Walden University Proposal/Dissertation Rubric: Research@waldenu - Edu

Walden University
Proposal/Dissertation Rubric
Version 3 (07/09/07)
Instructions
The purpose of the rubric is to guide students and dissertation supervisory committees as they work
together to develop high quality proposals and dissertations. The committee will use the rubric to
provide on-going and flexible evaluation and re-evaluation of the proposal and dissertation drafts as
they are developed. The academic reviewer (faculty chair) who approves the proposal/dissertation on
behalf of the university, will also use an abbreviated version of this rubric to communicate feedback
and any required revisions.
Required components (quality indicators) are specified in the rubric for each chapter of the proposal
and dissertation.
In the writing process, use the rubric as a suggested outline for the dissertation, and as a basis for
feedback on early drafts.
Before the proposal or dissertation oral, each member of the committee should complete the rubric
(Chapters 1 – 3 for the proposal, Chapters 1-5 for the dissertation) and submit it to the committee
chairperson. If there are significant differences of opinion within the committee, the chair can schedule
a conference call to reach consensus. The chair should complete a consensus version of the rubric,
which reflects the shared evaluation of the committee. The rubric should be shared with the student
as part of the committee’s feedback.
After the proposal or dissertation oral, and once the student has completed any requested
revisions to the manuscript, the committee will review it and make any needed modifications to the
ratings in the consensus rubric. The consensus rubric should be submitted to
research@waldenu.edu.
About consensus: For the final copy of the proposal or dissertation, there must be unanimous
agreement by the dissertation supervisory committee before the student proceeds to the oral defense
(although revisions may be required following the oral).
About research methodology: The rubric has been developed for use with studies employing
qualitative, quantitative, and mixed research designs. Chapters 1, 2, and 5 are common to all designs.
For Chapters 3 and 4, the rubric is divided into two separate threads: one for qualitative research
designs and one for quantitative designs. As the student begins the process of developing a proposal
for the dissertation, each dissertation supervisory committee should select the threads of the rubric
(for Chapter 3 and 4 specifically) that best reflect the design of the proposed dissertation study.
Using the rating scale and comment areas:: A five level rating scale is used for scoring each of the
quality indicators in the rubric in order to provide a summary overview of the relatively strong and
weak areas. Ratings of 3 or above are considered satisfactory, while ratings of 1 or 2 do not achieve
minimal standards for passing. An “NA” (Not Applicable) category is also used when a component of
the rubric is not relevant to the manuscript.
A space for comments is provided for each chapter component. This space can be used to provide
specific guidance for revision, and it should also be used to praise strong work or noteworthy
improvements. More extensive notes can be submitted as a separate attachment or as a marked-up
copy of the manuscript.
Submit completed rubric to: research@waldenu.edu
1/16
Student and Committee Information
Chair: Complete the shaded fields in this section before submitting the
rubric. Be sure to include the names of all members of the committee.
Date: (click here and type today’s date ) 01-15-09
Student’s Name:
(Last, First) -- (click here and type student’s name )Fremont, Paula
Student ID (for office use only) --
School: (click here and pull down to select school name ) PSYC
Committee Members’ Names:

Chairperson Will Wilson
Member Michelle T. Ross
Member
School Representative (if applicable)
Other (if applicable)

2/16
Summative Evaluation (for Consensus Rubrics)
Chair: Complete the shaded fields in this section before submitting the consensus rubric.
Stage of Consensus Rubric: (click here to select which period this rubric represents )
Committee’s Summative Evaluation of State of the Dissertation or Proposal:
Accepted as presented.
Accepted, but requires minor revisions.
Not accepted and requires major revisions, but an additional oral not required.
Not accepted and requires major revisions, and an additional oral is required.

3/16
Proposal and Dissertation Quality Indicators
Committee Member: Assign ratings using the shaded fields in this section for each
relevant quality indicator for the proposal or dissertation. Complete either the qualitative or
quantitative sections for chapters 3 or 4, depending on which is most appropriate. For
proposal rubrics, complete chapters 1, 2, and 3. For dissertation rubrics, complete all
chapters. (You may wish to simply add new ratings for chapters 4 and 5 to your prior
ratings for the proposal.)
When you complete the form, save it to your hard drive, then attach the saved version to
an email addressed to the chair of the committee.
Chair: Use the individual rubrics submitted by the committee to develop a set of
consensus ratings. Complete the shaded fields in this section with the consensus ratings
for each quality indicator. (See directions above for which chapters and sections to
complete.) When the committee is in agreement on the consensus ratings, submit the
rubric as an email attachment to research@waldenu.edu.
Definitions of Ratings for Proposal/Dissertation Quality Indicators
5 = Approved with commendation, the level of scholarship is exceptional in this

section of the quality indicators.
4 = Acceptable as written, all crucial elements are included and adequately

described.
3 = Approved, although revisions are strongly suggested in one or more important

component(s) that are of markedly lesser quality than the rest of the quality
indicators in this section.
2 = Must be revised and resubmitted because one or more essential component(s)

are not satisfactorily described.
1 = Must be revised and resubmitted because one or more required element(s) are
missing or previous requests for revision were ignored.
NA = Not Applicable. This quality indicator does not apply to the document.

