Background and Significance Sections of the Grant Proposal

 

For this week’s assignment, you will complete the Background (including a literature review) and Significance sections of your grant proposal following the Grant Proposal Guidelines (Links to an external site.). See the Sample Grant Proposal Template (Links to an external site.)  as an example and use it as a template for your Grant Proposal. The more complete your assignment is, the more feedback you will receive for the Final Project. In addition, you will create the References page for your proposal by taking the sources from your Week Two annotated bibliography and converting them into a standard APA-formatted References list (Links to an external site.). Be sure to include at least five more peer-reviewed sources on your References page (so that you have at least 15 sources as required for the Final Project).

 

Carefully review the Grading Rubric (Links to an external site.) for the criteria that will be used to evaluate your assignment.

 

 

 

 

 

PSY625.W3A1.12.2014

 

Description:

 

Total Possible Score: 6.00

 

Background and Literature Review

 

Total: 2.00

 

Distinguished -Comprehensively summarizes the current state of knowledge on the topic by citing previous peer-reviewed research studies including the ones listed in the Week 2 Annotated Bibliography.  The literature fully review supports the need for the proposed study, either as a replication and confirmation of a previous study or extension into an underexplored area of this topic.

 

Proficient – Summarizes the current state of knowledge on the topic by citing previous peer-reviewed research studies including the ones listed in the Week 2 Annotated Bibliography.  The literature review supports the need for the proposed study, either as a replication and confirmation of a previous study or extension into an underexplored area of this topic. Minor details are missing.

 

Basic – Partially summarizes the current state of knowledge on the topic by citing previous peer-reviewed research studies including the ones listed in the Week 2 Annotated Bibliography.  The literature review minimally supports the need for the proposed study, either as a replication and confirmation of a previous study or extension into an underexplored area of this topic. Relevant details are missing.

 

Below Expectations – Attempts to summarize the current state of knowledge on the topic by citing previous peer-reviewed research studies; however, does not include the ones listed in the Week 2 Annotated Bibliography,   the literature review does not support the need for the proposed study, either as a replication and confirmation of a previous study or extension into an underexplored area of this topic, and significant details are missing.

 

Non-Performance – The Background and Literature Review is either nonexistent or lacks the components described in the assignment instructions.

 

Significance Section

 

Total: 1.50

 

Distinguished – The significance section thoroughly explains how the proposed study will improve scientific knowledge, technical capability and or clinical practice in the field of study.

 

Proficient – The significance section explains how the proposed study will improve scientific knowledge, technical capability and or clinical practice in the field of study. Minor details are missing.

 

Basic – The significance section partially explains how the proposed study will improve scientific knowledge, technical capability and or clinical practice in the field of study. Relevant details are missing.

 

Below Expectations – The significance section does not explain how the proposed study will improve scientific knowledge, technical capability and or clinical practice in the field of study. Significant details are missing.

 

Non-Performance – The Significance Section is either nonexistent or lacks the components described in the assignment instructions.

 

Cited Research Support

 

Total: 1.50

 

Distinguished – All statements in the Background and Significance sections are supported by cited peer-reviewed references.

 

Proficient – Most (90% or more) statements in the Background and Significance sections are supported by cited peer-reviewed references.

 

Basic – At least 75% of statements in the Background and Significance sections are supported by cited peer-reviewed references.

 

Below Expectations – Less than 75% of the statements in the Background and Significance sections are supported by cited peer-reviewed references.

 

Non-Performance – The cited research support is either nonexistent or lacks the components described in the assignment instructions.

 

Critical Thinking: Evidence

 

Total: 0.50

 

Distinguished – Employs persuasive and applicable information from credible sources to develop an ample analysis or synthesis of the topic. Viewpoints of experts are scrutinized thoroughly.

 

Proficient – Employs applicable information from credible sources to develop an analysis of the topic.

 

Basic – Identifies applicable information from credible sources, but may neglect the application of such information toward the analysis of the topic. 

 

Below Expectations – Presents information from external sources, but such information may lack credibility and/or relevance. Neglects to apply such information toward the analysis of the topic.

 

Non-Performance – The assignment is either nonexistent or lacks the components described in the instructions.

 

Critical Thinking: Explanation of Issues

 

Total: 0.50

 

Distinguished – Clearly and comprehensively explains the issue to be considered, delivering all relevant information necessary for a full understanding.

 

Proficient – Clearly explains the issue to be considered, delivering enough relevant information for an adequate understanding.

 

Basic – Briefly explains the issue to be considered, delivering minimal information for a basic understanding.

 

Below Expectations – Briefly explains the issue to be considered, but may not deliver additional information necessary for a basic understanding.

 

Non-Performance – The assignment is either nonexistent or lacks the components described in the instructions. 

 

 

 

 

 

Week 4 – Assignment

 

Grant Proposal – Proposed Study, Budget, and Draft Grant Proposal

 

This week you will write the Proposed Study and Budget sections of your Grant Proposal. The Proposed Study section will resemble a typical methods section like the one you would write in an empirical paper (except that the data have not yet been collected). In this section you will describe the study that you are proposing to conduct to test your hypothesis. 

 

You will also write the Budget Justification section and the Budget for your grant proposal. The Budget Justification section will contain a description of your proposed budget including how grant funds will be used and justifying costs. Proposed costs must be reasonable, necessary and allocable to carry out the project’s goals and objectives. 

 

The Budget, which will be Appendix A of your grant proposal, will follow the format of the budget in the Sample Grant Proposal Template (Links to an external site.), Appendix A . There is also a Budget Calculation spreadsheet (Links to an external site.) that you can use to determine the direct and indirect costs for your proposed study.

 

After writing the Proposed Study,  Budget Justification and Budget sections, combine them with the completed sections you have done in Weeks Two and Three (with feedback incorporated), and create the first draft of your grant proposal. Submit your draft grant proposal this week for the Week Five Grant Proposal – Peer Review assignment. 

 

See the Grant Proposal Guidelines (Links to an external site.) for detailed instructions on writing your grant proposal. See the Sample Grant Proposal Template (Links to an external site.) as an example of an actual proposal and use it as a template for your grant proposal.