Posted: March 11th, 2023

Case Study: Decision Making Assignment

Case study must be a minimum of 3 full pages of original discussion and analysis, not
counting the title page, reference page, figures, tables, and appendixes. The statements in each
Case Study must be supported by at least 1 scholarly reference, cited throughout the narrative
and placed on the reference list in the APA format. Organize content under Level 1 headings.  

CASE INFORMATION AND QUESTIONS ATTACHED

Criteria Ratings Points

Topic,
domains
and
concepts

35 to >31 pts

Advanced

Clearly addresses the
topic assigned, stays on
topic, evaluates all
domains,
comprehensive in
content, uses terms and
concepts from reading,
demonstrates clarity of
expression. Statements
are supported by at
least 1 scholarly source
published within the past
five years, correctly
cited throughout the
narrative.

31 to >28 pts

Proficient

Addresses the topic
assigned, stays on
topic, evaluates most
domains, discusses
content, uses terms
and concepts from
reading, and
demonstrates clarity of
expression. Statements
are supported by at
least 1 scholarly source
published within the
past five years, cited at
least once in the
narrative.

28 to >

0 pts

Developing

Does a poor to fair job of
addressing the topic
assigned, stays on topic,
evaluates some domains,
discusses content, does
not use terms and
concepts from reading,
does not demonstrate
clarity of expression.
Statements are not
supported by at least 1
scholarly source
published within the past
five years and cited in the
narrative.

0 pts

Not Present

Failing.
Student shows
evidence of
refusal or
inability to
provide the
required
content.

3

5 pts

Work
Habits

30 to >27 pts

Advanced

Superior work in all
areas. Student
consistently exceeds
minimal expectations in
all areas regarding
content analysis,
synthesis, and
evaluation of topics,
participation, timeliness,
and writing style.

27 to >24 pts

Proficient

Good work in most
areas. Student
demonstrates minor
deficiencies in some
areas regarding
content, analysis,
writing style, and/or
participation.

24 to >0 pts

Developing

Poor to fair work in most
areas. Student exhibits
need for improvement in
most areas regarding
content, analysis, writing
style, and/or participation.

0 pts

Not Present

Failing.
Student shows
evidence of
refusal or
inability to
meet minimum
standards of
work.

30 pts

Personal
application

5 to >4 pts

Advanced

The student provides
thorough applications as
a result of his/her
professional life.

4 to >3 pts

Proficient

The student provides
good applications as a
result of his/her
professional life.

3 to >0 pts

Developing

The student provides poor
to fair applications as a
result of his/her
professional life.

0 pts

Not Present

The student
provides zero
applications as
a result of
his/her
professional
life.

5 pts

Case Study Grading Rubric | BUSI643_B01_202320

Criteria Ratings Points

APA
Formatting

10 to >9 pts

Advanced

APA format followed,
organizes content under
APA headings, no large
filler quotes, clearly
does not plagiarize,
clearly finds supportive
reasons in reading and
applies them in the case
study. APA-formatted
reference list and in-text
citations are included.

9 to >7 pts

Proficient

APA format followed
most of the time,
headings contained
some errors, has no
large filler quotes, does
not plagiarize, finds
supportive reasons in
reading and applies
them in the case study.
Reference list and
in-text citations contain
2 – 5 errors.

7 to >0 pts

Developing

APA format inconsistent
throughout; missing
headings; some large filler
quotes; does not
plagiarize; finds few
supportive reasons in
reading and applies them
in the case study;
reference list, in-text
citations, and headings
contain more than 5
errors.

0 pts

Not Present

APA format
was not
followed; large
filler quotes
present; does
not plagiarize;
does not find
supportive
reasons in
reading or
apply them in
the case study;
reference list
and in-text
citations are
not included.

10 pts

Spelling,
Grammar
and
Mechanics

10 to >9 pts

Advanced

The Case Study begins
with a title page and was
typed in 12-point Times
New Roman fonts on all
pages; all pages were
double-spaced; 1-inch
margins on all four sides
were used.
Correct grammar and
punctuation were
present throughout.
Correct spelling and
spacing were present
throughout.
The paper was typed in
a formal style and
written in the third
person.