4/16
Chapter 1 Rating
(Click here
(FOR PROPOSAL & )
DISSERTATION
DOCUMENTS)
Quality Indicators
1. Abstract includes all of the

following:
a. Describes the overall research
problem being addressed in the
first couple of sentences and
indicate why it is important (e.g.
who would care if the problem
is solved).
b. Identifies the purpose and
theoretical foundations, if
appropriate.
c. Summarizes the key research
question(s).
d. Describes, briefly, the overall
research design, methods and
data analysis procedures. 2: Revisions required
e. (For the final dissertation):
Identifies the key results, one or
two conclusions, and
recommendations that capture
the heart of the research.
f. Concludes with a statement on
the implications for positive
social change.
Comments: (click here) 1. Table

of contents not properly aligned.
2. Numbers under 10 need to
written out.
2. The Introduction section has a

clear statement demonstrating
that the focus of the study is on
a significant problem that is
worthy of study. There is a brief,
well-articulated summary of
research literature that
substantiates the study (by 4: Acceptable as written
indicating a knowledge gap),
with references to more detailed
discussions in Chapter 2.
Comments: (click here)
3. In quantitative studies the 3: Approved with revisions suggested, not required

Problem Statement concisely
states what will be studied by

5/16
Chapter 1 Rating
(Click here
DISSERTATION
DOCUMENTS)
Quality Indicators
describing at least two variables
and a conjectured relationship
between them. In qualitative
studies the Problem Statement
describes the need for
increased understanding about
the issue to be studied.
Comments: (click here) 1. May

consider less variables.
4. The Nature of the Study,

Specific Research Questions,
Hypotheses, or Research
Objectives (as appropriate for
the study) are briefly and clearly
described. Reference is made
to more detailed discussions in
Chapter 3.
2: Revisions required
Comments: (click here) 1.
Number of research
questions/hypotheses is too
large. Does each have a critical
relevance to the study? If not,
then either combine or
eliminate.
5. The Purpose of the study is

described in a logical, explicit
manner.
4: Acceptable as written
6. In quantitative studies the

theoretical base or in qualitative
studies the conceptual
framework shows which ideas
from the literature ground the
research being conducted. 4: Acceptable as written
7. Operational Definitions of 4: Acceptable as written

technical terms, jargon, or
special word uses are provided.

6/16
Chapter 1 Rating
(Click here
DISSERTATION
DOCUMENTS)
Quality Indicators
8. Assumptions, Limitations,
Scope and Delimitations
provide descriptions of
a. facts assumed to be true but
not actually verified,
b. potential weaknesses of the 4: Acceptable as written
study,
c. the bounds of the study.
9. The Significance of the Study is

described in terms of
a. how this study will fill a gap in
the literature
b. professional application, and
c. positive social change
(improvement of human or
social conditions by promoting
the worth, dignity, and 4: Acceptable as written
development of individuals,
communities, organizations,
institutions, cultures, or
societies).
10. Chapter 1 ends with a

Transition Statement that
contains a summary of key
points of the study and an
overview of the content of the 4: Acceptable as written
remaining chapters in the study.

7/16
Chapter 2 Rating
(Click here
DISSERTATION
DOCUMENTS)
Quality Indicators
1. There is an Introduction that

describes
a. the content of the review,
b. the organization of the review,
and
c. the strategy used for searching 4: Acceptable as written
the literature.
2. The review of related research

and literature is clearly related to
the problem statement as
expressed in
a. research questions and
hypotheses, or 4: Acceptable as written
b. study questions and study
objectives.
3. The review of related research

and literature includes
a. comparisons/contrasts of
different points of view or
different research outcomes,
and
b. the relationship of the study to
previous research.
3: Approved with revisions suggested, not required
Comments: (click here) 1.
Considering the dates of the
literature - explanation on why
there is a gap or why not
accessing more current
research.
4. The review contains concise 4: Acceptable as written

summaries of literatures that
help
a. define the most important
aspects of the theory that will
be examined or tested (for
quantitative studies), or
b. substantiate the rationale or
conceptual framework for the
study (for qualitative studies).

