A Study on Using Rubrics and Citation Analysis to Measure the Quality of Doctoral Dissertation Reference Lists from Traditional and Nontraditional Institutions

Abstract

This study used citation analysis in conjunction with a subjective rubric with five criteria deemed valid by a majority of committee chairs at the writers' institution to assess the quality of 144 dissertation reference lists from a non-traditional program. Criteria included the breadth of resources; the depth of the literature review as shown through the citing of critical historical and theoretical works; depth as demonstrated through the scholarliness of citations chosen; currency; and relevancy. The results were then compared with citations from 59 dissertation reference lists purposively selected from a list of 10 traditional institutions. This social-constructive theory-based approach ascertained that there was no statistically significant difference between traditional or non-traditional scores for any criteria except breadth of resources which measures the number and variety of citation sources. In contrast, the constructivist theoretical approach establishes statistically significant differences in 11 of 17 variables.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 19 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.