Review what you have learned about the role of Institutional Review Boards in the grant proposal application process. Discuss three obstacles a grant writer might encounter relevant to Institutional Review Board approval.
Don't use plagiarized sources. Get Your Custom Essay on
Group 4 Week 6 DB_CI
Just from $13/Page
T.Forman, PhD, RN-BC, CNE 1
HSCI 7302 Professional Proposal Writing
Proposal Development Part 1 Assignment Instructions and
Grading Rubric
After reviewing all the required course content, please compose the elements of the proposal
requested for the Proposal Development Part 1 Assignment.
Private = Educational/Foundation Public = (NIH) Brief Description
Title/Cover Page Title/Cover Page Title may be created at any point in
time during the project. However, the
funding source and a designation of
whether it is private or public is required
for the Proposal Part 1 submission.
This is necessary for the instructor to
be able to capably grade the
submission.
Introduction/Problem Statement Introduction/Problem Statement One introductory paragraph should
provide the grant reviewed a general
overview of the main idea of the project
and its important.
Goals/Objectives Specific Aims Goals are clear, concise, statements
representative of what will be achieved
upon completion of the proposed
project.
Each goal should have underlying
specific objectives. Objectives need to
be measurable. Objectives usually
include words such as increase,
describe, reduce, or enhance.
Specific aims are used for a research
proposal submitted to the NIH. Aims
are similar to objectives in that they
stem from a statement about the
purpose of the research and concisely
describe what will be tested or
evaluated and should be measurable.
Background/Significance Significance This section should provide a clear,
compelling description of the
importance and significance of the idea
being proposed.
Literature Review/Theoretical
Foundation
Significance In this section other published literature
relevant to the proposed idea needs to
be summarized. It should include only
the most pertinent and current
literature.
Innovation Innovation The innovation section should address
the ways in which an idea is innovation.
Explain how the idea is new and
different from anything that has been
done before.
References References Should be created and updated
throughout the duration of the proposal
preparation process.
T. Forman, PhD, RN-BC, CNE 2
Assignment Instructions
1. Create a title/cover page.
2. Include on the cover page the name and link of the funding source (identified in Week 2).
Inclusion of the title on the cover page is optional for this submission.
3. Make sure to clearly identify the funding source as private or public. This information will
indicate to the instructor which proposal format you have chosen.
4. Instructors reserve the right to not grade any submissions without the private or public
designation information included.
5. Confirm inclusion of all required elements (found in the table above) for the type of
proposal being submitted (private or public).
6. Verify accuracy of APA formatting. For the purposes of this assignment, please follow
the guidelines of the APA 7th Edition Student Paper Checklist.
7. Make sure to use APA formatted heading and subheadings throughout the document.
8. After final review of the grading rubric, please upload the completed document into the
assignment link.
*This assignment is eligible for revision, resubmission, and regrading, if the
initial score earned is less than 90%. However, to meet the eligibility
requirements, the original version of the assignment must have been complete
and submitted on or before the due date/time. In other words, if the
assignment is submitted late or is incomplete, the option to revise and
resubmit for regrading has been forfeited.
Grading Rubric
Element
(Private OR Public)
Exemplary (4 points)
Proficient (3
points)
Developing (2
points)
Needs
Improvement (1
points)
No Credit
(0 points)
Title/Cover Page Finding source information
on title/cover page
includes:
1. Link
2. Private vs. public
funding source noted.
Title is not necessary until
the Week 6 submission.
Funding
source
information is
missing the
link.
Funding source
information is
missing the
private vs.
public funding
source
notation.
Neither link nor
private vs.
funding source
noted; therefore,
the instructor has
no idea what
format the
student has
chosen to follow.
Title/cover
page not
included.
Introduction or Problem
Statement
Introduction providing a
clear overview of the main
idea(s) of the project and
its importance included.
