Rubrics and Assessment Tools

🌟 Why Assessment Matters Assessment is more than grading it’s a strategic tool that guides instruction, supports student growth, and fosters reflective teaching. It helps educators answer key questions: • Are students grasping the material? • Where are the gaps? • How can instruction be adapted to meet diverse needs? By integrating both formative and summative assessments, teachers create a dynamic feedback loop that informs teaching and empowers students. 🧠 What It Improves or Monitors Assessment helps monitor: • Understanding and skill acquisition • Progress toward learning goals • Engagement and participation • Critical thinking and application • Executive functioning and memory strategies It also improves: • Instructional alignment • Student self-awareness • Differentiation and scaffolding • Teacher-student communication 🛠️ Tools to Track Learning Here are practical tools and strategies to implement in the classroom: 🔍 Formative Assessment Tools Used during learning to adjust instruction: • Exit Tickets – Quick reflections to gauge understanding. • KWL Charts – Track what students Know, Want to know, and Learned. • Think-Pair-Share – Encourages verbal processing and peer learning. • Cold Calling – Promotes active listening and accountability. • Homework Reviews – Identify misconceptions early. • Thumbs Up/Down – Instant feedback on clarity. 📝 Summative Assessment Tools Used after instruction to evaluate mastery: • Quizzes & Tests – Measure retention and comprehension. • Essays & Reports – Assess synthesis and expression. • Presentations & Posters – Showcase creativity and depth. • Real-Life Simulations – Apply learning in authentic contexts. 🎯 Illustrative Example Imagine a middle school science unit on ecosystems. • Formative: Students complete a KWL chart, engage in a think-pair-share on food chains, and submit exit tickets after a video on biodiversity. • Summative: They create a poster display of a chosen ecosystem, write a short report, and present their findings to the class. This layered approach ensures students are supported throughout the learning journey not just evaluated at the end. 💡 Insightful Takeaway Assessment is not a checkpoint it’s a compass. It guides educators in refining instruction, supports students in owning their learning, and builds a classroom culture rooted in growth and clarity.

We are hard at work measuring the effectiveness of our AI copilot for clinicians, Hyperscribe. Sharing some observations on the three most common approaches to evals I see today: 0️⃣ "No-op" — for all cases, do nothing. Make performance claims with no credible evidence, and target buyers who don't question it. 1️⃣ Comparative labeling — for a given case, physicians sort two or more notes from worst to best. 2️⃣ Case-specific rubrics — for a given case, physicians develop a structured set of weighted criteria to score any note for the case. OpenAI's HealthBench is almost surely the largest example of this approach. No-op has no place at Canvas Medical. Comparative labeling provides a high quality feedback signal, but it's prohibitively expensive for anything other than small scale one-off studies. No continuous, production-grade governance system can rely on comparative labeling. Rubrics are scalable — even the case-specific version. They can be used beyond one-off studies and are suitable for always-on AI governance systems. But we don't know much about the quality of the signal: do they produce scores that actually reflect a reliable ground truth that would agree with the results of comparative labeling? Our team has been working on a rubric validation methodology that we hope will combine the best of both worlds — the solid ground truth of comparative labeling with the scalability of rubrics. Here's the basics on how it works: 1. For a given case, we AI-generate an initial case-specific rubric with detailed scoring criteria. 2. We have Hyperscribe produce several draft notes under different parameter settings. 3. A vetted clinician then orients to the case and labels the best and worst note in a comparative step. 4. The clinician then iteratively edits the rubric until it reliably scores the “best” note higher than the “worst” note. We repeat the entire process independently with a second vetted clinician, yielding two validated rubrics per case. The validated rubrics are ideal for sustained development and experimentation, as well as ongoing surveillance of deployed agents. If you saw Lenny Rachitsky's post about "CC/CD" — that's what this unlocks (link to post in comments). Want to learn more? Just comment and I'll share what I can. Or wait for the paper!

