcom issue discussed in the Audit Report are consistent with what was
exemplary
approved in the Diagnostic Proposal. There is an explicit and excellent discussion of how the orgcom
issue can be classified as belonging to the focal area.
2. There is an explicit and excellent discussion of the following:
a. what specific orgcom output or process was audited;
b. how this orgcom output or process is connected directly to the orgcom issue;
c. the audit's limitations in terms of the diagnostic model used, procedures, sampling/respondents, and
other aspects of the audit methods; and
d. why the audit is being done OR (for those following an AI approach) how it can help the
organization develop its Orgcom.
3. There are absolutely no GST errors or errors in citation.

1
 Diaz/ OChange Section A51 2016-2017

The Review of Literature: The Diagnostic Model (10%)

50% The diagnostic model is either not focused on organizational communication (i.e., it is about marketing
beginning
or advertising or mass communication, etc.) OR is not connected directly to the focal area.
74% (1.0) 1. The discussion is not as coherent, as clear, and as concise as it can be. There seems to be large
beginning
sections of the RRL that, if edited out, will make very little difference in the way the reader
understands the model.
2. There are two or three avoidable inclusions of outdated or nonscholarly sources.
3. There are GST errors and/or errors in citation.
79% (1.5) 1. The discussion is not as coherent, as clear, and as concise as it can be. There seems to be some
developing
sections of the RRL that, if edited out, will make very little difference in the way the reader
understands the model.
2. There are two or three avoidable inclusions of outdated or nonscholarly sources.
3. There are GST errors and/or errors in citation.
84% (2.0) 1. There are one or two parts in the discussion that are not clear, coherent, concise, and relevant.
developing
2. There are two or three avoidable inclusions of outdated or nonscholarly sources.
3. There are GST errors and/or errors in citation.
88% (2.5) The only difference between a 2.5-level RRL and one that deserves a 4.0 is the avoidable inclusion of at
satisfactory
least one outdated or nonscholarly source. (Note: The inclusion of the seminal article/s for the
theory/model is always allowed, no matter how outdated this source is.)
92% (3.0) The differences between a 3.0-level RRL and one that deserves a 4.0 lie in the following weaknesses:
satisfactory
1. The discussion is not as coherent, as clear, and as concise as it can be. There seems to be some
sections of the RRL that, if edited out, will make very little difference in the way the reader
understands the model.
2. There are GST errors and/or errors in citation.
96% (3.5) The only difference between a 3.5-level RRL and one that deserves a 4.0 is the quality of the
exemplary
discussion. There are one or two parts in the discussion that are not clear, coherent, concise, and
relevant.
97% (4.0) 1. The diagnostic model is focused on organizational communication and is connected directly to the
exemplary
focal area.
2. All the literature used to discuss model are from scholarly sources and are within the acceptable
time frame (2002 and later).
3. There is a clear, coherent, and concise discussion of the standards by which the auditors will
pronounce the communication aspect audited as healthy or not. All the literature discussed in the
RRL are relevant to the model and explicitly tied to it.
4. There are absolutely no GST errors or errors in citation.

2
 Diaz/ OChange Section A51 2016-2017

Method (15%)
Note: All informed consent forms must be uploaded in the project site.
50% The main research method used is really inconsistent with the diagnostic model. The data yielded by
beginning
the method will not at all show the conceptual relationships proposed by the model. Furthermore, the
discussion of all three sections is weak.
OR
One or more of the major sections needed to discuss the audit method (procedures, sampling, data
analysis) is/are missing.
70% (1.0) The difference between a 1.0 methods write-up and one that deserves a 1.5 is that the discussion of any
beginning
two of sections (procedures, sampling, and data analysis) is deficient.
75% (1.5) The only difference between a 1.5 methods write-up and one that deserves a 2.0 is a weakness noted in
developing
the discussion of the procedures or sampling scheme or data analysis.
80% (2.0) 1. The main research method used in gathering diagnostic data does not quite seem to be consistent
developing
with the diagnostic model. The data yielded by the method may not be able to show the conceptual
relationships proposed by the model.
2. Due to the inconsistency between main method and model, the procedures are also somewhat
inappropriate. The procedures, however, are consistent with the main research method. Moreover,
there is a clear effort to discuss the procedures in appropriate detail.
3. The sampling scheme used is identified. The needed details required by the sampling scheme are
supplied. If no sampling was used, then there is a justification for it.
4. The data analysis method is identified and is consistent with the data that the method will yield.
However, the analysis scheme will not really show the conceptual relationships or standards
proposed by the diagnostic model.
5. All the necessary in-text citations are in place.
85% (2.5) The only difference between a 2.5 methods write-up and one that deserves a 4.0 is the lack of detail in all
satisfactory
three of the following sections: the procedures, sampling scheme, or data analysis.
89% (3.0) The only difference between a 3.0 methods write-up and one that deserves a 4.0 is the lack of detail in
satisfactory
two of the following sections: the procedures, sampling scheme, or data analysis.
93% (3.5) The only difference between a 3.5 methods write-up and one that deserves a 4.0 is the lack of detail in
exemplary
one of the following sections: procedures, sampling scheme, or data analysis.
97% (4.0) 1. The main research method used in gathering diagnostic data is entirely consistent with diagnostic
exemplary
model in that the method can actually measure the conceptual relationships proposed by the
diagnostic model.
2. The procedures by which data were gathered are consistent with the diagnostic model. The
procedures are discussed concisely and in enough detail to show their consistency with the
diagnostic model.
3. The sampling scheme used is identified. The needed details required by the sampling scheme are
supplied. If no sampling was used, then there is a justification for it.
4. The data analysis method is identified and is consistent with the data that the method will yield.
The analysis scheme will show the conceptual relationships or standards proposed by the
diagnostic model.
5. All the necessary in-text citations are in place.

