Rating and Justifying Performance Indicators


The University of Queensland's research higher degree programs are structured to assist candidates to develop the attributes described in the Statement of Research Higher Degree Graduate Attributes during candidature and to complete a high quality assessable thesis in a timely manner. School and institutes are therefore asked to provide an assessment of performance indicators at

  • admission to candidature, and
  • attainment of each progression milestone.

This structured assessment process documents and verifies the candidate's

  • readiness to commence their RHD program at admission, and
  • acquisition and development of these graduate attributes during candidature.
Graduate Attributes and Performance Indicators

The five RHD graduate attributes are

  1. knowledge and skills in field of study;
  2. effective communication;
  3. critical judgement and research skills;
  4. independence, creativity and learning; and
  5. ethical and social understanding.

These attributes map to the two sets of performance indicators that have been established (one for admission, the other for progression milestones).

Completing the Performance Indicators Assessment

All assessments of performance indicators reflect qualitative, evidence-based judgements by academic staff from the enrolling school or institute. The assessment reflects disciplinary norms and expectations held by the school or institute (or the discipline group within), and indicates how well individuals match the school/institute/group's expectations (informed by UQ policy and past experience) for that stage of the RHD program. In most cases, a preliminary assessment is made by the advisory team, then reviewed by the postgraduate coordinator.

Each performance indicator requires

  1. a rating of the candidate on a spectrum from "outstanding" to "unsatisfactory", and
  2. a one-paragraph, concise and evidence-based justification written using language suitable for an academic audience without specialist disciplinary knowledge that explains what evidence has been obtained and why that evidence supports the chosen rating.

The Dean needs both elements to make an informed decision about the candidate's performance to date. It is particularly important to write justifications that make sense to an academic audience without specialist knowledge of your discipline (that is, the Dean of the UQ Graduate School). If the Dean cannot make a fully informed decision, the RHD Unit will ask for further clarification.

For example, if a candidate is "above average" for their level of analytical skills, and "outstanding" for their engagement with the school and wider institution, what are they doing that makes the advisory team assess them as better than the typical/average candidate in the school/discipline group at this milestone? The answer to that question is what should be included in the justification/comment for the performance indicator to explain to the Dean of the UQ Graduate School why the candidate is average, above average, and so on.

The Dean has provided examples of suitably detailed justifications for performance indicators for use as references by advisors and postgraduate coordinators when writing justifications for their candidates.

Common issues with rating and justifying performance indicators

1. Not rating an indicator because it is not applicable

All indicators are applicable at all stages, and reflect differing disciplinary expectations. If an indicator is not rated or justified, the RHD Unit will ask for further clarification about those disciplinary expectations.

This situation occurs most commonly when completing the "peer-reviewed publications" performance indicator for applicants with no publications: a typical justification is "not applicable - no publications". In that situation, the assessment should consider whether or not it is typical and expected for an applicant to have no publications. If yes, then the applicant should be rated as "average", because they meet the disciplinary expectation for an applicant.

2. Justifications that refer the reader to attached documentary evidence without explaining what to look for

For example, "see applicant's CV" or "see confirmation report". The Dean doesn't know which part of the CV or the confirmation report informed the disciplinary experts' rating. This is especially problematic when the rating is "outstanding" or "above average". It should also be noted that the Dean relies on the information provided in the justification, not the documentary evidence, when making decisions about progress: attached documents can supplement the justification, but do not supersede it.

In this situation, the justification should explain what in the documentary evidence led to giving the applicant a particular rating. For example, "applicant's CV indicates 2 years of involvement in industry research projects, which is better than expected for applicants undertaking this sort of research project" or "confirmation report demonstrated solid understanding of area of research, but more work is required to establish a feasible plan for fieldwork and data collection - candidate is aware of issues, but has yet to address them in a systemic way".

3. Justifications that ask the reader to accept another's judgement without explanation

For example, explanations for indicators like "interactive skills" that rate the candidate as "above average" because of "interaction with advisors". This is especially problematic when the rating is anything other than "average".

In this situation, the justification should explain what it is about the interaction with advisors that makes the candidate above average: for example, "candidate addresses questions well when interacting with advisors, and demonstrated competence and confidence when handling question about poster presentation at conference earlier this year".
feedback