Learning Center
Plans & pricing Sign in
Sign Out



  • pg 1
									                               National League for Nursing
                  Nursing Education Research Grant Proposal Review Rubric

 The Proposal Review Rubric below is being used for the 2012 grant cycle. Components of the rubric
 are not weighted. Components that are not applicable for a given proposal are not included in the
 percentage score. Applicable components that are missing will receive a 0 and the component will be
 included in the percentage score. We will provide only the summary comments to applicants on a
 pilot basis.
                                 PROPOSAL REVIEW RUBRIC
                          Excellent = 4      Good = 3           Fair = 2           Poor = 1         0 or
1. Consistency with           Highly         Consistent with Some                  Little
one or more of the          consistent       one or more of consistency            consistency
NLN Nursing                 with one or      the sub-topics  with one or           with the sub-
Education Research          more of the                      more of the           topics
Priorities                  sub-topics                       sub-topics
2. Soundness of plan       Clear study       Clear study    No plan, but           No plan and
to maintain                protocol          protocol       study protocol         study protocol
consistency among          including plan    including plan is clear               is not clear
multiple study sites       for regular       for regular
(if appropriate)           communicatio      communication
                           n and checks
3. Clarity of purpose      Very clear        Clear purpose      Purpose mostly     Purpose not
                           purpose                              clear              clear

4. Adequacy of             Background        Background         Background         Limited
background and             clearly           provides some      and need for       background or
need for the study to      identifies need   need for the       the study not      need for the
advance nursing            for the study     study              very clear         study
education science

5. Significance to         Very high         High               Fair               Limited
nursing education          significance      significance for   significance for   significance
(i.e., outcomes            for nursing       nursing            nursing            for nursing
proposed, impact           education         education          education          education
anticipated, potential
to improve nursing
                        Excellent = 4        Good = 3           Fair = 2           Poor = 1          0 or
6.Theoretical/conce    Theoretical/          Theoretical/       Limited clarity    No clarity or
ptual basis, if        conceptual            Conceptual         and relevance      relevance for
applicable             basis for study       basis for study    for theoretical/   theoretical/
                       is very clear         is clear and       conceptual         Conceptual
                       and relevant          relevant           basis of study     basis of study.
7.Review of literature Literature            Literature cited   Literature         Literature
                       cited is very         is mostly          review lacks       review lacks
                       pertinent and         pertinent and      pertinence or is   pertinence and
                       timely                timely             dated              is dated
8.Design/method-       Design/metho          Design/metho       Design/metho       Design/metho
ology                  dology is most        dology is          dology needs to    dology is not
                       appropriate           appropriate for    be reviewed        at all
                       for research          research           and revised to     appropriate
                       question/s            question/s         be appropriate     for research
                                                                for research       question/s
9. Appropriateness of    Sample very         Sample mostly      Sample size and    Sample size
sampling approach:       appropriate in      appropriate in     selection fairly   and selection
selection and            size and            size and           well considered.   not well
retention.               selection.          selection. Plans   Plans to           considered.
(quantitative e.g.,      Plans to            to                 recruit/retain     Plans to
power analysis;          recruit/retain      recruit/retain     subjects are       recruit/retain
qualitative e.g.,        subjects are        subjects are       fairly clear       subjects are
theoretical              very clear and      mostly clear       and/or feasible.   not clear or
saturation.)             feasible.           and feasible.                         feasible.

