Comparing Specifications Grading and Standards-Based Grading in Occupational Therapy Education

Comparing Specifications Grading and Standards-Based Grading in Occupational Therapy Education

July 23, 2025

Heather Kuhaneck PhD OTR/L FAOTA

As occupational therapy (OT) education evolves, educators are exploring innovative grading methods to better assess student competencies and enhance learning outcomes. Two promising approaches are Specifications Grading (SG) and Standards-Based Grading (SBG). While both aim to provide clearer, more meaningful assessments, they have distinct features and applications. This blog post compares and contrasts SG and SBG, highlighting where each might be more effective in an OT curriculum.

What is Specifications Grading?

Specifications Grading (SG) focuses on clear, detailed criteria (specifications) for each assignment. Students either meet these criteria or they do not, without partial credit. This method emphasizes mastery of specific tasks and allows for multiple attempts to meet the required specifications.

Specifications grading is about detailing the requirements for a whole product – for example an assignment.

Key Features of SG:

Clear Specifications: Each task has specific, measurable criteria.
Binary Grading: Students either receive a “pass” if they meet the specifications or they may get a “not yet.”
Multiple Attempts: Students can revise and resubmit work until they meet the standards.
Focus on Mastery: Encourages deep learning and mastery of content.

What is Standards-Based Grading?

Standards-Based Grading (SBG) assesses students based on their proficiency in predefined standards or learning objectives. Each standard is evaluated separately, providing detailed feedback on students’ strengths and areas for improvement.

Key Features of SBG:

Defined Standards: Clear, measurable learning objectives.
Proficiency Levels: Students are assessed on a scale indicating their level of proficiency for each standard.
Detailed Feedback: Provides specific feedback on each standard.
Continuous Improvement: Encourages ongoing improvement and learning.

Comparing and Contrasting SG and SBG

Focus and Structure

SG: Emphasizes mastery of specific assignments. Each task has clear specifications that must be met to receive credit. This approach is task-oriented and focuses on the completion of assignments to a set standard.
SBG: Emphasizes overall proficiency in learning objectives. Each standard is assessed individually, allowing for a comprehensive evaluation of student competencies. This approach is outcome-oriented and focuses on continuous assessment of proficiency in various standards.

Method

SG: Uses a binary grading system. Students either meet the specifications or they do not. This clear-cut approach reduces ambiguity but may lack nuance.
SBG: Uses a proficiency scale (e.g., beginning, developing, proficient, exemplary). This method provides more nuanced feedback on students’ progress and areas for improvement.

Feedback and Improvement

SG: Offers opportunities for students to revise and resubmit work until they meet the specifications. This promotes a growth mindset and mastery learning.
SBG: Provides detailed feedback on each standard, helping students understand their proficiency levels and identify areas for improvement. This fosters continuous learning and self-assessment.

Application in OT Education

Where SG Might Work Better:

Skill-Based Assessments: SG is ideal for practical, skill-based assessments where clear specifications can be defined. For example, in a lab setting where students must demonstrate competency in a specific manual therapy technique, SG can ensure that students meet all necessary criteria before progressing.
Capstone Projects: For comprehensive projects that require meeting specific milestones, SG can ensure that students achieve each component to the required standard.

Example: In an OT lab course, students might be required to fabricate a splint. The specifications would include precise criteria for materials, construction, and fit. Students would either meet these specifications or revise their work until they do.

Where SBG Might Work Better:

Clinical Reasoning and Decision-Making: SBG is well-suited for assessing complex cognitive skills like clinical reasoning and decision-making. These skills develop over time and benefit from detailed feedback and a nuanced assessment scale.
Interprofessional Education: When learning objectives include collaboration and communication with other health professionals, SBG can provide a more comprehensive assessment of students’ proficiency in these areas.

Example: Students might be assessed on their ability to develop /implement treatment plans. The standards would include criteria like “identifies appropriate interventions” and “modifies treatment based on client feedback.” Each standard would be assessed separately, providing detailed feedback on proficiency levels.

Can you use both in one course?

YES!!!!!!! Depending on the specific assignment, either may be more appropriate and within one course, you may choose to use both. (see this blog for more about this topic). According to Clark (2024), “It might help to think …. this way: Standards focus at the level of individual skills. Specifications focus at the level of the whole assignment. This means that when you’re deciding to use standards or specifications, you should be thinking about your big-picture goals for a class, and how each assignment contributes to them.”

Conclusion

Specifications Grading and Standards-Based Grading each offer unique advantages for occupational therapy education. By understanding the strengths of each approach, educators can strategically implement SG and SBG in their courses to enhance student learning and competency development.

References

Clark, D. & Talbert, R. (2023). Grading for growth: A guide to alternative grading practices that promote authentic learning and student engagement in higher education. Taylor & Francis.
Nilson, L. B. (2014). Specifications grading: Restoring rigor, motivating students, and saving faculty time. Stylus Publishing, LLC.
Stommel , J. (2023). Undoing the Grade: Why We Grade, and How to Stop. Hybrid Pedagogy, Inc.

Resources

https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2016/01/19/new-ways-grade-more-effectively-essay

https://gradingforgrowth.com/p/standards-or-specifications

https://gradingforgrowth.com/p/planning-for-grading-for-growth-the

https://www.amherst.edu/offices/center-teaching-learning/a—z-resources/alternative-grading-and-assessment