*Information included in
this section is essentially
Introduction
providing an
overview of
the main
idea(s)
included but
the
Importance of
the project
discussed in
the introduction
but the
overview of the
main idea(s) of
Introduction is
lengthy, off topic,
and does not
make it clear to
the reader what
problem this
proposed project
Not
included.
https://apastyle.apa.org/instructional-aids/publication-manual-formatting-checklist
https://apastyle.apa.org/instructional-aids/heading-template-student-paper
T. Forman, PhD, RN-BC, CNE 3
Element
(Private OR Public)
Exemplary (4 points) Proficient (3
points)
Developing (2
points)
Needs
Improvement (1
points)
No Credit
(0 points)
the same regardless of
private vs. public funding
source.
importance of
the project
was not
made clear to
the reader.
the project
were not made
clear to the
reader.
is seeking to
solve.
Goals/Objectives OR
Specific Aims
Clear, concise, goals
stating what will be
achieved by project. Each
goal has at least one
underlying, measurable
objective included (private
funding source format).
OR
Specific aims concisely
describe what will be
tested or evaluated and
are measurable. The
specific aims also address
the hypothesis if there is
one, and the way in which
the aim will be approached
(public funding source
format).
The goals
with
measurable
objectives
stating what
will be
achieved by
the project
are included
but improved
clarity
needed
(private
funding
source
format).
OR
Measurable
specific aims
are included
but improved
clarity
needed
(public
funding
source
format).
The objectives
(of the goals)
OR the specific
aims for the
project included
but some of
them are
immeasurable
(for both private
and public
funding
sources).
The
goals/objectives
OR specific aims
for the project are
either unclear to
the reader or
complete
immeasurable
(for both private
and public
funding sources).
Not
included.
Background/Significance
OR Significance
Clear, compelling
description of the
importance and
significance of the idea
being proposed provided.
*Information included in
this section is essentially
the same regardless of
private vs. public funding
source but the correct
heading must be used.
Private funding source =
Background/Significance
Public funding source =
Significance
An adequate
description of
the
importance
and
significance
of the idea
being
proposed
provided.
An incomplete
or inadequate
description of
the importance
and
significance of
the idea being
proposed
provided.
After reading this
section of the
proposal the
reader asks
themselves “so
what?” –
indicating that a
clear, compelling
case for the
proposed idea
has not been
made.
Not
included.
T. Forman, PhD, RN-BC, CNE 4
Element
(Private OR Public)
Exemplary (4 points) Proficient (3
points)
Developing (2
points)
Needs
Improvement (1
points)
No Credit
(0 points)
Literature Review OR
Significance
Summarizes and
insightfully synthesizes the
most pertinent and current
literature related to the
proposed project, including
an analysis of any noted
gaps and/or limitations in
the research.
*Information included in
this section is essentially
the same regardless of
private vs. public funding
source but the correct
heading must be used.
Private funding source =
Literature Review
Public funding source =
Significance
Both a
summary and
synthesis of
the literature
provided.
A summary of
the overall
picture of the
literature is
provided but
there is no
synthesis of the
information or
knowledge
gained.
There is no
summary or
synthesis of
information
discovered in the
literature
included. Each
article is reported
as a standalone
piece of
information.
OR
The information
included seems
to misinterpret
the literature.
Not
included.
Innovation A complete, detailed
explanation of how the
proposed project is new
and different from anything
that has ever been done
before is provided.
*Information included in
this section is essentially
the same regardless of
private vs. public funding
source.
The reader
can see the
innovative
potential of
the proposed
project after
review of the
provided
explanation.
The reader is
unclear if the
proposed
project is
innovative or
not after review
of the provided
explanation.
The innovation
section provides
no information to
the reader about
why or how the
proposed project
is different from
anything else
already done.
Not
included.
References Reference list contains
comprehensive list of
scholarly academic
resources.
Most of the resources are
from empirical peer-
reviewed journals
published within the last
five years.
Reference list
contains an
adequate list
of scholarly
academic
resources.
