URDA/URG/UCPG Rubric

Exemplary / Accomplished / Developing / Beginning / Unacceptable
Project
Significance (0-20) / 19-20
Presents compelling rationale for project. Relevant literature is thoroughly and completely discussed, including theoretical reasons, empirical support and practical reasons to justify development and/or evaluation of the project. Makes compelling case for potential contribution of project to solution of problem. Key project components are identified and operationally defined. Grant does not contain irrelevant information that detracts from focus. / 16-18
Presents strong rationale for project. Relevant literature is adequately discussed, including some theoretical reasons, some empirical support and some practical reasons to justify development and/or evaluation of the project. Makes the case for potential contribution of project to solution of problem. Most of the key concepts are identified and operationally defined. Contains some irrelevant information but does not detract from focus. / 12-15
Presents rationale for project. Relevant literature satisfactorily discussed, with limited theoretical reasons, limited empirical support and limited practical reasons to justify development and/or evaluation of the project. Makes an imprecise case for potential contribution of project to solution of problem. Some of the key concepts are identified and operationally defined. Contains some irrelevant information that begins to detract from focus. / 8-11
Presents poor rationale for project. Relevant literature is inadequately discussed, including little theoretical reasons, little empirical support and little practical reasons to justify development and/or evaluation of the project. Makes a poor case for potential contribution of project to solution of problem. Few of the key concepts are identified and operationally defined. Contains too much irrelevant information that detracts from focus. / 0-7
Presents no rationale for project. Relevant literature not discussed, including no theoretical reasons, no empirical support and no practical reasons to justify development and/or evaluation of the project. No case made for potential contribution of project to solution of problem.
Key concepts either not identified or are identified in a confusing manner. Contains too much irrelevant information that seriously detracts from focus.
Project Plan
(0-30) / 28-30
Hypotheses/Aims/Objectives are clearly formulated with excellent elaboration of content. Clear description and strong rationale for sample, measures (including the reliability/validity of measures), data collection procedures, and project design. A detailed and well-justified data analysis plan. Excellent outline of project outcomes and how project may be evaluated. Project plan exceptionally detailed, clearly appropriate to answer the research questions, test the hypotheses or achieve expected results / 23 – 27
Hypotheses/Aims/Objectives are adequately formulated with some elaboration of content. Adequate description and some rationale for sample, measures (including reliability/ validity of measures), data collection procedures, and project design. Adequately detailed/justified data analysis plan. Adequate outline of project outcomes and how project may be evaluated. Detailed project plan, adequate to answer the research questions, test hypotheses or achieve expected results / 16-22
Hypotheses/Aims/Objectives formulated with limited elaboration of content. Description and limited rationale for sample, measures (including the reliability/validity of measures), data collection procedures, and project design. Detailed and limited justification for data analysis plan. Limited outline of project outcomes and how project may be evaluated. Project plan lacks precision and clarity, should be able to answer some of the research questions, test the hypotheses, or achieve some of the expected results / 10-15
Hypotheses/Aims/Objectives poorly formulated with little elaboration of content. Poor description and little rationale for sample, measures (including reliability/validity of measures), data collection procedures, and project design. Poorly detailed and little justification for data analysis plan. Little outline of project outcomes and how project may be evaluated. Project plan lacks precision and clarity, may be able to answer a research question, test a hypothesis or achieve an expected result / 0-9
Hypotheses/Aims/Objectives not formulated with no elaboration of content. No description nor rationale for sample, measures (including reliability/validity of measures), data collection procedures, and project design. No detail nor justification for data analysis plan. No outline project outcomes and how project may be evaluated. Project plan lacks precision and clarity, not likely to be able to answer the research questions, test the hypotheses, nor achieve the expected results
Exemplary / Accomplished / Developing / Beginning / Unacceptable
Personnel
(0-15) / 14-15
Principal investigator and other key personnel (if applicable) clearly possess the training and expertise to successfully complete project. Researcher(s) have clearly considered and committed sufficient time to implement proposed project. / 12-13
Principal investigator and other key personnel (if applicable) possess adequate training and expertise to successfully complete project. Researcher(s) have adequately considered and committed sufficient time to implement proposed project. / 10-11