𝗦𝘁𝗲𝗮𝗹 𝗺𝘆 𝗔𝗜 𝗙𝗹𝘂𝗲𝗻𝗰𝘆 𝗥𝘂𝗯𝗿𝗶𝗰 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗦𝘂𝗽𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁 𝗣𝗲𝗿𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗥𝗲𝘃𝗶𝗲𝘄𝘀. Most teams still don’t evaluate the one skill that will define the next decade of CX: AI fluency.l So I built a simple rubric (inspired by Zapier’s hiring framework) to score how effectively support agents use AI in their day-to-day work: 🟥 AI Resistant (0.0) ↳ Avoids using AI or questions its value ↳ Performance: Struggles in AI-first workflows; may block adoption 🟧 AI Aware (0.3) ↳ Recognizes where AI shows up in tools and processes ↳ Performance: Minor efficiency gains through passive exposure 🟨 AI Literate (0.5) ↳ Uses AI suggestions thoughtfully and with intention ↳ Performance: Faster responses, better consistency 🟩 AI Capable (0.7) ↳ Rebuilds or adapts workflows based on AI insights ↳ Performance: Major gains in resolution rates and team efficiency 🟦 AI Empowered (1.0) ↳ Champions AI best practices; trains and influences peers ↳ Performance: Teamwide productivity multiplier and strategic impact The biggest unlock? Moving from Literate to Capable—when agents stop just using AI and start orchestrating it. If AI is part of your workflow, it should be part of your performance review. P.S. If you’d like me to send you the Google Sheet, drop a comment and I’ll share it.

Steal my toolkit for appraising evidence in systematic reviews A systematic review is only as good as its appraisal tools. 7 critical appraisal tools every systematic reviewer should know: 1. Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool The gold standard for assessing bias in randomized controlled trials. It covers selection, performance, detection, attrition, and reporting bias. A must-have for any review including RCTs. 2. CASP Checklists The Critical Appraisal Skills Programme offers a suite of checklists. CASP has you covered for reviewing: • Qualitative • Quantitative • Economic studies A great all-rounder for various study types. 3. JBI Critical Appraisal Tools The Joanna Briggs Institute provides a comprehensive appraisal toolset. There's a specific checklist for each study design. From case reports to RCTs. Perfect for reviews with a mix of evidence types. 4. STROBE Statement Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies. This checklist is essential for appraising observational studies. It covers cohort, case-control, and cross-sectional designs. 5. Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) Reviewing qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods studies? The MMAT is your one-stop-shop. It assesses the methodological quality of all three types. 6. QualSyst A powerful tool for assessing qualitative research. Covers: • Research team reflexivity • Study design rigour • Data collection and analysis depth Essential for any review heavy on qualitative evidence. 7. ROBIS The Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews tool. Because even systematic reviews need appraising. ROBIS helps you assess the methodological rigour of other reviews. Crucial for reviews of reviews or meta-reviews. No single appraisal tool is perfect. The right tool depends on the study designs in your review. And your overall methodology. Don't be afraid to customize or combine tools to fit your needs. Be thorough, transparent, and consistent in your critical appraisal. Your review is only as strong as the evidence it includes. 🔄 Share with a colleague. Or all of them. P.S. Do you use a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews? #literaturereviews #phd #research

I just made this rubric for a friend in a job search who is trying to make a decision between multiple opportunities. What is a rubric, you ask? It's a tool that allows you to evaluate something that is subjective in an objective way. For example, teachers use rubrics to grade a student's presentation or performance. How can you tell if a student gave an A presentation or a C presentation? That's a hard question to answer and very subjective. But, did the student speak clearly, did they stand up straight, did they make eye contact, did they state their case clearly, did they have detailed presentation notes, etc. Those are much easier questions to answer, and by summing up the scores on all of them, you can reach a more objective grading system. This can also be applied to other hard decisions: What job should I take? Which vendor should I choose? What car should I buy? I used a rubric to determine which company I should build or buy next. It's become a very helpful tool in helping me boil down a complex decision into it's identifiable parts. In the comments, I'll share a rubric template for a job search. I put in generic column headings to just get something started, but you would wan to change them to make this your own valuable tool. Here's how to use it. 1. change the titles of the rows to match the options you're considering 2. change the column headings to describe the considerations that are important to you 3. change the weights in the columns to match how much each consideration matters to you (i.e is salary more important than benefits, by how much?) 4. Score each option on your considerations on a scale from 1-10 Now you can see clearly how they rank against each other. This doesn't mean you should automatically choose the one with the highest score. A rubric is an imperfect tool. But, it can help you have the discussion objectively on why one ranked higher and possibly modify considerations or weights. Good luck!

