Posted: October 27th, 2022

Week 6 Assignment: Proposal Submission_CI

 

  1. Review any previously provided feedback and consider any suggested revisions.
  2. Create a title, if not already done so.
  3. Please place the title of the project on the APA formatted cover page.
  4. Include the name and link of the funding source (identified in Week 2) on the title/cover page as well.
  5. 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. 
  6. Compose an abstract, if not already done so.
  7. Double check the reference list, making sure each reference on the list is cited in text and each in text citation has a corresponding entry within the reference list.
  8. Add any necessary appendices.
  9. Confirm inclusion of all required elements (found in the table above) for the type of proposal being submitted (private or public).  
  10. Verify accuracy of APA formatting. For the purposes of this assignment, please follow the guidelines of the APA 7th Edition Student Paper Checklist.
  11. Make sure to use APA formatted heading and subheadings throughout the document.
  12. After final review of the grading rubric, please upload the completed document into the assignment link.

T.Forman, PhD, RN-BC, CNE 1

Don't use plagiarized sources. Get Your Custom Essay on
Week 6 Assignment: Proposal Submission_CI
Just from $13/Page
Order Essay
  • HSCI 7302 Professional Proposal Writing
  • Proposal Submission Assignment Instructions and Grading Rubric

    After reviewing all the required course content, and any feedback provided on the Proposal Part
    1, Proposal Part 2, and the Budget Preparation assignments, submit the complete, final version
    of the proposal created throughout this course.

    Private = Educational/Foundation Public = (NIH) Brief Description
    Title/Cover Page Title/Cover Page May be created at any point in time

    during the project. A good title is
    concise, accurate, and informative.
    Tricky or cute titles are discouraged.
    The general rule of thumb is to avoid
    titles that make the grant reviewer
    confused or uncertain.

    Abstract (500 words) Abstract (30 lines) May be created at any time during the
    project. A professionally written abstract
    should make the grant reviewer want to
    read your proposal first.

    Table of Contents Table of Contents May be created at any time during the
    project. Please make sure to verify the
    page numbers are correct before
    submission of the final version of the
    proposal.

    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.

    T. Forman, PhD, RN-BC, CNE 2

    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.

    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.

    Budget (with justification) Budget (with justification) The budget should be very detailed and
    include name of line item, budgeted
    amount, and a narrative description of
    why the item is needed (justification) for
    successful completion of the project.

    References References Should be created and updated
    throughout the duration of the proposal
    preparation process.

    Any necessary appendices Any necessary appendices Appendices may or may not be
    necessary. For example, if a survey is
    being done or perhaps focus groups
    are being interviewed – the appendices
    would include copies of the survey
    and/or interview questions.

    https://grants.nih.gov/grants/forms/biosketch.htm

    T. Forman, PhD, RN-BC, CNE 3

    Assignment Instructions
    1. Review any previously provided feedback and consider any suggested revisions.
    2. Create a title, if not already done so.
    3. Please place the title of the project on the APA formatted cover page.
    4. Include the name and link of the funding source (identified in Week 2) on the title/cover

    page as well.
    5. 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.
    6. Compose an abstract, if not already done so.
    7. Double check the reference list, making sure each reference on the list is cited in text

    and each in text citation has a corresponding entry within the reference list.
    8. Add any necessary appendices.
    9. Confirm inclusion of all required elements (found in the table above) for the type of

    proposal being submitted (private or public).
    10. Verify accuracy of APA formatting. For the purposes of this assignment, please follow

    the guidelines of the APA 7th Edition Student Paper Checklist.
    11. Make sure to use APA formatted heading and subheadings throughout the document.
    12. After final review of the grading rubric, please upload the completed document into the

    assignment link.
    .

    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 Title is concise, accurate,
    and representative of the
    proposed project.

    Funding source
    information – including
    both link and private vs.
    public noted on cover
    page.

    Complete funding
    source
    information (link
    and
    private/public)
    included but title
    is not.

    Title is
    included but is
    not concise
    nor
    representative
    of the
    proposed
    project.

    OR

    Funding
    source
    information is
    missing one of
    the two
    elements: 1)
    link, or 2)
    private vs.
    public
    notation.

    Title included
    but the funding
    source
    information is
    missing both the
    link and private
    vs. public
    notation.

    Not
    included.

    Abstract Abstract is 500 words or
    less (private funding
    source format).

    OR

    Abstract is 501-
    550 words
    (private funding
    source format).

    Abstract is 550
    to 600 words
    (private
    funding source
    format)

    Abstract is
    longer than 600
    words (private
    funding source
    format).

    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 4

    Element

    (Private OR Public)
    Exemplary (4 points) Proficient (3
    points)
    Developing (2
    points)
    Needs
    Improvement (1
    points)
    No Credit
    (0 points)

    Abstract is 30 lines or
    less (public funding
    source format).

    OR

    Abstract is 31-35
    lines in length
    (public funding
    source format).

