All Sports, Exercise and Health Science guides

Sports Science IA Criteria Guide

Use the rubric to build a clear investigation, collect reliable data, and explain the results with confidence.

For assessment in 2026 and 2027. This guide helps you turn an athletic, physiological, or health question into an investigation that reads cleanly against the assessment criteria from first draft to final evaluation.

Assessment criteria

What each criterion measures, how many marks it carries, and what stronger evidence usually looks like.

Criterion names, marks and mark bands follow the IB subject guide. The band descriptions are our own summaries, so check your subject guide for the exact wording.

Criterion A: Research design (6 marks)

How clearly the report sets out its research question in context and explains a method someone else could repeat.

Stronger evidence
The question is set in a specific, well-chosen context, method considerations are explained, and the method is detailed enough for someone else to repeat.
Early-stage evidence
The research question appears without context, method considerations are only mentioned, and the method is too thin for someone else to repeat.

Criterion B: Data analysis (6 marks)

How clearly and precisely the report records and processes data, including uncertainties, in ways that answer the question.

Stronger evidence
Recording and processing are clear and precise, uncertainties are handled appropriately, and the processing is correct and relevant to the question.
Early-stage evidence
Recording and processing are hard to follow and imprecise, uncertainties are barely considered, and processing has major gaps or errors.

Criterion C: Conclusion (6 marks)

How well the conclusion answers the research question from the analysis and compares the result with accepted science.

Stronger evidence
The conclusion is justified, fully consistent with the analysis, and supported by a relevant comparison with accepted science. Practical implications are explained.
Early-stage evidence
A relevant conclusion is given, but the analysis does not support it and the comparison with accepted science is superficial. Practical implications are stated.

Criterion D: Evaluation (6 marks)

How well the report judges the weaknesses of its method and suggests realistic improvements.

Stronger evidence
The report explains how much each specific weakness affected the results and explains realistic improvements that target them.
Early-stage evidence
Only generic weaknesses are named, and realistic improvements are simply listed.

Mark bands

Want to know where your IA sits in these bands? Upload your draft and get a mark for each criterion.

Grade my IA

How to build it

Most weak drafts fail on order, not on ideas.

  1. 1

    Lock a focused research question

    Choose a question that is narrow enough to test, but important enough to justify the time and effort of a full investigation.

  2. 2

    Design an appropriate exploration

    Explain your variables, sampling, and controls clearly so the investigation is reproducible and methodologically sound.

  3. 3

    Process data carefully

    Show the maths, statistics, and uncertainty handling that make your results credible and relevant to the hypothesis.

  4. 4

    Evaluate the evidence

    Support the conclusion with processed data and uncertainty, compare it with scientific sources, and explain implications for health or performance. Match improvements to specific weaknesses.

Before you submit

  • The question is specific, measurable, and grounded in SEHS content.
  • Variables, controls, and safety/ethics are addressed where appropriate.
  • Data processing is accurate and presented in a way the reader can follow.
  • The conclusion explains what the findings could mean for health or performance, as well as answering the question.

Quick wins

  • State the hypothesis in a way that names the independent and dependent variables.
  • Annotate graphs so their takeaway is obvious without extra narration.
  • Use the evaluation to explain the impact of limitations instead of just listing them.

Check Your SEHS IA Against the Assessment Criteria

Marksy helps you spot weak method, weak analysis, and weak evaluation before they turn into lost marks. The result includes a mark for every criterion, evidence from your draft, and the changes to make first.

Start IA GradingSee Pricing
  1. 1

    Upload your IA draft as a PDF

  2. 2

    Get a mark and feedback for every IA criterion

  3. 3

    Revise and grade the new version

A mark for every criterion
A mark for every criterionSee where the draft is now, criterion by criterion.
Comments on your sentences
Comments on your sentencesEach comment points at the passage it is about.
What to fix first
What to fix firstConcrete next edits instead of "improve your analysis".