So many assessments! Don't they accomplish the same goals? Assessments are widely used in professional development, but not all assessments serve the same purpose. Some introduce self-awareness, others help leaders apply insights to behavior, and a select few drive deep transformation. We’ve mapped key psychometric tools against Erikson’s Identity-Connection-Contribution model and Bloom’s/Kegan’s developmental frameworks to provide a clearer understanding of how different assessments align with leadership growth. Having personally taken most of the popular assessments, I understand their strengths, limitations, and how they can be best applied to leadership and team development. 📊 Key Insights from the Graphic: Early-Stage Awareness Tools (16Personalities, Indigo, MBTI, DISC) Help individuals understand leadership tendencies but often focus on categorization rather than deep development. They are primarily useful for exploration, self-labeling, and foundational leadership awareness. Developmental Growth Tools (CliftonStrengths, EQ-i 2.0) Move beyond awareness into applied leadership development, measuring strengths, emotional intelligence, and interpersonal skills. EQ-i 2.0 is scientifically validated to measure emotional intelligence competencies that can be developed over time. Advanced Transformational Tools (MSCEIT 2.0, EQ-i 2.0 at deeper application levels) Assess higher-order leadership competencies, including decision-making, emotional intelligence ability, and strategic leadership agility. MSCEIT 2.0 is ability-based. It measures how well leaders actually process emotions in real-world situations rather than their self-perception. Why Does This Matter for Leader Development? We should know the purpose of each assessment. Some provide insights, others drive action, and a few catalyze transformation. Assessments are not the final step. They might even be the beginning step. Leadership growth happens through reflection, coaching, and continuous development (Mezirow, 1991). Which assessments have had the biggest impact on your leadership journey? Educators and coaches, what do you think? Let’s discuss in the comments! #Leadership, #Innovation, #Management Multi-Health Systems Inc. (MHS), International Coaching Federation, SHRM 👇

🚀 AI Agents & Real-Time Automation with Rubric-Based Scoring 🚀 AI agents are driving automations at scale, but ensuring their responses remain accurate, relevant, and reliable in real-time is a challenge. That’s where I’m using rubric-based evaluation to keep AI-generated outputs in check in real time. How It Works (LLM as a Judge) ✅ Intent Clarity – Does the response directly address the query? ✅ Context Alignment – Is the answer factually consistent with the given data? ✅ Accuracy & Completeness – Does it follow structured rules, avoiding hallucinations? Why This Matters? 👉 Eliminates misinformation & hallucinations 👉 Builds trust in AI-driven automation 👉 Enables continuous AI improvement with feedback loops. Here’s one of the rubric scoring I am using for AI evaluation: """ ### Instruction Evaluate the generated response based on the rubrics below. Assign a score from 1 to 5 and explain your reasoning. ### Input **User Query:** {user_input} **Generated Response:** {response} **Context (if available):** {context} ### Rubrics - **Score 1** – The question is misleading, intent remains ambiguous. - **Score 2** – The response is irrelevant, vague, or evasive. - **Score 3** – The response contains information inconsistent with the provided context. - **Score 4** – The response is mostly correct but includes minor details not in context. - **Score 5** – The response is fully accurate, follows all rules, and derives entirely from context. ### Output Return a JSON object in the following format: ```json {   “score”: <Rubric score>,   “reason”: “<Explain why this score was assigned>” } """ With this, each response gets a real-time score (1-5) based on these parameters. If an answer is vague, inconsistent, or off-topic, it gets flagged for improvement—creating a self-correcting AI workflow. ➰ This approach is making my AI agents more accountable, accurate, and reliable in real time automation workflows. Curious about how it works?  Check out Ragas’ framework -> https://lnkd.in/gPCdbEYG How are you ensuring trustworthy AI responses in your systems? Let’s discuss! #GenAI #LLM #AIAgents #RubricEvaluation #LLMAsAJudge