Faculty Seed Grant Scoring Rubric[12.1]

[revision 5/22/2017]

Grading Criteria:
A = Complete, accurate and exceeds minimal level of detail, clarity and logic; demonstrates all of the following: clarity, organized, logical, sufficient detail provided to support statements.
B = Complete, accurate and meets minimal acceptable level of detail, clarity and logic; only minor instances of any of the following: lack of clarity, disorganized, insufficient detail provided to support statements.
C = Complete, but below minimal acceptable level of detail, clarity and logic; multiple or major instances of any of the following: lack of clarity, disorganized, inaccurate statements, insufficient detail provided to support statements.
D = Missing or incomplete.
  1. Completeness of Grant application:
  • Cover Sheet [Form 11.2]
  • Proposal Content including references and appendices adhere to “Guidelines for Written Submission” [Section 7]
  • Statement of IRB status/plan (In the proposal)[Section 9]
  • Budget and justification [Section 8, Form11.5]
  • Biographical Sketch (Online template)
  • Check list [Form 11.1]
/ Circle one
A B C D
3 2 1 0
3 2 1 0
3 2 1 0
3 2 1 0
3 2 1 0
3 2 1 0
Raw score (sum) =
_____ / 18 = ______/ Weighted total (10%)
Raw score X 10 = ______
2. Problem identification [Section 7.2.2]:
  • In three sentences the research problem or phenomena of interest is clearly stated (i.e. the gap in the literature or current understanding/knowledge is presented)
/ Circle one
A B C D
3 2 1 0
Raw score (sum) =
_____ / 3 = ______/ Weighted total (15%)
Raw score X 15 = ______
3. Research Objectives/Specific Aims [Section 7.2.3]
  • Stated objectives/aims are clear and specific
  • Research hypotheses are stated
  • Objectives are realistic and feasible given proposed time frame and requested budget
/ Circle one
A B C D
3 2 1 0
3 2 1 0
3 2 1 0
Raw score (sum) =
_____ / 9 = ______/ Weighted total (20%)
Raw score X 20 = ______
4. Research Methodology - data collection material and analysis [Section 7.2.4]
  • Proposed research design/methodology is appropriate
  • Sampling method is adequately described
  • Outcome measures / instrumentation is described
  • Data analysis method is described
  • References are complete
  • Proposal addresses and outlines the protection of human (or animal) subjects (as appropriate)
/ Circle one
A B C D
6 4 2 0
6 4 2 0
6 4 2 0
6 4 2 0
3 2 1 0
3 2 1 0
Raw score (sum) =
____ / 30 = _____ / Weighted total (20%)
Raw score X 20 = ______
5. Budget [Sections 8]
  • Budget includes total and itemized expenses expected including research or student assistants [6.1], statistician expenses [6.2], consultant costs [6.3], research instruments (non-consumables) and/or data analysis software [6.4], research supplies (consumables) [6.5], clinical supplies (if required) [6.6], office supplies [6.7], photocopy costs [6.8], publication costs [6.9], other (as necessary) [6.10]
  • Received or expected additional funding for the research project.(if applicable) [6.11]
/ Circle one
A B C D
6 4 2 0
3 2 1 0
Raw score (sum) =
_____ / 9 = ______/ Weighted total (10%)
Raw score X 10 = ______
6. Credibility/researcher qualifications
  • Researcher has the ability to complete the proposed project as is evident by a defined record of research activity or documents intention to conduct research in collaboration with a mentor/consultant with adequate research experience (eg. students or new investigators)
/ Circle one
A B C D
3 2 1 0
Raw score (sum) =
_____ / 3 = ______/ Weighted total (10%)
Raw score X 10 = ______
7. Overall Clarity / Style
  • Proposal is well written, formatted, and is clear with a logical flow
  • Presentation of proposal is cogent and succinct
/ Circle one
A B C D
3 2 1 0
3 2 1 0
Raw score (sum) =
_____ / 6 = ______/ Weighted total (15%)
Raw score X 15 = ______
Total score (sum of all weighted totals for rows 1-7) =

Reviewer comments (include areas of strength, weakness, and recommendations for future submissions):