The QOL Reviewer Form is now closed.

 

Fourth Annual NSU/CCB Quality of Life Faculty Community-Based Applied Research Grant Application and Review Procedures

Instructions

You have received proposals from various academic centers, and it is possible that they are not in your area of expertise. Evaluating proposals from different areas presents a series of challenges. Typically, a wide range of responses will be acceptable, and every proposal will have some merit. Consequently, evaluating diverse proposals demands your close attention to ensure that each is judged by the same standards.

We have developed a rubric to help guide you in the evaluation process. Some general guidelines follow:
  1. Read the proposals at least once before you start the evaluation process;
  2. Do not compare proposals, but evaluate each on its own merit;
  3. Evaluate the proposals globally rather than focusing on the proposal's minutia;

Use the rubric provided below.

Name of Reviewer:
Reviewer's Email:
Reviewer's ID:
Proposal ID:
Title of Evaluated Proposal:

 

1. Collaboration: Multi-center or multi-college collaborative project
     
  Not Observed = 0
     
  Inadequate = 1.0
Little or no evidence of collaboration (even if the PI has indicated that two centers are involved)
     
  1.5
     
  Marginally Adequate = 2.0
Some evidence of collaboration (some outline of what contribution each center member will make)
     
  2.5
     
 

Adequate = 3.0
Evidence of collaboration is clear and well presented
     
  3.5
     
  Superior = 4.0
Extensive and well coordinated collaboration very clearly and systematically stated
     
2. Reliance on an established body of knowledge: Proposal has evidence of scholarship in exploring the literature and peer reviewed empirical research.
   
  Not Observed = 0
     
  Inadequate = 1.0
Little or no evidence in the proposal that the applied research to be conducted is reliant upon an established body of knowledge
     
  1.5
     
  Marginally Adequate = 2.0
Some limited evidence that the proposal is based upon an established body of knowledge as reflected in citations of a few works of research
     
 

2.5
     
  Adequate = 3.0
Evidence of scholarship is well developed as demonstrated through the citation of a substantial number of key works of peer reviewed empirical researchers.
     
  3.5
     
  Superior = 4.0
Exemplary scholarship as demonstrated through a thorough citation of recent seminal and landmark studies. It is very clear that this proposal will build upon and add to the work of others.
   
3. Objectives: The proposal has very logical and clearly stated objectives
   
  Not Observed = 0
     
  Inadequate = 1.0
Objectives are not evident; clearly stated; or do not match the purpose of the study
     
  1.5
     
  Marginally Adequate = 2.0
There is a statement of objectives however they are vague and unclear.
     
  2.5
     
  Adequate = 3.0
The statement of Objectives for the proposal is generally logical and clear.
     
  3.5
     
  Superior = 4.0
The statement of the Objectives for the proposal is extremely clear, logically developed and match the proposal very well.
   
4. Design of the study is consistent with quality applied research methodology.
   
  Not Observed = 0
     
  Inadequate = 1.0
The design of the study does not conform to applied research methodology.
     
  1.5
     
  Marginally Adequate = 2.0
The design of the study, while having elements of applied research methods, has obvious flaws.
     
  2.5
     
  Adequate = 3.0
The design of the study is generally sound and conforms to good applied research methods.
     
  3.5
     
  Superior = 4.0
The design of the study is extremely sound and exemplifies the best in quality applied research methodology.
   
5. Data collected are appropriate to achieve stated outcomes.
   
  Not Observed = 0
     
  Inadequate = 1.0
It is doubtful that any of the data collected will contribute to stated outcomes of the study.
     
  1.5
     
  Marginally Adequate = 2.0
Data collected may be appropriate to achieve stated outcomes however not a particularly good match.
     
  2.5
     
  Adequate = 3.0
Data collected will be appropriate to achieve stated outcomes and matches well.
     
  3.5
     
  Superior = 4.0
Data collected will be extremely appropriate and leaves no doubt that stated outcomes have been achieved.
   
6. Appropriate methods of data analysis.
   
  Not Observed = 0
     
  Inadequate = 1.0
No clear evidence stated of how data will be analyzed.
     
  1.5
     
  Marginally Adequate = 2.0
Some methods of data analysis seem appropriate but others do not.
     
  2.5
     
  Adequate = 3.0
Methods of data analysis are generally appropriate and seem to match the purpose.
     
  3.5
     
  Superior = 4.0
Methods of data analysis are extremely sound and match the stated purpose well.
   
7. Benefits of outcomes to participants/community are clearly described.
   
  Not Observed = 0
     
  Inadequate = 1.0
The proposal is unclear as to what will be the benefits if any of the outcomes to the participants/community.
     
  1.5
     
  Marginally Adequate = 2.0
There is limited indication of the benefits of the outcomes to the participants/community.
     
  2.5
     
  Adequate = 3.0
The proposal generally establishes the nature of the benefits of the outcomes to the participants/community.
     
