University of Phoenix Material
Dissertation Criteria & Rating Scale Overview (Practitioner)
The purpose of this document is to provide a practical overview of the Dissertation Criteria & Rating Scale. The document provides information on two levels of the scale: baseline information is provided for each individual tab of the Practitioner Dissertation Criteria & Rating Scale Microsoft® Excel® document (derived from the revised dissertation process), and summary detail is provided for the domains contained therein—summarized from the criteria provided within the scale.
Tab 2: Concept Paper Review Criteria
The concept paper review is a review of a basic outline of the foundations of a learner’s dissertation research. This review is conducted as an evaluative assessment for DOC/721R, the second year residency course. At this point in their respective program, learners need only develop an outline that details three elements, problem formation, contribution to knowledge, and an initial discussion of the relevant scholarship that delineates and contextualizes the proposed study, which correspond to the first three subdomains of the scale. At this stage, learners are assessed on their capability in developing a feasible and appropriate study for doctoral-level inquiry.
Problem Formation
Criteria in this domain address the ways in which the background of the research has been articulated, how a need for inquiry has developed from this background, why this inquiry is needed, and how the researcher is proposing to undertake this inquiry. Accordingly, elements from subsequent sections of the rating scale may be present in this domain, but they should be summative, rather than repetitious, accounts.
Note. This domain also addresses the alignment of the research design to the identified question, thus the feasibility and appropriateness of the study.
Tab 3: Committee Review – Literature
The learner’s dissertation committee, because of their expertise in the field of inquiry assess that the learner’s treatment of the literature is adequate to doctoral-level inquiry. At this level, the learner must have exhaustively reviewed, synthesized, and situated the literature corresponding to the study’s topic, its methodological approach, and its potential contribution to the discipline.
Literature Review
The domain that addresses the study’s literature review contains several elements, related to both content and form: coverage of the content literature, coverage of the methodological literature, synthesis of the literature, a treatment of the dissertation’s significance in relation to the literature, and the rhetorical narrative developed via the review. To summarize, literature reviews are expected to evidence learners’ grasp of the historical and current literature related to their study, as well as the literature that describes and supports the decision to utilize their selected method of inquiry. These content elements should be synthesized into a cogent narrative that provides a comprehensive background to, argues the need for, and situates the proposed research within the discipline.
Tab 4: Quality Review – Proposal
All learners in the SAS doctoral programs submit their dissertation proposals for a quality review by appointed SAS faculty. This review ensures that the learner has clarified the research questions/hypotheses he or she is using to guide the study and developed a method and approach to inquiry that appropriately responds to the problem, the question, and the literature.
Design and Logic
Criteria in this section focus on the detailed account of a proposed study’s design. Subdomains also focus on the appropriate application of a particular research tradition to the proposed area of inquiry and the comprehensive alignment of the study’s design, its intent, and its intended outcomes.
Tab 5: IRB Review
Largely because of the difficulty in assessing ethical components in proposed or completed research, application of the third page/tab of criteria is largely the purview of the Institutional Review Board (IRB). These criteria are assessed via evidence from the proposal, as well as the IRB forms that must be completed by all learners prior to data collection.
Ethics in Reporting
Criteria in this domain focus on the appropriate use and reporting of informed consent, the strategies for ensuring participant confidentiality, and the clarity, safety, and transparency of procedure in the research design and protocols.
Tab 6: Quality Review – Final
The final quality review centers on the data analysis and interpretation components of the study. The review is conducted by appointed faculty and qualified external reviewers to ensure that the highest levels of intellectual rigor are maintained in the systematic process of analyzing and contextualizing data in terms of the study’s design. As such, a learner cannot defend his or her dissertation until successfully completing this quality review.
Sources of Evidence
This domain’s criteria center on the description of the study’s data sources, how collection processes were engaged throughout the research, the larger context in which data collection took place, and the ways in which these collection procedures supported the research design and intent.
Measurement and Classification
The measurement and classification criteria address the presence, accuracy, and clarity of a researcher’s structuring and organizing of data. Elements assessed via this criteria include coding structures, descriptive statistics, scales, data reduction techniques, and member checking regarding the coding/classifications used by the researcher.
Analysis and Interpretation
A general set of criteria are applied to all dissertations regarding data analysis and interpretation, and these criteria center on the nature of the evidence that supports any outcomes or claims, the presence of some inquiry toward disconfirming evidence, congruence with both the research questions and the outcomes suggested from the evidence, and linkages between interpretation, previous research described in the literature review, and the contributions of the present study.
Quantitative Study Analysis and Interpretation: For quantitative research, the scale enhances these criteria with additional emphases on the presence and accurate utilization/interpretation of descriptive/inferential statistics, statistical testing, and effect indices, as well as considerations of possible compromises to the study’s validity.
Qualitative Study Analysis and Interpretation: For qualitative research, the scale enhances these criteria with additional emphases on clarity/transparency of interpretation processes, warrant for claims made that are grounded in concrete examples from the data, and greater contextualization of the claims made, due to the more subjective nature of qualitative inquiry.
Generalization
This domain addresses the intended scope of a study’s generalizability, the depth of the researcher’s discussion of the study’s population and context, and the logic applied to any claims of generalization.
Tab 7: Editorial Review
After final approval by their chair/committee, learners are required to submit their final manuscripts to an editing service sponsored by the university. The final page/tab contains the criteria the editing service provides in this review.
Title, Abstract, and Headings
Criteria herein address the accuracy and appropriateness of the title, abstract, and headings.
Writing
These criteria assess the clarity, tone, precision, and mechanics of the writing in the dissertation.
Copyright © 2012, 2010 by University of Phoenix. All rights reserved.