8/16
Chapter 2 Rating
(Click here
DISSERTATION
DOCUMENTS)
Quality Indicators
5. There is literature-based
description of
a. the research variables
(quantitative studies), or
b. potential themes and
perceptions to be explored 4: Acceptable as written
(qualitative studies).
6. The content of the review is

drawn from acceptable peer-
reviewed journals or sound
academic journals or there is a
justification for using other 4: Acceptable as written
sources.
7. Literature related to the

method(s) is reviewed.
8. Literature related to the use of

differing methodologies to
investigate the outcomes of
interest is reviewed. 4: Acceptable as written
9. The review is an integrated,

critical essay on the most
relevant and current published
knowledge on the topic. The
review is organized around 4: Acceptable as written
major ideas or themes.

9/16
Rating
Chapter 3 – Qualitative Studies (Click
(FOR PROPOSAL & DISSERTATION DOCUMENTS) here
Quality Indicators )
1. Introduction describes how the research design derives logically from the problem or issue
statement.
NA
2. Design describes which qualitative tradition or paradigm will be used. The choice of paradigm
is justified, with explanations why other likely choices would be less effective.
NA
3. The Role of the Researcher in the data collection procedure is described.
Comments: (click here) NA
4. Where appropriate, questions and sub questions make sense, are answerable, are few in
number, are clearly stated, and are open-ended. When it is proposed that questions will
emerge from the study, initial objectives are sufficiently focused.
NA
5. The context for the study is described and justified. Procedures for gaining access to
participants are described. Methods of establishing a researcher-participant working
relationship are appropriate.
NA
6. Measures for ethical protection of participants are adequate.
7. Criteria for selecting participants are specified and are appropriate to the study. There is a
justification for the number of participants, which is balanced with depth of inquiry - the fewer
the participants the deeper the inquiry per individual.
NA
8. Choices about which data to collect are justified. Data collected are appropriate to answer the
questions posed in relation to the qualitative paradigm chosen. How and when the data are to
be or were collected and recorded is described.
NA

10/16
Rating
Chapter 3 – Qualitative Studies (Click
(FOR PROPOSAL & DISSERTATION DOCUMENTS) here
9. How and when the data will be or were analyzed is articulated. Procedures for dealing with
discrepant cases are described. If a software program is used in the analysis, it is clearly
described. The coding procedure for reducing information into categories and themes is
described. NA
10. If an exploratory study will be (or was) conducted, its relation to the larger study is explained.
Chapter 3 – Quantitative Studies

Rating
(FOR PROPOSAL & DISSERTATION (Click here
DOCUMENTS) )
Quality Indicators
1. Introduction includes a clear outline of the major areas of the chapter.
Comments: (click here) 4: Acceptable as written
2. Research Design and approach:

a. includes a description of the research design and approach,
b. provides justification for using the design and approach, and
c. derives logically from the problem or issue statement. 4: Acceptable as written
3. Setting and Sample

a. describes the population from which the sample will be or was drawn,
b. describes and defends the sampling method including the sampling
frame used,
c. describes and defends the sample size,
d. describes the eligibility criteria for study participants, and 4: Acceptable as written
e. describes the characteristics of the selected sample.
4. If a treatment is used, it is described clearly and in detail.

11/16
Chapter 3 – Quantitative Studies
Rating
(FOR PROPOSAL & DISSERTATION (Click here
DOCUMENTS) )
Quality Indicators
5. Instrumentation and Materials

a. presents descriptions of instrumentation or data collection tools to
include
-name of instrument,
i. -type of instrument,
ii. -concepts measured by instrument,
iii. -how scores are calculated and their meaning,
iv. -processes for assessment of reliability and validity of the
instrument(s), 4: Acceptable as written
v. -processes needed to complete instruments by participants,
vi. -where raw data are or will be available (appendices, tables, or by
request from the researcher), and
b. includes a detailed description of data that comprise each variable in
the study.
6. Data Collection and Analysis includes

a. an explanation of descriptive and/or inferential analyses used in the
study, such as
i. -nature of the scale for each variable,
ii. -statements of hypotheses related to each research question,
iii. -description of parametric, nonparametric, or descriptive
analytical tools used, and 4: Acceptable as written
iv. -description of data collection processes, and
b. description of any pilot study results, if applicable.
7. Measures taken for protection of participants’ rights are summarized.
Chapter 4 – Qualitative Studies Rating

(FOR DISSERTATION DOCUMENTS) (Click here
1. The process by which the data were generated, gathered, and

recorded is clearly described.

