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

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