9 to >7 pts

Proficient

Some errors with the
title page, 12-point
Times New Roman
fonts, double-spacing;
or 1-inch margins were
present.
Some errors with errors
with one or more of the
following were present:
• Grammar, and/or;
• Punctuation, and/or,
• Spelling, and/or;
• Spacing.
Some errors with
formal style and/or third
person were present.
1 – 3 errors were
present.

7 to >0 pts

Developing

Significant errors with the
title page, 12-point Times
New Roman fonts,
double-spacing; align text
left; extra spacing; or
1-inch margins were
present.
Significant errors with one
or more of the following
were present:
• Grammar, and/or;
• Punctuation, and/or,
• Spelling, and/or;
• Spacing.
Significant errors with
formal style and/or third
person were present.
More than 3 errors were
present.

0 pts

Not Present

Errors with
spelling,
grammar,
and/or
mechanics
were so
pervasive that
the readability
and level of
scholarship of
the paper were
substantially
reduced.

10 pts

Case Study Grading Rubric | BUSI643_B01_202320

Criteria Ratings Points

Page
count

10 to >9 pts

Advanced

At least 3 complete
pages of original
graduate-level analysis,
evaluation, and
discussion (plus title
page, reference page,
and tables or figures).

9 to >7 pts

Proficient

At least 2.9 pages of
original graduate-level
analysis, evaluation,
and discussion (plus
title page, reference
page, and tables or
figures).

7 to >0 pts

Developing

2.0 – 2.8 pages of original
graduate-level analysis,
evaluation, and
discussion (plus title
page, reference page,
and tables or figures).

0 pts

Not Present

Less than 2
pages
submitted.

10 pts

Total Points: 100

Case Study Grading Rubric | BUSI643_B01_202320

Utility Concerns in Choosing an Assessment Method

Randy May is a 32-year-old airplane mechanic for a small airline based on Nantucket Island, Massachusetts. Recently, Randy won $2 million in the New England lottery. Because Randy is relatively young, he decided to invest his winnings in page 603a business to create a future stream of earnings. After weighing many investment options, Randy chose to open up a chain of ice cream shops in the Cape Cod area. (As it turns out, Cape Cod and the nearby islands are short of ice cream shops.) Randy reviewed his budget and figured he had enough cash to open shops on each of the two islands (Nantucket and Martha’s Vineyard) and two shops in small towns on the Cape (Falmouth and Buzzards Bay). Randy contracted with a local builder, and the construction/renovation of the four shops is well under way.

The task that is occupying Randy’s attention now is how to staff the shops. Two weeks ago, he placed advertisements in three area newspapers. So far, he has received 100 applications. Randy has done some informal HR planning and figures he needs to hire 50 employees to staff the four shops. Being a novice at this, Randy is unsure how to select the 50 people he needs to hire. Randy consulted his friend Mary, who owns the lunch counter at the airport. Mary told Randy that she used interviews to get “the most knowledgeable people possible” and recommended it to Randy because her people had “generally worked out well.” While Randy greatly respected Mary’s advice, on reflection some questions came to mind. Does Mary’s use of the interview mean that it meets Randy’s requirements? How can Randy determine whether his chosen method of selecting employees is effective or ineffective?

Confused, Randy also sought the advice of Professor Ray Higgins, from whom Randy took an HR management course while getting his business degree. After learning of the situation and offering his consulting services, Professor Higgins suggested that Randy choose one of two selection methods (after paying Professor Higgins’s consulting fees, he cannot afford to use both methods). The two methods Professor Higgins recommended are the interview (as Mary recommended) and a work sample test that entails scooping ice cream and serving it to a customer. Randy estimates that it would cost $100 to interview an applicant and $150 per applicant to administer the work sample. Professor Higgins told Randy that the validity of the interview in predicting overall job performance for customer service employees is r = .30, while the validity of the work sample in predicting overall job performance is r = .50. Professor Higgins also informed Randy that the selection ratio is probably fairly high because there are not a lot of job seekers and because the minimum wage he plans on paying is not likely to attract people in this area.

Randy would really appreciate it if you could help him answer the following questions:

1.
What parts of this information seem most important for the choice of selection measures? How does each piece of information fit with the “choice of assessment method” discussion?

2.
If Randy can use only one method, which should he use?

3.
If the number of applicants for these jobs increases dramatically (more applications are coming in than Randy expected), how will your answers to questions 1 and 2 change?

4.
What are some additional pieces of information you would like to have before committing to any of these options? What other criteria might be relevant?