    OR

    Abstract is 36-
    40 lines in
    length (public
    funding source
    format).

    OR

    Abstract is more
    than 40 lines in
    length (public
    funding source
    format).

    Table of Contents Page Complete, accurate, well-
    formatted.

    Complete with
    accurate page
    numbers but
    formatting could
    be improved.

    Included but
    some page
    numbers
    inaccurate.

    Incomplete,
    inaccurate, and
    incorrectly
    formatted.

    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
    the same regardless of
    private vs. public funding
    source.

    Introduction
    providing an
    overview of the
    main idea(s)
    included but the
    importance of the
    project was not
    made clear to the
    reader.

    Importance of
    the project
    discussed in
    the
    introduction
    but the
    overview of
    the main
    idea(s) of the
    project were
    not made clear
    to the reader.

    Introduction is
    lengthy, off
    topic, and does
    not make it clear
    to the reader
    what problem
    this proposed
    project is
    seeking to solve.

    Not
    included.

    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.

    An adequate
    description of the
    importance and
    significance of
    the idea being

    An incomplete
    or inadequate
    description of
    the importance
    and
    significance of

    After reading
    this section of
    the proposal the
    reader asks
    themselves “so
    what?” –

    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)

    *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

    proposed
    provided.

    the idea being
    proposed
    provided.

    indicating that a
    clear,
    compelling case
    for the proposed
    idea has not
    been made.

    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.

    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

    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.

    T. Forman, PhD, RN-BC, CNE 6

    Element

    (Private OR Public)
    Exemplary (4 points) Proficient (3
    points)
    Developing (2
    points)
    Needs
    Improvement (1
    points)
    No Credit
    (0 points)

    will be determined to
    earn full credit for this
    grading rubric element.

    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

    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 7

    Element

    (Private OR Public)
    Exemplary (4 points) Proficient (3
    points)
    Developing (2
    points)
    Needs
    Improvement (1
    points)
    No Credit
    (0 points)

    as journals or
    conferences.

    *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.

    Adequate
    explanation of
    how and why the
    organization is
    qualified and has
    the necessary
    resources (such
    as computers,
    libraries,
    administrative
    staff) to

    Incomplete
    explanation of
    how and why
    the
    organization is
    qualified and
    has the
    necessary
    resources
    (such as
    computers,

    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

    Not
    included.

    T. Forman, PhD, RN-BC, CNE 8

    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.

    Private funding source =
    Institutional Qualification

    Public funding source =
    Resources

    successfully
    complete the
    project.

    libraries,
    administrative
    staff) to
    successfully
    complete the
    project.

    resources to
    successfully
    complete the
    project.

    Budget with justification Direct and indirect costs
    line items are all
    allocable, allowable, and
    reasonable for the
    proposed project have
    been provided.

    Complete, detailed
    description of the
    purpose of the line items
    is provided.

    Math is correct.

    Direct and
    indirect costs line
    items do not
    meet one of the
    following criteria:
    Allocable,
    Allowable, or
    Reasonable.

    An adequate
    description of the
    purpose of the
    line item is
    provided.

    Math has one
    error.

    Direct and
    indirect costs
    line items do
    not meet two
    of the
    following
    criteria:
    Allocable,
    Allowable, or
    Reasonable.

    An incomplete
    description of
    the purpose of
    the line item is
    provided.

    Two math
    errors.

    Direct and
    indirect costs
    line items have
    been included
    but are not
    allocable,
    allowable, or
    reasonable for
    the proposed
    project.

    Description of
    line item(s)
    provided does
    not seem to be
    relevant to the
    proposed
    project.

    Three or more
    math errors.

    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 have
    been cited as
    well.

    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 9

    Element

    (Private OR Public)
    Exemplary (4 points) Proficient (3
    points)
    Developing (2
    points)
    Needs
    Improvement (1
    points)
    No Credit
    (0 points)

    More than ½ of
    the references
    listed were
    published > 5
    years ago.

    Most of the
    journal articles
    cited were
    published > 5
    years ago.

    Appendices Presentation of
    information provided in all
    appendices is clear and
    understandable and adds
    to the overall quality of
    the proposal.

    Or no appendices
    included – not necessary.
    Not every proposal will
    need appendices
    included.

    Appendices
    included are
    appropriate but
    understandability
    of their relevance
    to the proposal is
    not completely
    clear.

    Appendices
    included are
    appropriate
    but are
    seemingly
    incomplete.

    For example, a
    survey is
    being done as
    part of the
    proposal and a
    place for the
    survey tool
    appendix has
    been created
    but the survey
    questions
    have not been
    included.

    Appendices
    included are not
    needed or are
    relevant to the
    project.

    None
    included
    when it
    seems
    they
    should
    have
    been.

    For
    example,
    a survey
    is being
    done as
    part of the
    proposal,
    but the
    survey
    tool was
    not
    included
    as an
    appendix.

    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 Submission 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

    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