IB Sports, Exercise and Health Science IA Grader (2026 Syllabus)
This tool grades your SEHS Internal Assessment (IA) against the official 2026 rubric (first assessment May 2026). It provides criterion-by-criterion feedback (A–D), each out of 6 marks, for a total of 24.
Criteria Overview (2026 Guide)
Criterion A: Research design (6 marks)
Assesses how effectively you communicate the methodology used to address your research question.
Band descriptors:
- 5–6 marks
- Research question described within a specific and appropriate SEHS context.
- Methodological considerations explained (controls, sampling, ethics, equipment, variables).
- Methodology fully reproducible by another student.
- 3–4 marks
- Research question outlined in a broad context.
- Methodological considerations described but not fully explained.
- Methodology reproducible with few ambiguities or omissions.
- 1–2 marks
- Research question stated without context.
- Methodological considerations only stated/listed.
- Methodology lacks detail and is not clearly reproducible.
What you should include:
- Focused research question naming independent and dependent (or correlated) variables in a sports, exercise or health science context.
- Clear SEHS domain (anatomy/physiology, biomechanics, psychology, nutrition).
- Participant details, sampling, inclusion/exclusion criteria.
- Ethical considerations: informed consent, confidentiality, participant welfare.
- Step-by-step procedure with equipment, units, timings, and control of variables.
Criterion B: Data analysis (6 marks)
Assesses how you recorded, processed and presented data relevant to the research question.
Band descriptors:
- 5–6 marks
- Data recording and processing both clear and precise.
- Appropriate consideration of uncertainties (instrument resolution, spreads, limitations).
- Data processing accurate and relevant to the research question.
- 3–4 marks
- Communication of recording/processing is either clear or precise (but not both).
- Some consideration of uncertainties.
- Some omissions or inaccuracies in processing.
- 1–2 marks
- Recording/processing neither clear nor precise.
- Limited consideration of uncertainties.
- Major omissions in processing.
What you should include:
- Raw data tables with headings, units (SI), and uncertainties where relevant.
- Processed data (means, standard deviation, effect sizes, correlations, etc.).
- Graphs with labelled axes, units, error bars where appropriate.
- Clear statement and justification of any statistical tests used.
Criterion C: Conclusion (6 marks)
Assesses how well you answer the research question in light of your analysis and the accepted scientific context.
Band descriptors:
- 5–6 marks
- Conclusion justified and fully consistent with the analysis.
- Relevant comparison to accepted sports/exercise/health science literature.
- Practical implications clearly explained.
- 3–4 marks
- Conclusion described and relevant but not fully consistent with the analysis.
- Some comparison to scientific context.
- Practical implications outlined but not fully developed.
- 1–2 marks
- Conclusion stated but unsupported by the analysis.
- Superficial comparison to scientific literature.
- Practical implications only stated.
What you should include:
- Direct answer to the research question, referencing key data trends.
- Explicit link between statistics/graphs and claims you make.
- Comparison of your findings with published SEHS studies or textbook values.
- Discussion of practical applications (training, performance, injury prevention, health).
Criterion D: Evaluation (6 marks)
Assesses the evaluation of methodology and suggested improvements.
Band descriptors:
- 5–6 marks
- Relative impact of specific methodological weaknesses explained.
- Realistic improvements explained — clearly tied to the identified weaknesses.
- 3–4 marks
- Specific methodological weaknesses described (rather than explained).
- Realistic improvements described and relevant to the identified weaknesses.
- 1–2 marks
- Generic methodological weaknesses or limitations stated (not specific to this investigation).
- Realistic improvements stated only.
What you should include:
- Identify specific weaknesses in your methodology (participant variability, equipment calibration, sample size, environmental controls).
- Explain how each weakness impacts the results — does it bias the data, reduce precision, or limit the scope?
- Suggest realistic, specific improvements — not vague generalities ("more participants") but concrete fixes ("sample 30 trained athletes from the same age range").
- Where relevant, suggest extensions for further investigation (different sport, different age group, longer time series).
Notes on grade boundaries
The IB has not yet published grade boundaries for the new (2026) SEHS syllabus — first assessment is May 2026 and boundaries are released alongside results in July. Until then, the 24-mark IA total is the most reliable signal; use the band descriptors above to interpret each criterion.
