Skip to content

Level 3 Final Project Grading Rubric

This self-assessment, based on the grading rubrics for the Level 3 Final Project, will help you understand the requirements expected in the Final Project before you take the test.

Remember, the Level 3 Final Project must be passed with a 90% or higher score before candidates may advance to the Oral Review.

For your reference, the grading scale is as follows:

ICAPGen Grading Scale
Meets requirementApplicant meets the outlined requirement 90% of the time or more
Mostly meets requirementApplicant meets the outlined requirement 80-89% of the time
Often meets requirementApplicant meets the outlined requirement 70-79% of the time
Sometimes meets requirementApplicant meets the outlined requirement 60-69% of the time
Does not meet requirementApplicant does not meet the outlined requirement at least 60% of the time


Level 3 Final Project Grading Rubric
RequirementMeets Does not yet meet
Part 1: Required Test Item Parts
  1. The candidate’s research log included these essential items:
    • The name of the person, event, or item to be searched.
    • Each source used was documented on the research log with sufficient information about it for others to find the same information (i.e. names of repositories, including call numbers, or URL addresses for each source.
    • Both positive results and negative results (if any) of all searches were listed.
    • Document numbers assigned to documents were listed or extracts from the documents were included.
  1. A pedigree chart was included showing details gleaned from the research.
  1. Family group sheets were included showing the results indicated by their research findings.
  1. The candidate included images (copies) of original documents that helped solve the research problem. Documents were numbered and cross-referenced in the research log and report.
Part 2: Client Report
  1. The research objective of the report included all identifying information supplied by the research problem.
  1. All research findings from the sources were discussed in the written report.
  1. A summary about the research conducted was addressed in a concluding paragraph in the report or summarized after each finding.
  1. As the applicant presented genealogical statements (of facts) in the report, the stated facts were consistently supported by appropriate sources referenced by citations in footnotes, embedded notes, or endnotes in the report. (Complete citations are not required in the report if they are listed on the documents or the research log and referenced by an assigned document number in the report.)
  1. Future research suggestions were given in the report and included:
    • What was expected to be found in the records suggested.
    • If the research objective was met, suggestions to meet a new goal; or if the research objective was not met, suggestions to continue research toward meeting the objective.
    • Suggestions for follow up on any clues found during the research process needing to be pursued.
    • Sources identified at the onset of the research not searched during the exercise because time ran out before it could be accomplished.
Part 3: Research Strategy, Research, and Evaluation of Evidence
  1. The objective of the research problem was met or if it was not, reasonable progress was made within the time allotted.
  1. The candidate used good research strategies to achieve the research objective in the expected manner as evidenced by:
    • Sources searched or listed to be searched were appropriate for the time period and region of the research problem.
    • All the entries in the report are supported by entries in the research log.
  1. Careful evaluation of the evidence was demonstrated by:
    • Reporting on details gleaned from each source,
    • Explaining what those details meant considering the problem,
    • Discussing the context in which the information was found if that changed the interpretation of the evidence, or the evidence’s impact on the research objective.
  1. The evaluation of the information was accurate and comprehensive;
    • A correct interpretation of the findings was stated;
    • Any finding inconvenient to the researcher’s purposes was not ignored, nor was the evaluation “tailored” to fit a specific purpose;
    • No unjustified conclusions were made. For example, “the widow was the mother of all the children named in a man’s will.”