READ ATTACHMENTS FIRST (before bidding)

Objectives

Excellent

Good

Poor

Unacceptable

1. Research Design

Appropriate analytical method/design(s) have been chosen, with complete justification of the choice(s).

If a process evaluation, describes the standard for comparison. If an outcome study, identifies the design (experimental, quasi-/ non-experimental).

(3.0-2.9 points)

Appropriate analytical method(s) were chosen, but justification and explanation could be better developed.

(2.8-2.7 pts)

Appropriate analytical methods were chosen, but justification and explanation is incomplete or poorly developed.

(2.6-2.5 pts)

Inappropriate analytical methods were chosen and/or justification of those choices is incomplete or weakly developed.

(2.4 - 0 pts)

2. Measurement and Data Collection Plan

Thorough explanation of data collection and sampling plan, including (where appropriate), the standards for comparison, who the treatment and control group are, how large they are and how they are selected

Analytical methods thoroughly and clearly described, including using established scales where appropriate, discussing when and where measures will be taken, and how they will be used.

(3.0 – 2.9 points)

Explanation of data collection and sampling plan thorough, but could be more strongly tied to results and conclusions.

Analysis plan is complete, but minor errors in application of chosen analysis method(s).

(2.8-2.7 pts)

Explanation of data collection and sampling plan incomplete and/or weakly tied to results and conclusions.

Analysis plan is complete but significant or numerous errors in application of chosen analysis method(s) detract from paper.

(2.6-2.5 pts)

Explanation of data collection and sampling plan very weak or missing.

Analysis is inaccurate and/or incomplete.

Does not use correct analytical method(s) and/ or they are incorrectly applied and interpreted.

(2.4 - 0 pts)

3. Strengths and Limitations of Approach

Lists all the merits and limitations of the design, and steps taken to minimize any threats.

(2.0-1.9- points)

Merits and limitations of the design and steps taken to minimize threats are incomplete.

(1.8-1.7 pts)

Missing more than two of limitations of the design and steps to minimize them.

(1.6-1.5 pts)

Fails to list the merits and limitations of the design, and steps taken to minimize any threats.

(1.4 pts)

4. Quality of Writing and Grammar.

Scholarly style that is also highly readable.

Grammar, word choice, spelling or punctuation errors are very rare, no more often than once every 5-6 pages.

(2.0 – 1.9 points)

Generally readable but with a few awkward or unclear passages.

Grammar, word choice, spelling and punctuation errors occur, but are rare and do not detract from the paper.

(1.8 – 1.7 pts)

Awkward or unclear passages occur as often as once per page.

Grammar, word choice, spelling and punctuation errors occur as often as once per page and detract.

(1.6-1.5 pts)

Awkward or unclear passages occur more often than once per page.

Grammar, word choice, spelling and punctuation errors occur more often than once per page and substantially detract from the paper.

(1.4– 0 pts)

Total Objective = 10 (100%)