This paper investigates how people applied and perceived the utility of rubrics for evaluating the quality of Open Educational Resources, and whether teachers and non-teachers showed differences. Forty-four participants evaluated 20 OER using three quality rubrics (comprised of 17 indicators), and reported their perceptions. Results showed that some indicators were more difficult to apply, some indicators resulted in higher ratings of OER, and teachers generally provided higher ratings. Additionally, theoretically related indicators tended to cluster together, as well as indicators from individual rubrics. Sixteen out of the 17 indicators had good inter-rater reliability, with non-teachers' ratings having generally higher agreement values. Finally, participants gave positive ratings about the utility of these indicators, with no significant difference between teachers and non-teachers.