Criterion

Fail

Pass

Merit

Distinction

Assessment strategy and alignment with learning objectives

The assessment strategy has limited or unclear alignment with the learning objectives. The tasks may be disconnected, inappropriate, overly simplistic, duplicative, or not clearly focused on the required learning outcomes. 

The assessment strategy shows alignment with the learning objectives, but coverage may be uneven. The two tasks are present but may not work together as a fully coherent assessment strategy. Some aspects of the learning objectives may be under-assessed.

The assessment strategy is clearly aligned with both learning objectives. The two tasks are demonstrably complementary, with explicit articulation of how each task targets differential diagnosis versus investigation and management planning. The strategy moves beyond factual recall to assess applied clinical reasoning, with no significant gaps in coverage. 

The assessment strategy is sophisticated, coherent and explicitly theorised. The complementarity of the two tasks is purposefully constructed to reflect the layered demands of clinical decision-making. The strategy demonstrates a nuanced understanding of how assessment design can scaffold and surface higher-order reasoning, with clear and justified alignment to both learning objectives.

Marking rubrics and reliability

Rubrics are absent, incomplete, unclear or not meaningfully aligned with the tasks. Criteria and descriptors are too vague to support fair, transparent or reliable marking.

Rubrics are present for all tasks and are fully aligned with the tasks and learning objectives. Performance descriptors are accurate, but may be repetitive or insufficiently differentiated. There may be some difficulties when using the rubric to mark consistently across different individuals.  

Each task has a detailed marking rubric with criteria clearly derived from the task design and learning objectives. Performance descriptors are specific and meaningfully differentiated across levels, enabling consistent marking between assessors. The rubrics are practically usable.

Each task has an exemplary rubric that could be used immediately and consistently by independent assessors without further briefing. Criteria are task-specific and directly traceable to the learning objectives. Performance descriptors articulate qualitative distinctions with precision and clinical specificity. The rubrics actively support fairness and transparency and demonstrate awareness of how descriptor language affects marking reliability. 

Application of assessment design principles

The submission shows limited, inaccurate or absent consideration of assessment design principles. Key concepts may be misunderstood, listed without explanation, or not connected to the proposed assessment strategy.

The submission clearly refers to assessment design principles, but is not analytical of the choices made in coming to the assessment design decisions. There is some consideration given to the tensions in assessment design principles. 

The submission applies key assessment design principles, including validity, reliability, fairness, and feasibility, with a clear and consistent connection to the specific design decisions made. A clear framework for decisions on why the chosen assessment methods work is presented and evaluated, with alternative considerations mentioned. Some tensions between principles are acknowledged.

The submission demonstrates sophisticated and critical engagement with assessment design principles. Tensions between principles are explicitly identified and thoughtfully managed, with reasoned justification for how the design navigates these trade-offs. The discussion reflects independent thinking and a mature understanding of the contested nature of assessment. 

Evidence-informed justification

The justification is absent, unclear, unsupported or largely unrelated to the proposed assessment tasks. There is little or no meaningful engagement with educational evidence or assessment theory.

The justification is presented through a theoretical lens with good, well-referenced sources. An attempt to critically analyse choices has been made, but is lacking detail.

The justification is analytical, focused and well grounded in relevant educational literature. It explains design choices with direct reference to the learning objectives and draws on theory and empirical evidence to show a genuine analysis of ideas. Claims are substantiated and connected to specific design decisions. 

The justification demonstrates critical synthesis of a range of relevant theoretical and empirical sources, independent evaluation of competing perspectives, and a clear, well-argued account of how the proposed design reflects and responds to the literature. The argument is coherent, precise and consistently evidence-led, with sources used to interrogate and strengthen design choices rather than simply to legitimise them. The writing makes a convincing case that is specific to this assessment context, not generic.