  3.5
     
  Superior = 4.0
The proposal is clearly designed to produce outcomes that will greatly benefit the participants/community.
   
8. The Study adheres to Ethical Guidelines for Research with Human Subjects.
   
  Not Observed = 0
     
  Inadequate = 1.0
The proposal appears to be potentially harmful to participants/community.
     
  1.5
     
  Marginally Adequate = 2.0
The proposal will need some clarification of certain methods that could be harmful.
     
  2.5
     
  Adequate = 3.0
The proposal generally adheres to ethical guidelines for research with human subjects.
     
  3.5
     
  Superior = 4.0
The proposal has obviously taken great care to protect the subjects and completely adheres to ethical guidelines.
   
9. Likelihood of proposal plan reaching stated outcomes/deliverables.
   
  Not Observed = 0
     
  Inadequate = 1.0
The authors of this proposal were dreaming in technicolor! No way!
     
  1.5
     
  Marginally Adequate = 2.0
There is limited likelihood that stated outcomes or deliverables will be achieved.
     
  2.5
     
  Adequate = 3.0
There is a good possibility that stated outcomes/deliverables will be achieved.
     
  3.5
     
  Superior = 4.0
It is extremely likely that this plan will achieve stated outcomes and deliverables.
   
10. Budget items are applied directly to the research. (qualitatively)
   
  Not Observed = 0
     
  Inadequate = 1.0
Budgeted items are unrealistic and appropriated for items not directly related to the research.
     
  1.5
     
  Marginally Adequate = 2.0
Some budget items are applied to research while others seem to not apply.
     
  2.5
     
  Adequate = 3.0
Budget items generally apply directly to the research.
     
 

3.5
     
  Superior = 4.0
Budget items are creatively applied to research in such a way as to receive the biggest impact for the dollar.
   
11. Budget is reasonable. (quantitatively)
   
  Not Observed = 0
     
  Inadequate = 1.0
The proposal budget really does not make sense.
     
  1.5
     
  Marginally Adequate = 2.0
The budget has limited reason.
     
 

2.5
     
  Adequate = 3.0
Budget is generally reasonable.
     
  3.5
     
  Superior = 4.0
The budget is well thought out, reasonable and clearly presented.
   
12. Dissemination of findings will be effective.
   
  Not Observed = 0
     
  Inadequate = 1.0
The proposal does not give clear indication of how findings will be disseminated.
     
  1.5
     
  Marginally Adequate = 2.0
The proposal lists some possible dissemination of findings but these seem to be not well thought out.
     
  2.5
     
  Adequate = 3.0
The proposal states a plan to disseminate the findings in a logical manner.
     
  3.5
     
  Superior = 4.0
There is a well developed and clear plan to disseminate the findings in a very effective manner.
   
13. Contribution to the existing body of knowledge.
   
  Not Observed = 0
     
  Inadequate = 1.0
It is doubtful that this study will contribute anything to the existing body of knowledge related to the topic.
     
  1.5
     
  Marginally Adequate = 2.0
The study has limited potential to contribute to the existing body of knowledge.
     
  2.5
     
  Adequate = 3.0
This study has the potential to generally add to the existing body of knowledge on this topic.
     
  3.5
     
  Superior = 4.0
This study has the potential to be a valuable contribution to the existing body of knowledge.
   
14. Involvement of an NSU graduate student.
  Not Observed = 0
     
  Inadequate = 1.0
This study does not indicate any real opportunity for involving a graduate student.
     
  1.5
     
  Marginally Adequate = 2.0
There is limited use and involvement of an NSU graduate student.
     
  2.5
     
  Adequate = 3.0
An NSU graduate student is used in a valuable and meaningful manner in this study.
     
  3.5
     
  Superior = 4.0
An NSU graduate student is an integral part of this study in such a manner that it will expand their research skill repertoire.
     
15. Potential for external funding.
     
  Not Observed = 0
     
  Inadequate = 1.0
There is little to no chance that this project would receive external funding.
     
  1.5
     
  Marginally Adequate = 2.0
There is limited potential for this project to receive external funding.
     
  2.5
     
  Adequate = 3.0
There is a good possibility that this project will receive external funding.
     
  3.5
     
  Superior = 4.0
Strong likelihood proposed research will generate external funding.
     
16. To fund or not to fund.
     
  Not Observed = 0
     
  Inadequate = 1.0
This study should not be funded.
     
  1.5
     
  Marginally Adequate = 2.0
Limited consideration to funding this study.
     
  2.5
     
  Adequate = 3.0
This study should be considered for funding.
     
  3.5
     
  Superior = 4.0
This study should definitely receive funding.

Comments regarding proposal:

characters left

Comments to Administration:

characters left


 

 
Nova Southeastern University | | Contact us: @nova.edu | Revised: April 16, 2008