Some of the
resources are
from
empirical
peer-
reviewed
journals
published
within the last
five years but
some non-
scholarly
resources
Reference list
contains some
scholarly
academic
resources.
Several non-
scholarly
resources
cited. For
example,
websites,
blogs,
newspapers, or
article from
non-peer
reviewed
journals.
Reference list
contains no
resources that
would not be
commonly
considered
scholarly
academic
resources.
Not
included.
T. Forman, PhD, RN-BC, CNE 5
Element
(Private OR Public)
Exemplary (4 points) Proficient (3
points)
Developing (2
points)
Needs
Improvement (1
points)
No Credit
(0 points)
have been
cited as well.
More than ½
of the
references
listed were
published > 5
years ago.
Most of the
journal articles
cited were
published > 5
years ago.
APA Formatting Free of any APA formatting
errors.
One to three
APA
formatting
errors.
Four to five
APA formatting
errors.
Six APA
formatting errors.
Seven or
more APA
formatting
errors.
Grammar and Spelling Free of any grammar and
spelling errors.
One to three
grammar or
spelling
errors.
Four to five
grammar or
spelling errors.
Six spelling or
grammar errors.
Seven or
more
spelling
and
grammar
errors.
T.Forman, PhD, RN-BC, CNE 1
HSCI 7302 Professional Proposal Writing
Proposal Development Part 2 Assignment Instructions and Grading Rubric
After reviewing all the required course content, please compose the elements of the proposal
requested for the Proposal Development Part 2 Assignment.
Private =
Educational/Foundation
Public = (NIH)
Brief Description
Title/Cover Page Title/Cover Page Title may be created at any point in
time during the project. However, the
funding source and a designation of
whether it is private or public is required
for the Proposal Part 2 submission.
This is necessary for the instructor to
be able to capably grade the
submission.
Preliminary or Pilot Data Approach This section is where any preliminary
findings should be included that
demonstrate to the grant reviewers the
grant writing team has the ability to
successfully complete the project
proposed.
Methodology or Research Plan Approach This section includes a step by step,
logical, detailed plan of how the project
will be completed.
Dissemination Plan Dissemination Plan A description of how the grant writer
plans to let others know about the
results of the project. For example,
presentations or publications.
Timeline Timeline The timeline should be detailed and
cover the entire expanse of the grant
from funding to completion.
Team Credentials Biosketch This section addresses the
qualifications of the personnel being
tasked to complete the project.
The Biosketch format can be
downloaded here. There are
instructions and examples provided as
well.
Institutional Qualifications Resources This section addresses how and why
the organization has the necessary
resources (such as computers,
libraries, administrative staff) to
successfully complete the project.
References References Should be created and updated
throughout the duration of the proposal
preparation process.
Assignment Instructions
1. Create a title/cover page.
https://grants.nih.gov/grants/forms/biosketch.htm
T. Forman, PhD, RN-BC, CNE 2
2. Include on the cover page the name and link of the funding source (identified in Week 2).
Inclusion of the title on the cover page is optional for this submission.
3. Make sure to clearly identify the funding source as private or public. This information will
indicate to the instructor which proposal format you have chosen.
4. Instructors reserve the right to not grade any submissions without the private or public
designation information included.
5. Confirm inclusion of all required elements (found in the table above) for the type of
proposal being submitted (private or public).
6. Verify accuracy of APA formatting. For the purposes of this assignment, please follow
the guidelines of the APA 7th Edition Student Paper Checklist.
7. Make sure to use APA formatted heading and subheadings throughout the document.
8. After final review of the grading rubric, please upload the completed document into the
assignment link.
*This assignment is eligible for revision, resubmission, and regrading, if the
initial score earned is less than 90%. However, to meet the eligibility
requirements, the original version of the assignment must have been complete
and submitted on or before the due date/time. In other words, if the
assignment is submitted late or is incomplete, the option to revise and
resubmit for regrading has been forfeited.
