SCORING RUBRIC FOR GRANT APPLICATION Quality of submission: Score out of 5: Unclear explanation and Organized, but poorly Organized well, but Written, explained and Written, explained and organization. Purpose explained. explanations are organized well, but organized in a way that and focus and not superficial without depth justification for funding is justifies why this should apparent on first review not clear be funded Alignment: Score out of 5: Does not address the Addresses a priority, but Clearly addresses at Clearly addresses DOM priorities with a loose association least one of the DOM multiple DOM priorities priorities Impact: Score out of 5: No direct impact on Affects one of Affects two levels of Affects three levels of Affects more than three learners learner (student, learners learners levels of learners resident, fellow, faculty) No impact beyond year Little impact beyond year Investigator envisions a Project impact seems Describes impact beyond of funding of funding future, but this is not plausible, but year of funding, with clearly explained explanations are vague good explanations about or not well defined. how this will occur Does not state any other Describes potential Outlines further projects ideas or projects that further projects, but that can stem from this could be developed from without documentation one, with documentation this project (letter of support, or reference to next project) Dissemination: Score out of 5: No plan for dissemination Vague plan for Clear plan for Develops a clear plan for Develops a clear plan for delineated dissemination (for dissemination, but plan is local or regional national dissemination example, meeting limited in scope and dissemination (with (with dates of submission submission mentioned, could be broader identified dates of befitting project timeline, but no dates of meeting submission befitting presentation of nor submission deadlines project timeline, importance to DOM) provided) presentation of importance to DOM) Budget: out of 5: All costs are not included Costs are generalized Costs are well Costs are complete, Costs are clearly and/or either under- or and not well justified documented, but are correct, but justification is documented with over-estimated questionable appropriate level of
SCORING RUBRIC FOR GRANT APPLICATION Quality of submission: Score out of 5: Unclear explanation and organization. Purpose and focus and not apparent on first review Organized, but poorly explained. Organized well, but explanations are superficial without depth Written, explained and organized well, but justification for funding is not clear Written, explained and organized in a way that justifies why this should be funded Alignment: Score out of 5: Does not address the DOM priorities Addresses a priority, but with a loose association Clearly addresses at least one of the DOM priorities Clearly addresses multiple DOM priorities Impact: Score out of 5: No direct impact on learners Affects one of learner (student, resident, fellow, faculty) Affects two levels of learners Affects three levels of learners Affects more than three levels of learners No impact beyond year of funding Little impact beyond year of funding Investigator envisions a future, but this is not clearly explained Project impact seems plausible, but explanations are vague or not well defined. Describes impact beyond year of funding, with good explanations about how this will occur Does not state any other ideas or projects that could be developed from this project Describes potential further projects, but without documentation (letter of support, or reference to next project) Outlines further projects that can stem from this one, with documentation Dissemination: Score out of 5: No plan for dissemination delineated Vague plan for dissemination (for example, meeting submission mentioned, but no dates of meeting nor submission deadlines provided) Clear plan for dissemination, but plan is limited in scope and could be broader Develops a clear plan for local or regional dissemination (with identified dates of submission befitting project timeline, presentation of importance to DOM) Develops a clear plan for national dissemination (with dates of submission befitting project timeline, presentation of importance to DOM) Budget: out of 5: All costs are not included and/or either under- or over-estimated Costs are generalized and not well justified Costs are well documented, but are Costs are complete, correct, but justification is questionable Costs are clearly documented with appropriate level of
2017_education_committee_application_for_funds.docx