Week 6 Assignment: Proposal Submission_CI

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.

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.

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.