Grading Rubric
Element
(Private OR Public)
Exemplary (4 points)
Proficient (3
points)
Developing (2
points)
Needs
Improvement (1
points)
No Credit
(0 points)
Title/Cover Page Finding source
information on title/cover
page includes:
1. Link
2. Private vs. public
funding source
noted.
Title is not necessary until
the Week 6 submission.
Funding source
information is
missing the link.
Funding source
information is
missing the
private vs.
public funding
source notation.
Neither link nor
private vs.
funding source
noted; therefore,
the instructor
has no idea
what format the
student has
chosen to follow.
Title/cover
page not
included.
Preliminary/Pilot Data
OR Approach
For this course, it is
unlikely anyone will be
able to report preliminary
findings, please provide a
description of how the
feasibility of the project
will be determined to earn
full credit for this grading
rubric element.
N/A (if project
feasibility
discussed – full
credit = 4 points
will be earned).
N/A (if project
feasibility
discussed – full
credit = 4 points
will be earned).
N/A (if project
feasibility
discussed – full
credit = 4 points
will be earned).
Not
included.
https://apastyle.apa.org/instructional-aids/publication-manual-formatting-checklist
https://apastyle.apa.org/instructional-aids/heading-template-student-paper
T. Forman, PhD, RN-BC, CNE 3
Element
(Private OR Public)
Exemplary (4 points) Proficient (3
points)
Developing (2
points)
Needs
Improvement (1
points)
No Credit
(0 points)
Preliminary findings
should be included that
demonstrate the ability to
successfully complete the
project proposed.
*Information included in
this section is essentially
the same regardless of
private vs. public funding
source but the correct
heading must be used.
Private funding source =
Preliminary or Pilot Data
Public funding source =
Approach
Methodology/Research
Plan OR Approach
A step by step, logical,
detailed plan of how the
project will be completed
has been provided. The
plan is so detailed that
someone else could
follow it and reproduce
the project with the same
or similar results.
*Information included in
this section is essentially
the same regardless of
private vs. public funding
source but the correct
heading must be used.
Private funding source =
Methodology/Research
Plan
Public funding source =
Approach
An adequate
plan of how the
project will be
completed has
been provided.
The plan
provided is
incomplete and
more details are
needed for the
reader to
understand how
the project will
be completed.
The plan
provided is so
vague the
reader is unsure
exactly how the
project will be
completed.
Not
included.
Dissemination Plan Full detailed description
of how the grant writer
plans to let others know
about the results of the
project provided. For
example, specific
platforms identified such
as journals or
conferences.
An adequate
dissemination
plan included.
A dissemination
plan is included
but does not
seem
reasonable or
realistic.
Vague
dissemination
plan included.
Not
included.
T. Forman, PhD, RN-BC, CNE 4
Element
(Private OR Public)
Exemplary (4 points) Proficient (3
points)
Developing (2
points)
Needs
Improvement (1
points)
No Credit
(0 points)
*Information included in
this section is essentially
the same regardless of
private vs. public funding
source but the correct
heading must be used.
Timeline Detailed timeline covering
the expanse of the
proposed project
included.
*Information included in
this section is essentially
the same regardless of
private vs. public funding
source.
An adequate
timeline with
some details
included.
Timeline
included but
seems to be
incomplete and
does not appear
to cover the
expanse of the
proposed
project.
Timeline
included but
unrealistic.
Not
included.
Team Credentials
OR
Biosketch
Qualifications of the grant
writer or other personnel
tasked with the
completion of the project
included (private funding
source format).
OR
Completed NIH Biosketch
for the grant writer
included (public funding
source format).
Private funding source =
Institutional Qualification
Public funding source =
Resources
Incomplete
qualifications of
the grant writer
or other
personnel
tasked with the
completion of
the project
included (private
funding source
format).
OR
Incomplete NIH
Biosketch for
the grant writer
included (public
funding source
format).
Incorrect
qualifications of
the grant writer
or other
personnel
tasked with the
completion of
the project
included (private
funding source
format).
OR
Incorrect NIH
Biosketch for
the grant writer
included (public
funding source
format).
Team
credentials or
Biosketch
provided but
inappropriate for
identified
funding source.
For example, a
Biosketch
provided for the
grant writer
when the
funding source
has been
designated
private.
Not
included.
Institutional
Qualification OR
Resources
Comprehensive
explanation of how and
why the organization is
qualified and has the
necessary resources
(such as computers,
libraries, administrative
staff) to successfully
complete the project.
*Information included in
this section is essentially
the same regardless of
private vs. public funding
source but the correct
heading must be used.
Adequate
explanation of
how and why
the organization
is qualified and
has the
necessary
resources (such
as computers,
libraries,
administrative
staff) to
successfully
complete the
project.
Incomplete
explanation of
how and why
the organization
is qualified and
has the
necessary
resources (such
as computers,
libraries,
administrative
staff) to
successfully
complete the
project.
Explanation
provided within
this section of
the document
does not make it
clear to the
reader than the
organization is
qualified and
has the
necessary
resources to
successfully
complete the
project.
Not
included.
T. Forman, PhD, RN-BC, CNE 5
Element
(Private OR Public)
Exemplary (4 points) Proficient (3
points)
Developing (2
points)
Needs
Improvement (1
points)
No Credit
(0 points)
Private funding source =
Institutional Qualification
Public funding source =
Resources
References Reference list contains
comprehensive list of
scholarly academic
resources.
Most of the resources are
from empirical peer-
reviewed journals
published within the last
five years.
Reference list
contains an
adequate list of
scholarly
academic
resources.
Some of the
resources are
from empirical
peer-reviewed
journals
published within
the last five
years but some
non-scholarly
resources have
been cited as
well.
More than ½ of
the references
listed were
published > 5
years ago.
Reference list
contains some
scholarly
academic
resources.
Several non-
scholarly
resources cited.
For example,
websites, blogs,
newspapers, or
article from non-
peer reviewed
journals.
Most of the
journal articles
cited were
published > 5
years ago.
Reference list
contains no
resources that
would not be
commonly
considered
scholarly
academic
resources.
Not
included.
APA Formatting Free of any APA
formatting errors.
One to three
APA formatting
errors.
Four to five APA
formatting
errors.
Six APA
formatting
errors.
Seven or
more APA
formatting
errors.
Grammar and Spelling Free of any grammar and
spelling errors.
One to three
grammar or
spelling errors.
Four to five
grammar or
spelling errors.
Six spelling or
grammar errors.
Seven or
more
spelling
and
grammar
errors.
T.Forman, PhD, RN-BC, CNE 1
HSCI 7302 Professional Proposal Writing
Proposal Development Part 2 Assignment Instructions and Grading Rubric
After reviewing all the required course content, please compose the elements of the proposal
requested for the Proposal Development Part 2 Assignment.
Private =
Educational/Foundation
Public = (NIH)
Brief Description
Title/Cover Page Title/Cover Page Title may be created at any point in
time during the project. However, the
funding source and a designation of
whether it is private or public is required
for the Proposal Part 2 submission.
This is necessary for the instructor to
be able to capably grade the
submission.
Preliminary or Pilot Data Approach This section is where any preliminary
findings should be included that
demonstrate to the grant reviewers the
grant writing team has the ability to
successfully complete the project
proposed.
Methodology or Research Plan Approach This section includes a step by step,
logical, detailed plan of how the project
will be completed.
Dissemination Plan Dissemination Plan A description of how the grant writer
plans to let others know about the
results of the project. For example,
presentations or publications.
Timeline Timeline The timeline should be detailed and
cover the entire expanse of the grant
from funding to completion.
Team Credentials Biosketch This section addresses the
qualifications of the personnel being
tasked to complete the project.
The Biosketch format can be
downloaded here. There are
instructions and examples provided as
well.
Institutional Qualifications Resources This section addresses how and why
the organization has the necessary
resources (such as computers,
libraries, administrative staff) to
successfully complete the project.
References References Should be created and updated
throughout the duration of the proposal
preparation process.
Assignment Instructions
1. Create a title/cover page.
https://grants.nih.gov/grants/forms/biosketch.htm
T. Forman, PhD, RN-BC, CNE 2
2. Include on the cover page the name and link of the funding source (identified in Week 2).
Inclusion of the title on the cover page is optional for this submission.
3. Make sure to clearly identify the funding source as private or public. This information will
indicate to the instructor which proposal format you have chosen.
4. Instructors reserve the right to not grade any submissions without the private or public
designation information included.
5. Confirm inclusion of all required elements (found in the table above) for the type of
proposal being submitted (private or public).
6. Verify accuracy of APA formatting. For the purposes of this assignment, please follow
the guidelines of the APA 7th Edition Student Paper Checklist.
7. Make sure to use APA formatted heading and subheadings throughout the document.
8. After final review of the grading rubric, please upload the completed document into the
assignment link.
*This assignment is eligible for revision, resubmission, and regrading, if the
initial score earned is less than 90%. However, to meet the eligibility
requirements, the original version of the assignment must have been complete
and submitted on or before the due date/time. In other words, if the
assignment is submitted late or is incomplete, the option to revise and
resubmit for regrading has been forfeited.
Grading Rubric
Element
(Private OR Public)
Exemplary (4 points)
Proficient (3
points)
Developing (2
points)
Needs
Improvement (1
points)
No Credit
(0 points)
Title/Cover Page Finding source
information on title/cover
page includes:
1. Link
2. Private vs. public
funding source
noted.
Title is not necessary until
the Week 6 submission.
Funding source
information is
missing the link.
Funding source
information is
missing the
private vs.
public funding
source notation.
Neither link nor
private vs.
funding source
noted; therefore,
the instructor
has no idea
what format the
student has
chosen to follow.
Title/cover
page not
included.
Preliminary/Pilot Data
OR Approach
For this course, it is
unlikely anyone will be
able to report preliminary
findings, please provide a
description of how the
feasibility of the project
will be determined to earn
full credit for this grading
rubric element.
N/A (if project
feasibility
discussed – full
credit = 4 points
will be earned).
N/A (if project
feasibility
discussed – full
credit = 4 points
will be earned).
N/A (if project
feasibility
discussed – full
credit = 4 points
will be earned).
Not
included.
https://apastyle.apa.org/instructional-aids/publication-manual-formatting-checklist
https://apastyle.apa.org/instructional-aids/heading-template-student-paper
T. Forman, PhD, RN-BC, CNE 3
Element
(Private OR Public)
Exemplary (4 points) Proficient (3
points)
Developing (2
points)
Needs
Improvement (1
points)
No Credit
(0 points)
Preliminary findings
should be included that
demonstrate the ability to
successfully complete the
project proposed.
*Information included in
this section is essentially
the same regardless of
private vs. public funding
source but the correct
heading must be used.
Private funding source =
Preliminary or Pilot Data
Public funding source =
Approach
Methodology/Research
Plan OR Approach
A step by step, logical,
detailed plan of how the
project will be completed
has been provided. The
plan is so detailed that
someone else could
follow it and reproduce
the project with the same
or similar results.
*Information included in
this section is essentially
the same regardless of
private vs. public funding
source but the correct
heading must be used.
Private funding source =
Methodology/Research
Plan
Public funding source =
Approach
An adequate
plan of how the
project will be
completed has
been provided.
The plan
provided is
incomplete and
more details are
needed for the
reader to
understand how
the project will
be completed.
The plan
provided is so
vague the
reader is unsure
exactly how the
project will be
completed.
Not
included.
Dissemination Plan Full detailed description
of how the grant writer
plans to let others know
about the results of the
project provided. For
example, specific
platforms identified such
as journals or
conferences.
An adequate
dissemination
plan included.
A dissemination
plan is included
but does not
seem
reasonable or
realistic.
