Marking Criteria for Case Studies (Medical Imaging)

University of Exeter	Handbook (Medical Imaging)	Questions/Comments	Department (Medical Imaging)

Marking Criteria for Case Studies (Medical Imaging)

Case studies are a specialised type of report required as part of the clinical placement modules PAM1007, PAM2006, PAM3005. They are submitted and marked using the standard procedures for Assessment of Essays and Reports (Medical Imaging).

N.B. The following criteria apply only to the Clinical Case Studies. For other exercises, please refer to the Marking Criteria for Essays/Reports.

The standard of work expected of students depends on the level of the module being taken and marks will be awarded in accordance with the criteria described in the University Levels and Awards Framework §3.7 for levels HE1-3 as applicable.

Clincial Case Study Assement and Feedback Form

The overall mark for an assessed case study (out of 100) is obtained from marks given to the following areas:

Identification and illustration of Key Issues (maximum 50)
(coverage of patient history; description of patient presentation; work follows stated emphasis and allocates resources appropriately; use medical sources to illustrate understanding; link medical evidence to opinion; link medical evidence to practice; all aspects of case covered / treatment / follow-up; appropriate justification of examination),
Arguments - Conclusions and evidence of understanding (maximum 25)
(clarity, validity and breadth of reasoning; support for key points with appropriate evidence),
Structure and Presentation (maximum 25)
(overall coherence of work; appropriate and logical sequencing of work; includes correctly formatted information on cover page; proper headings, fonts & spacing; includes page numbers on the report ; uses accurate spelling including medical terminology; adequate and appropriate in-text referencing; consistent and correct referencing style used; in-text references match references in the reference list; provides Turnitin report).

Mark Range	A. Key Issues
43 - 50	A near perfect case study that is difficult to fault, with the possible exception of one or two minor errors.
35 - 42	An excellent case study with no significant deficiencies in the coverage of key issues but with a number of minor errors. Well defined focus, reflecting a good knowledge of material.
30 - 34	Outcome at focal level. One or two significant deficiencies in key areas. Expected components present, with good content.
25 - 29	A number of significant deficiencies in key issues. Expected components present in an acceptable form.
20 - 24	Outcome at threshold level. Only one or two major flaws.
10 - 19	A number of major flaws. Evidence of a lack of basic knowledge.
0 - 9	Not approaching an acceptable case study.

Mark Range	B. Arguments
21 - 25	A near perfect case study that is difficult to fault, with the possible exception of one or two minor errors in arguments or lack of supporting evidence.
18 - 20	An excellent case study with no significant deficiencies in the validity or reasoning of arguments.
15 - 17	Outcome at focal level with one or two significant deficiencies in validity or reasoning of arguments.
13 - 14	A number of significant deficiencies in arguments and supporting evidence.
10 - 12	Outcome at threshold level. Unable to present reasoned arguments.
5 - 9	A number of major flaws in validity of arguments.
0 - 4	Not approaching a well reasoned case study.

Mark Range	C. Structure and Presentation
21 - 25	A near perfect case study that is difficult to fault, with the possible exception of one or two minor errors in presentation.
18 - 20	An excellent case study with no significant deficiencies in structure, presentation or referencing.
15 - 17	Outcome at focal level with one or two significant deficiencies in structure or referencing.
13 - 14	A number of significant deficiencies in structure, presentation and referencing.
10 - 12	Outcome at threshold level. Incorrectly formatted, presented and referenced case study.
5 - 9	A number of major deficiencies in the structure and referencing of the case study.
0 - 4	Not approaching a correctly presented case study.

University of Exeter	Handbook (Medical Imaging)	Questions/Comments	Department (Medical Imaging)