IB Sports, Exercise & Health Science Internal Assessment guide

What this criterion assesses

The methodology (purpose and practice) used to address the research question effectively communicated: a focused question in a specific sport/exercise/health context, the relevant variables (or groups being compared), methodological choices explained, and enough detail to reproduce the investigation.

Mark band descriptors

Criterion: Research design (0–6) — the extent to which the report effectively communicates the methodology (purpose and practice) used to address the research question:
- 0: The report does not reach a standard described below.
- 1–2: The research question is stated without context; methodological considerations are stated but not developed; the description of the method lacks the detail needed to reproduce the investigation.
- 3–4: The research question is outlined within a broad sport, exercise or health context; methodological considerations (variables or comparison groups, protocol, participant considerations) are described; the method could be reproduced with few ambiguities.
- 5–6: The research question is described within a specific and appropriate context; methodological considerations associated with collecting relevant and sufficient data are explained; the description of the method allows the investigation to be reproduced.
[Adapted from the sciences scientific-investigation model per the 2026 SEHS guide structure; not verbatim band wording.]

What this criterion assesses

Data recorded, processed and presented in ways relevant to the research question: clear and precise communication (tables, graphs, units, significant figures), appropriate consideration of uncertainties and variability, and processing carried out appropriately and accurately.

Mark band descriptors

Criterion: Data analysis (0–6) — the extent to which the data is recorded, processed and presented in ways relevant to the research question:
- 0: The report does not reach a standard described below.
- 1–2: The recording and processing of data is communicated but is neither clear nor precise, with limited consideration of uncertainties; processing contains major omissions, inaccuracies or inconsistencies.
- 3–4: The communication of the recording and processing of data is either clear or precise; uncertainties and variability are considered with some significant omissions; processing relevant to the research question is carried out with some significant errors.
- 5–6: The communication of the recording and processing of the data is both clear and precise; uncertainties and participant variability are appropriately considered; the processing relevant to the research question is carried out appropriately and accurately.
[Adapted from the sciences scientific-investigation model per the 2026 SEHS guide structure; not verbatim band wording.]

What this criterion assesses

The research question answered with regard to the analysis and the accepted scientific context — a justified conclusion consistent with the data and its limitations, compared against published research or accepted theory, and considering the implications of the findings for real-world sport, exercise or health practice.

Mark band descriptors

Criterion: Conclusion (0–6) — the extent to which the research question is answered with regard to the analysis and the accepted scientific context:
- 0: The report does not reach a standard described below.
- 1–2: A conclusion is stated that is relevant to the research question but is not supported by the analysis; comparison to the accepted scientific context is superficial; implications of the findings are not considered.
- 3–4: A conclusion is described that is relevant to the research question but not fully consistent with the analysis; some relevant comparison to the accepted scientific context is made; implications of the findings for real-world examples are stated.
- 5–6: A conclusion is justified that is relevant to the research question and fully consistent with the analysis; it is justified through relevant comparison to the accepted scientific context (published research, theory); and the implications of the findings on real-world examples (e.g. whether a measured difference is meaningful for actual performance or health) are discussed.
[Adapted from the sciences scientific-investigation model per the 2026 SEHS guide structure, including the SEHS-specific real-world implications descriptor; not verbatim band wording.]

What this criterion assesses

Evidence of evaluation of the investigation methodology with suggested improvements: specific weaknesses and limitations (protocol, participant variability, measurement) weighed for their relative impact on the conclusion, with realistic improvements that address them.

Mark band descriptors

Criterion: Evaluation (0–6) — the extent to which the report provides evidence of evaluation of the investigation methodology and suggested improvements:
- 0: The report does not reach a standard described below.
- 1–2: Generic methodological weaknesses or limitations are stated; realistic improvements are stated.
- 3–4: Specific methodological weaknesses or limitations are described; realistic improvements that are relevant to the identified weaknesses are described.
- 5–6: The relative impact of specific methodological weaknesses or limitations on the conclusion is explained; realistic improvements relevant to the identified weaknesses are explained.
[Adapted from the sciences scientific-investigation model per the 2026 SEHS guide structure; not verbatim band wording.]