10. Diversity of         Plans to            Plans to recruit   Plans to recruit   Plans to
sample regarding         recruit a           a diverse          a diverse          recruit a
gender and               diverse sample      sample are         sample are         diverse sample
race/ethnicity           are very clear      mostly clear       fairly clear and   lack clarity,
                         and feasible or     and feasible or    feasible or lack   feasibility, or
                         lack thereof        lack thereof       thereof fairly     justification
                         clearly justified   mostly justified   justified
11.Clarity/adequacy      Data                Data collection    Data collection    Data
/feasibility of data     collection          methods are        methods are        collection
collection methods       methods are         mostly clear,      fairly clear,      methods lack
                         clear, feasible     feasible and       feasible and       clarity,
                         and                 rigorous           rigorous           feasibility and
                         methodologica                                             rigor
                         lly rigorous
                        Excellent=4       Good=3             Fair=2             Poor=1             0 or

12. Validity and        Approaches to     Approaches to      Approaches to      Approaches to
reliability of          enhance           enhance            enhance            enhance
instruments used for    credibility and   credibility and    credibility and    credibility and
data collection         trustworthines    trustworthiness    trustworthiness    trustworthines
                        s and/or use      and/or use         and/or use         s and/or use
                        instruments       instruments        instruments        instruments
                        with              with acceptable    with acceptable    with
                        acceptable        reliability and    reliability and    acceptable
                        reliability and   validity are       validity are       reliability and
                        validity are      mostly clear       fairly clear       validity are
                        very clearly                                            poorly
                        described                                               described

13. Soundness/          Analyses very     Analyses           Analyses fairly    Analyses not
appropriateness of      appropriate to    mostly             appropriate to     appropriate to
data analysis           method,           appropriate to     method,            method
methods                 research          method,            research           and/or
                        question(s),      research           question(s), but   research
                        and               question(s), and   demonstrate        question(s),
                        demonstrate       demonstrate        limited rigor      demonstrating
                        high level of     moderate rigor                        very limited
                        rigor                                                   rigor
14. Extent to which     Findings          Findings           Limited            Poor
findings can be         highly            mostly             generalizability   generalizability
generalized             generalizable     generalizable as   of findings        of findings
                        as appropriate    appropriate to     beyond study
                        to method         method             setting
15. Adequacy of         Procedures to     Procedures to      Procedures to      Procedures to
protection of human     protect human     protect human      protect human      protect human
subjects and plan for   subjects and      subjects and       subjects and       subjects and
seeking IRB             seek IRB          seek IRB           seek IRB           seek IRB
approval                approval very     approval           approval fairly    approval
                        well described    mostly well        well described     poorly
                                          described                             described
16. Plan for            Very              Mostly             Fair               Poor
dissemination           appropriate       appropriate and    appropriateness    appropriatenes
                        and well          described          and description    s and
                        described                                               description
                         Excellent=4       Good=3            Fair=2              Poor=1             0 or
17. Overall scholarly    Highly            Mostly rigorous Fair rigor            Poor rigor
merit                    rigorous in all
18. Clarity of           Very feasible     Mostly feasible   Fair feasibility    Poor feasibility
timetable and            and clear         and clear         and clarity in      and clarity in
reasonableness of        timetable         timetable         timetable           timetable
completing the study
in no more than two
19. Clarity and          Budget very       Budget mostly     Budget fairly       Poor budget
adequacy of budget       clear and         clear and         clear and           clarity and
                         expenses well     justified         justified           justification

20. Overall              Very cohesive,    Mostly            Fairly organized Poorly
cohesiveness/            coherent          cohesive and      and clear        organized,
coherency of the         proposal          coherent                           unclear
proposal                                   proposal
21. Clarity of writing   Very well         Mostly well       Fairly well         Many
… jargon-free syntax     written           written           written             typographical
22. Innovativeness of    Innovative/       Mostly            Much similar        Very limited in
the project.             futuristic        innovative/       research is         innovation
                                           futuristic        available on this

    (Maximum 88
Count (Total
Total Possible Score
Based on
*0 means the component was not addressed in the application, but was applicable. NA
means the component was not applicable. Percentage score is calculated only on components
that are applicable.
OVERALL COMMENTS: Please provide overall strengths and weaknesses of the study and
the proposed budget to be shared with applicant(s) and NERAC.

I recommend this study for funding. (Yes or No)

I recommend funding this study in the amount of

Rationale for your funding related recommendation; to be shared only with NERAC.

 Revised 5/18/11
 Revised 6/25/11
 Revised 8-19-11

To top