Faculty & Community Applicant Rubric Fall 2013

  • Use the below rubric as guidance as you complete the application process.
  • DO NOT return the rubric with your application—it is meant as a tool to help you in completing the application.
  • If you have any questions regarding this rubric, please contact Dr. Patricia Documet at

1
Poor / 2
Fair / 3
Good / 4
Excellent
1. Statement of Problem / Vague description of public health problem. Does not refer to population affected and impact on that population. Inadequate or no use of epidemiological data. / Identifies and describes the public health problem but fails to state its impact on population affected. Limited use of epidemiological data. / Identifies and describes the public health problem and impact on target population. References to epidemiological data are included. / Identifies and describes the public health problem. Detailed description of impact on target population. Cites epidemiological data and literature. Refers to their prior work in the field.
2. Goals and objectives / Research, evaluation, or partnership question or goal is unclear. No hypotheses or measurable objectives. Does not identify clearly target population. / States clear research, evaluation, or partnership question or goal. Hypotheses or objectives are unclear. Identifies vaguely the target population (e.g., age, race, gender, place) / States clear research, evaluation, or partnership question or goal. States hypotheses or measurable objectives. Identifies vaguely the target population (e.g., age, race, gender, place) / States clear research, evaluation, or partnership question or goal. States clear hypotheses or measurable objectives. Identifies clearly the target population (e.g., age, race, gender, place)
3. Methods / No research, evaluation, or partnership design or justification. Methods of data collection, literature review and/or data analysis are not adequate and not justified. Methods do not relate to goals/objectives or hypotheses. / Outlines a research, evaluation, or partnership design. Justification of design is unclear. Methods of data collection, literature review and/or data analysis are not clear or not adequate for the question/objectives. Justification of methods is unclear. / Outlines a research, evaluation, or partnership design. Justification of design is clear. Identifies at least some appropriate methods to answer research questions or work on partnership: data collection, literature review and/or data analysis. Justification of methods is clear. / Outlines a research, evaluation, or partnership design. Argues how this design will answer research question/address goals. Identifies appropriate methods to answer research questions or work on partnership: data collection, literature review and/or data analysis. Justifies use of methods.
1
Poor / 2
Fair / 3
Good / 4
Excellent
4. Expected Outcomes / No mention of expected outcomes or results. / Vaguely states expected outcomes but does not clearly identify them as short, interim, or long term. / States expected outcomes and gives some information on which are short, interim, and long term. / Provides detail on short term (immediate results), intermediate (change in a few weeks or months), and long term (change in months or a year) outcomes. Includes how outcomes will be ascertained.
5. Timeline / No mention of project start, milestone, or completion dates. / Provides some information on project timeline. / Provides start date, important milestone dates during project, and completion date. / Provides start date, important milestone dates during project, and completion date. Says how project will continue after funding ends.
6. Attached budget & justification of use of funds / Budget is attached but gives no justification for use of funds. Line items are inappropriate for the project. (Faculty salary and computer equipment costs not allowed). / Budget is attached and gives vague justification of project cost. Some line items are inappropriate for the project. (Faculty salary and computer equipment costs not allowed). / Budget is attached and justifies with some clarity use of project funds. Line items are appropriate for the project. (Faculty salary and computer equipment costs not allowed). / Budget is attached and clearly justifies use of project funds. Line items are appropriate for the project. (Faculty salary and computer equipment costs not allowed).
7. Relevance to health equity / No explanation of how the problem is relevant to health equity. No description of how project will advance the field of health equity research or practice. / Vague description of how the problem is relevant to health equity. Unclear on how project will advance the field of health equity research or practice. / Describes how problem is relevant to health equity. Clearly states how project will advance the field of health equity research and practice. / Describes the importance of addressing this problem to advance health equity. Clearly states how project willadvance thefield of health equity research or practice.
8. How the project advances the faculty member’s research / No explanation of how project advances faculty member’s research or practice. / Brief explanation of how project advances faculty member’s research or practice. / Explains how project advances faculty member’s research or practice and how outcomes can aid in decreasing the health equity issue. / Explains well how project advances faculty member’s research or practice and how outcomescan aid in decreasing the health equity issue.
TOTAL POINTS FOR ALL DOMAINS (range 8-32)