Lizette Peterson-Homer Injury Prevention Grant Award Competition

---

Rating Sheet

Grant Number:  ________                                           Rating Total:  ________

                                                                                    (add ratings from 1-5 below)

Reviewer:  ___________________________

Reviewer Instructions:  Please provide a rating for each area listed below.  The anchors are general guidelines; since a number of different types of studies will be reviewed, not all aspects of the rating descriptors will apply to every application, but the rating may still be appropriate.  If there is an aspect of the rating descriptor that does not apply, feel free to strike it out from the descriptor.

Rating

_____  1.  Introduction

  5 = Literature current, critically reviewed, introduction concise, focused, convincing,

            clearly stated, testable hypotheses included.

  4 = Literature current and relevant, specific objectives identified and supported

  3 = Literature current, theoretical/empirical position of paper generally supported

  2 = Literature review broad, uncritically reviewed, link between introduction and

            objectives weak

  1 = Literature inappropriate or important literature omitted; Minimal support for study

            objectives

_____  2.  Study Design

   5 = Design clearly linked to study hypotheses; includes appropriate comparison/controls,        covariates appropriately handled in design and/or data analyses.  Statistical analyses

            specific to hypotheses, meet major analysis assumptions.  Samples unbiased,

            adequate in size for analysis plan.

   4 = Design tests study hypotheses; data analyses appropriate for design, analysis

            assumptions (e.g., sample size, studywise error corrections) addressed.

   3 = Design appropriate for study hypotheses; Analyses appropriate, although lacking

            in sophistication.  Sample size adequate.

   2 = Design not closely linked to hypotheses.  Design/statistical control weak, limiting

            interpretability of results.  Sample size adequate, but potentially biased.

   1 = Design inappropriate for study objectives.  No experimental or statistical control.

            Statistical analyses inappropriate, major statistical assumptions violated.  Sample

            Size inadequate for study questions to be tested.

_____  3.  Procedures and Measures

   5 = Procedures clearly described in detail permitting replication, measures selected to test

            specific hypotheses, rational for measure selection is clear and supported. 

Procedures for insuring data integrity described and appropriate (e.g., training for

observers, counterbalanced presentations, blind observations, calibration of

instruments).  Human subjects protections addressed.

   4 = Procedure clearly described, rationale for measure selection provided, measures

            described adequately.  Procedures for insuring data integrity generally addressed.

            Human subjects protections addressed.

   3 = Procedure, measures described adequately.  Procedure appropriate for design. 

            Rationale for measure selection adequate.  Human subjects protections addressed.

   2 = Procedure, measures described inadequately or in confusing manner.  Rationale for

            procedure, measures not provided.  Human subjects protections inadequate or

            missing. 

   1 = Procedure, measures inappropriate/not related to study hypotheses.  No rationale

            for measure selection provided  Human subjects protections not addressed.

_____  4.  Budget

   3 = Budget detailed, justification provided for expenditures.  Specific plan in place to

            obtain additional funding if SPP Award is inadequate.

   2 = Budget general, brief justification.  No specific plan in place to obtain additional

            funding if SPP Award is inadequate for entire project costs.

   1 = Budget not related to project.  Study unlikely to be completed because of

            financial considerations.

_____ 5.  Investigator/Mentor

   3 = Investigator committed to research in pediatric psychology as reflected by

involvement listed on CV.  Previous research activity evident.  Faculty member

(for student applicants) is clearly supportive of student research.  High likelihood

of completion of project.

   2 = Investigator interested in research in pediatric psychology field, but minimal previous

            involvement.  Previous research limited.   For student applicants, faculty member

            identified but peripheral to the project.  Moderate likelihood of completion of

            the project.

   1 = Investigator has no previous research experience, commitment to pediatric

psychology research field seems minimal.  Relationship to faculty member is

unclear (for student applicants).  Project unlikely to be completed.

General Comments: