Posted: October 27th, 2022

Group 4 Week 6 DB_CI

 

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
Order Essay

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.

      HSCI 7302 Professional Proposal Writing
      Proposal Development Part 1 Assignment Instructions and Grading Rubric
      Assignment Instructions
      Grading Rubric

    • No Credit (0 points)
    • Needs Improvement (1 points)
    • Developing (2 points)
    • Proficient (3 points)
    • Exemplary (4 points)
      Element

    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.

      HSCI 7302 Professional Proposal Writing
      Proposal Development Part 2 Assignment Instructions and Grading Rubric
      Assignment Instructions
      Grading Rubric
      Brief Description
      Public = (NIH)

    • Private = Educational/Foundation
    • No Credit (0 points)
    • Needs Improvement (1 points)
    • Developing (2 points)
    • Proficient (3 points)
    • Exemplary (4 points)
      Element

    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.

      HSCI 7302 Professional Proposal Writing
      Proposal Development Part 2 Assignment Instructions and Grading Rubric
      Assignment Instructions
      Grading Rubric
      Brief Description
      Public = (NIH)

    • Private = Educational/Foundation
    • No Credit (0 points)
    • Needs Improvement (1 points)
    • Developing (2 points)
    • Proficient (3 points)
    • Exemplary (4 points)
      Element

    Expert paper writers are just a few clicks away

    Place an order in 3 easy steps. Takes less than 5 mins.

    Calculate the price of your order

    You will get a personal manager and a discount.
    We'll send you the first draft for approval by at
    Total price:
    $0.00

    Order your essay today and save 30% with the discount code ESSAYHELP