3
 Diaz/ OChange Section A51 2016-2017

Findings and Tentative Conclusions (40%)

50% The data presented are NOT processed/analyzed data.
beginning
OR
The three remaining major parts are so poorly discussed that it is really difficult to make sense this
section of the audit report.
OR
The data presented do not support the conclusions at all.
74% (1.0) The data presented are processed/analyzed data. However, all three of remaining major parts of this
beginning
section (see parts marked by an asterisk) seem to be deficient (see rubric for a 3.0).
79% (1.5) The data presented are processed/analyzed data. However, aside from the noted deficiency in two of the
developing
three remaining major parts (see rubric for a 2.0), there is an additional weakness noted in one of the
following: the quality of writing, the presence of GST errors, or APA format errors.
84% (2.0) The data presented are processed/analyzed data. However, of the remaining three major parts of this
developing
section (see parts marked by an asterisk), two seem to be deficient (see rubric for a 3.0).
Despite this deficiency, however:
1. Writing is clear, coherent, and concise.
2. There are absolutely no GST errors.
3. All the necessary in-text citations are in place and in the correct APA format.
88% (2.5) The data presented are processed/analyzed data. However, aside from the noted deficiency in one of the
satisfactory
three remaining major parts (see rubric for a 3.0), there is an additional weakness noted in one of the
following: the quality of writing, the presence of GST errors, or APA format errors.
92% (3.0) The data presented are processed/analyzed data. However, of the remaining three major parts of this
satisfactory
section (see parts marked by an asterisk), one seems to be deficient:
1. The data analysis scheme used to process the data doesn't seem to match the one described in the
method section.
2. The tentative conclusion doesn’t seem to take into account all the data but just some of them.
3. Most of the data seem to be connected to the diagnostic model although some of the findings don't
seem to match the conceptual relationships proposed by the model.
Despite this deficiency, however:
4. Writing is clear, coherent, and concise.
5. There are absolutely no GST errors.
6. All the necessary in-text citations are in place and in the correct APA format.
96% (3.5) The only difference between a 3.5 and a 4.0 is the presence of GST/APA format errors OR a slight
exemplary
deficiency in the quality of writing.
97% (4.0) 1. *The data analysis scheme described in the Method section was used to analyze data. The analysis
exemplary
scheme was done correctly.
2. *The data presented are processed/analyzed (NOT RAW) data.
3. *The tentative conclusions are connected directly to the data presented.
4. *The diagnostic model was used to form the tentative conclusions.
5. Writing is clear, coherent, and concise.
6. There are absolutely no GST errors.
7. All the necessary in-text citations are in place and in the correct APA format.

4
 Diaz/ OChange Section A51 2016-2017

Executive Summary (10%)

50% Aside from being inconsistent with what is written in the Findings, there were also one or two GST
beginning
errors. Also the quality of writing is deficient.
74% (1.0) The summary doesn't seem to be consistent with what is written in the Findings.
beginning
79% (1.5) Instead of highlighting only the most significant findings, the group included ALL the findings in the
developing
Executive Summary. There were also one or two GST errors AND the quality of writing is slightly
deficient.
84% (2.0) Instead of highlighting only the most significant findings, the group included ALL the findings in the
developing
Executive Summary. There were also one or two GST errors OR the quality of writing is slightly
deficient.
88% (2.5) Instead of highlighting only the most significant findings, the group included ALL the findings in the
satisfactory
Executive Summary. However:
1. The summary is consistent with what is written in the Findings.
2. The summary is written clearly, concisely and coherently.
3. There are absolutely no GST errors.
92% (3.0) The only difference between a 3.0 and a 3.5 is that there are GST errors. The quality of writing remains
satisfactory
acceptable.
96% (3.5) The only difference between a 3.5 and a 4.0 is the quality of writing is slightly deficient. There are,
exemplary
however, still no GST errors.
97% (4.0) 1. The summary is consistent with what is written in the Findings.
exemplary
2. The summary highlights only the most significant findings.
3. The summary is written clearly, concisely and coherently.
4. There are absolutely no GST errors.

Acknowledgments (5%)
 The group gets a perfect score if they identify only the key people in the client organization who
collaborated with the group in: 1) determining the audit's focus, 2) collecting audit data, or 3) discussing
main findings.
 Acknowledging anyone else not within the client organization (God, Mommy, Daddy, Dr. Diaz, friends,
etc.) bumps down the score one grade point PER erroneous acknowledgment .
Cover Page (5%)
The cover page must follow the APA format. Any error earns the group zero points for this section.