Vague
dissemination
plan included.
Not
included.
T. Forman, PhD, RN-BC, CNE 4
Element
(Private OR Public)
Exemplary (4 points) Proficient (3
points)
Developing (2
points)
Needs
Improvement (1
points)
No Credit
(0 points)
*Information included in
this section is essentially
the same regardless of
private vs. public funding
source but the correct
heading must be used.
Timeline Detailed timeline covering
the expanse of the
proposed project
included.
*Information included in
this section is essentially
the same regardless of
private vs. public funding
source.
An adequate
timeline with
some details
included.
Timeline
included but
seems to be
incomplete and
does not appear
to cover the
expanse of the
proposed
project.
Timeline
included but
unrealistic.
Not
included.
Team Credentials
OR
Biosketch
Qualifications of the grant
writer or other personnel
tasked with the
completion of the project
included (private funding
source format).
OR
Completed NIH Biosketch
for the grant writer
included (public funding
source format).
Private funding source =
Institutional Qualification
Public funding source =
Resources
Incomplete
qualifications of
the grant writer
or other
personnel
tasked with the
completion of
the project
included (private
funding source
format).
OR
Incomplete NIH
Biosketch for
the grant writer
included (public
funding source
format).
Incorrect
qualifications of
the grant writer
or other
personnel
tasked with the
completion of
the project
included (private
funding source
format).
OR
Incorrect NIH
Biosketch for
the grant writer
included (public
funding source
format).
Team
credentials or
Biosketch
provided but
inappropriate for
identified
funding source.
For example, a
Biosketch
provided for the
grant writer
when the
funding source
has been
designated
private.
Not
included.
Institutional
Qualification OR
Resources
Comprehensive
explanation of how and
why the organization is
qualified and has the
necessary resources
(such as computers,
libraries, administrative
staff) to successfully
complete the project.
*Information included in
this section is essentially
the same regardless of
private vs. public funding
source but the correct
heading must be used.
Adequate
explanation of
how and why
the organization
is qualified and
has the
necessary
resources (such
as computers,
libraries,
administrative
staff) to
successfully
complete the
project.
Incomplete
explanation of
how and why
the organization
is qualified and
has the
necessary
resources (such
as computers,
libraries,
administrative
staff) to
successfully
complete the
project.
Explanation
provided within
this section of
the document
does not make it
clear to the
reader than the
organization is
qualified and
has the
necessary
resources to
successfully
complete the
project.
Not
included.
T. Forman, PhD, RN-BC, CNE 5
Element
(Private OR Public)
Exemplary (4 points) Proficient (3
points)
Developing (2
points)
Needs
Improvement (1
points)
No Credit
(0 points)
Private funding source =
Institutional Qualification
Public funding source =
Resources
References Reference list contains
comprehensive list of
scholarly academic
resources.
Most of the resources are
from empirical peer-
reviewed journals
published within the last
five years.
Reference list
contains an
adequate list of
scholarly
academic
resources.
Some of the
resources are
from empirical
peer-reviewed
journals
published within
the last five
years but some
non-scholarly
resources have
been cited as
well.
More than ½ of
the references
listed were
published > 5
years ago.
Reference list
contains some
scholarly
academic
resources.
Several non-
scholarly
resources cited.
For example,
websites, blogs,
newspapers, or
article from non-
peer reviewed
journals.
Most of the
journal articles
cited were
published > 5
years ago.
Reference list
contains no
resources that
would not be
commonly
considered
scholarly
academic
resources.
Not
included.
APA Formatting Free of any APA
formatting errors.
One to three
APA formatting
errors.
Four to five APA
formatting
errors.
Six APA
formatting
errors.
Seven or
more APA
formatting
errors.
Grammar and Spelling Free of any grammar and
spelling errors.
One to three
grammar or
spelling errors.
Four to five
grammar or
spelling errors.
Six spelling or
grammar errors.
Seven or
more
spelling
and
grammar
errors.
