Development of Criteria. The evaluation rubric was designed to determine the appropriateness and accuracy of works that include characters with disabilities. Rubric criteria were chosen by integrating two areas of research. First, selection criteria suggested by the American Library Association (2017a; 2017b) for children’s, adolescent, and adult literature informed selection of rubric items. Next, research investigating ways to promote social inclusion of individuals with disabilities through literature was used to further refine criteria so that each criterion addresses the accuracy and appropriateness of disability characterizations and portrayals (Andrews, 1998; Dyches & Prater, 2000; Dyches, Prater, & Jenson, 2006; Landrum, 1999; Nasatir & Horn, 2003; Prater, Dyches, & Johnstun, 2006; Price, Ostrosky, & Mouzourou, 2016).  Based on the research, evaluative criteria were grouped into eight (8) areas or “literary features”.

Literary features assessed by the evaluation rubric are:

1. Physical Appearance;
2. Characterization;
3. Style;
4. Plot;
5. Setting;
6. Theme;
7. Point of View; and,
8. Reader Response.

Scoring. Rubric scores can be used to help educators determine how a work of literature portrays characters with disabilities. The rubric can be completed by an individual teacher or media specialist. The rubric can also be scored collaboratively by raters with knowledge of disabilities and a background in general education, special education, or English education. If used collaboratively, the two raters should use the rubric together discussing their reasons for giving the score to each criterion item on the rubric.

The rubric yields two types of scores. These scores allow rater(s) to critically analyze each of the eight literary features separately or assess the overall portrayal of disability in the work being rated.

Literary Feature Scores. Literary feature scores are obtained by summing the columns marked, “yes”; “no”; “unsure”; and, “n/a” for each of the eight literary areas evaluated. These literary feature scores allow the rater(s) to critically examine how the work of literature meets research-based standards for that specific feature. The higher the number of “yes” responses for  each feature, the more accurately and positively the work addresses that feature. For example, a  high number of “yes” responses for Physical Appearance indicates that the format and illustrations in the work being rated depict characters with disabilities more accurately and positively. Similarly, a “yes” for Reader Response means that the work allows readers to create their own meaning about disability and stimulates positive thinking and appropriate discussions.  Literary feature scores allow the rater to make more detailed analysis of the work being rated by  focusing on each of the eight areas on the rubric separately.

Final Rubric Score. A second type of score–the final rubric score—reflects the overall evaluation of the literary work. It represents the overall impression regarding disability that readers are likely to take away from the work. The question being assessed by the final rubric score is: Does the work being rated present an accurate and positive overall view of disability or does the work present inaccurate and negative impressions of disability?

The final rubric score is obtained by summing the columns marked, “yes”; “no”; and, “unsure” for all of the eight literary features. The final rubric score is simply the number of criterion items marked “yes” by the rater(s) over the entire rubric. The higher the final rubric score, the more accurately and positively the work portrays characters with disability. It is important for raters to understand, however, the even works with a low final rubric score can be used to teach about disability. Part 2 of this guide will help teachers plan appropriate instruction no matter what the work’s final rubric score.