Principal investigator and other key personnel (if applicable) have limited training and expertise to complete project. Researcher(s) have partially considered and committed a limited amount of time to implement proposed project. / 8-9
Principal investigator and other key personnel (if applicable) have minimal training and expertise to successfully complete project. Researcher(s) may have not considered nor committed sufficient time to implement proposed project. / 0-7
Principal investigator and other key personnel (if applicable) do not possess the training nor expertise to successfully complete project. Researcher(s) have not considered nor committed sufficient time to implement proposed project.
Budget & Resources
(0-20) / 19-20
Principal investigator has clearly considered exactly what facilities, equipment, supplies and other resources are required to support proposed activities. Budget requested is clearly reasonable and appropriate. / 16-18
Principal investigator has adequately considered what facilities, equipment, supplies and other resources are required to support proposed activities. Budget requested is reasonable and appropriate / 12-15
Principal investigator has considered what facilities, equipment, supplies and other resources are required to support proposed activities. Budget requested may be reasonable and appropriate / 8-11
Principal investigator has partially considered what facilities, equipment, supplies and other resources are required to support proposed activities. Budget requested is missing elements and may not reasonable and appropriate / 0-7
Principal investigator has not considered what facilities, equipment, supplies and other resources are required to support proposed activities. Budget requested is not reasonable nor appropriate
Prospects for External Funding
(0-15) / 14-15
Definite identification of specific external funding agencies or programs which clearly are appropriate for funding an extension of the internal grant project. Excellent expectation of receiving external funding. Significant efforts made to improve grant writing (attending four or more seminars or grant writing programs in past two years, see Faculty Information Sheet) / 12-13
Identification of an external funding agency or program which is appropriate for funding an extension of the internal grant project. Reasonable expectation of receiving external funding. Adequate efforts made to improve grant writing (attending three seminars or grant writing programs in past two years, see Faculty Information Sheet) / 10-11
Identification of an external funding agency or program which may be appropriate for funding an extension of the internal grant project. Possible expectation of receiving external funding. Some efforts made to improve grant writing (attending two seminars or a grant writing programs in past two years, see Faculty Information Sheet) / 8-9
Identification of an external funding agency or program which is unlikely to be appropriate for funding an extension of the internal grant project. Unlikely to receive external funding. Minimal efforts made to improve grant writing (attending one seminar or a grant writing program in past two years, see Faculty Information Sheet) / 0-7
No identification of an external funding agency or program for funding an extension of the internal grant project. No expectation of receiving external funding. No efforts made to improve grant writing (has not attended any seminar or a grant writing program in past two years, see Faculty Information Sheet)
Collaborator
No points, only word ranking (i.e. exemplary, accomplished). / Exact contributions/duties of collaborator clearly detailed. Collaborator clearly has useful expertise that will enhance project (see Biographical Sketch; Current and Pending Support Form). If funds going to collaborator, use is clearly justified. / Exact contributions/duties of collaborator adequately detailed. Collaborator shown to have adequate useful expertise to enhance the project (see Biographical Sketch; Current and Pending Support Form). If funds going to collaborator, use is adequately justified. / Exact contributions/duties of collaborator detailed. Collaborator has some useful expertise to enhance the project (see Biographical Sketch; Current and Pending Support Form). If funds going to collaborator, use is justified. / Exact contributions/duties of collaborator partially detailed. Collaborator may have useful expertise that may enhance project (see Biographical Sketch; Current and Pending Support Form). If funds going to collaborator, use is may be justified. / No details about the exact contributions/duties of collaborator. Collaborator does not have any apparent useful expertise to enhance project (see Biographical Sketch and Current and Pending Support Form). If funds going to collaborator, use is not justified.
Total scores / 94-100
(Exemplary) / 79-89
(Accomplished) / 60-74
(Developing) / 42-55
(Beginning) / 0-37
(Unacceptable)

University Research Development Award, University Research Grant, or University Creative Projects Grant Peer Review Form

Application Title
Applicant Department
Budget Requested
Reviewer(s)
Review Date
Criteria / Range of Points / University Evaluation
Project Significance / 0-20
Project Plan / 0-30
Personnel / 0-15
Budget & Resources / 0-20
Prospects for External Funding / 0-15
Outside Collaborator / Enter rank word from rubric
Total Criteria Score / 0-100
Funding Recommendation* / R, N or C

(* options: Funding recommended = R; Funding not recommended = N; Funding recommended with conditions = C)

Strengths of Proposal:

Weaknesses of Proposal:

Additional Comments:

Recommended Conditions to Funding (if any):