I · Research Protocol
Criterion 3 / 20
25%
Coherence Between Objectives and Hypothesis
Coherencia entre Objetivos e Hipótesis
We evaluate whether the research objectives, hypothesis, and methodology are logically aligned — forming a coherent investigation chain.
Scoring Breakdown
5
Excellent
- Objectives are specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-bound (SMART)
- Hypothesis is testable and directly derived from the problem
- Methodology is designed to test the hypothesis
- Clear logical flow from problem → objective → hypothesis → method
4
Good
- Objectives are mostly SMART
- Hypothesis is plausible and related
- Methodology mostly aligned
- Minor gaps in logical flow
3
Acceptable
- Objectives present but not fully SMART
- Hypothesis exists but weakly connected
- Some alignment but inconsistencies present
- Methodology partially justifies the hypothesis
2
Insufficient
- Objectives are general or unclear
- Hypothesis is vague or absent
- Methodology disconnected from objectives
- No clear logical structure
1
Poor
- No objectives defined
- No hypothesis present
- No logical connection across sections
- Project lacks scientific structure
Common Mistakes
- ✘Objectives that begin with "know" or "understand" instead of action verbs
- ✘Hypothesis stated as fact rather than testable prediction
- ✘Methodology that doesn't address the hypothesis
- ✘Too many objectives making the project unfocused
Evaluator Focus
- SMART objective quality
- Testability of hypothesis
- Methodological alignment
- Logical structure
How to Get 5 Points
- ✔Does each objective start with a measurable verb (analyze, measure, compare)?
- ✔Can your hypothesis be proven true or false with your method?
- ✔Does your method directly test your hypothesis?
- ✔Is there a clear chain: problem → objective → hypothesis → method?
Universal Scoring Scale
1
Poor
2
Insufficient
3
Acceptable
4
Good
5
Excellent
←Back to Rubric
Criterion 3 of 20