12/16
Chapter 4 – Qualitative Studies Rating
2. The systems used for keeping track of data and emerging

understandings (research logs, reflective journals, cataloging
systems) are clearly described.
3. The findings
a. build logically from the problem and the research design, and
b. are presented in a manner that addresses the research questions.
4. Discrepant cases and nonconfirming data are included in the findings.
5. Patterns, relationships, and themes described as findings are

supported by the data. All salient data are accounted for in the
findings.
6. A discussion on Evidence of Quality shows how this study followed

procedures to assure accuracy of the data (e.g., trustworthiness,
member checks, triangulation, etc.). Appropriate evidence occurs in
the appendixes (sample transcripts, researcher logs, field notes, etc.).
(May appear in chapter 5.) 4: Acceptable as written
Chapter 4 – Quantitative Studies Rating

1. Chapter 4 is structured around the research questions and/or

hypotheses addressed in the study, reporting findings related to each.

13/16
Chapter 4 – Quantitative Studies Rating
2. Research tools:
a. Data collection instruments have been used correctly.
b. Measures obtained are reported clearly, following standard
procedures.
c. Adjustments or revisions to the use of standardized research
instruments have been justified, and any effects on the interpretation 4: Acceptable as written
of findings are clearly described.
3. Overall, data analysis (presentation, interpretation, explanation) is

consistent with the research questions or hypotheses and underlying
theoretical/conceptual framework of the study.
4. Data analyses
a. logically and sequentially address all research questions or
hypotheses, and
b. where appropriate, outcomes of hypothesis-testing procedures are
clearly reported (e.g., findings support or fail to support....), and 4: Acceptable as written
c. do not contain any evident statistical errors.
5. Tables and Figures

a. are as self-descriptive as possible, informative, and conform to
standard dissertation format,
b. are directly related to and referred to within the narrative text included
in the chapter,
c. have immediately adjacent comments, 4: Acceptable as written
d. are properly identified (titled or captioned), and
e. show copyright permission (if not in the public domain).
6. The comments on findings address observed consistencies and

inconsistencies and discuss possible alternate interpretations.
7. In a concluding section of Chapter 4, outcomes are logically and

systematically summarized and interpreted in relation to their
importance to the research questions and hypotheses.

14/16
Chapter 5 Rating
1. The chapter begins with a brief Overview of why and how the study
was done, reviewing the questions or issues being addressed and a
brief summary of the findings.
2. The Interpretation of Findings

a. includes conclusions that address all of the research questions,
b. contains references to outcomes in Chapter 4,
c. covers all the data,
d. is bounded by the evidence collected, and
e. relates the findings to a larger body of literature on the topic, including 4: Acceptable as written
the conceptual/theoretical framework.
3. The Implications for Social Change are clearly grounded in the

significance section of Chapter 1 and outcomes presented in Chapter
4. The implications are expressed in terms of tangible improvements
to individuals, communities, organizations, institutions, cultures, or
societies. 4: Acceptable as written
4. Recommendations for Action

a. should flow logically from the conclusions and contain steps to useful
action,
b. state who needs to pay attention to the results, and
c. indicate how the results might be disseminated. 4: Acceptable as written
5. Recommendations for Further Study point to topics that need closer

examination and may generate a new round of questions.
6. For qualitative studies, includes a reflection on the researcher's

experience with the research process in which the researcher
discusses possible personal biases or preconceived ideas and values,
the possible effects of the researcher on the participants or the
situation, and her/his changes in thinking as a result of the study. NA

15/16
Chapter 5 Rating
7. The work closes with a strong concluding statement making the “take-
home message” clear to the reader.
General Comments Rating

Comments on the following indicators of quality apply to the (Click here
manuscript as a whole. )
Writing Style and Composition
The dissertation is written in scholarly language (accurate, balanced,

objective, tentative). The writing is clear, precise, and avoids
redundancy. Statements are specific and topical sentences are
established for paragraphs. The flow of words is smooth and 4: Acceptable as written
comprehensible. Bridges are established between ideas.
Organization and Form
The proposal/dissertation
a. is logically and comprehensively organized, using subheadings where
appropriate,
b. has a professional, scholarly appearance,
b. is written with correct grammar, punctuation, and spelling, 4: Acceptable as written
c. includes citations for the following: direct quotations, paraphrasing,
facts, and references to research studies, and
d. in-text citations are found in the reference list.

16/16

Walden University Proposal/Dissertation Rubric: Research@waldenu - Edu

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Walden University Proposal/Dissertation Rubric: Research@waldenu - Edu

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Walden University

Date: (click here and type today’s date ) 01-15-09

Committee Members’ Names:

Submit completed rubric to: research@waldenu.edu

Committee’s Summative Evaluation of State of the Dissertation or Proposal:

Submit completed rubric to: research@waldenu.edu

Definitions of Ratings for Proposal/Dissertation Quality Indicators

5 = Approved with commendation, the level of scholarship is exceptional in this

4 = Acceptable as written, all crucial elements are included and adequately

3 = Approved, although revisions are strongly suggested in one or more important

2 = Must be revised and resubmitted because one or more essential component(s)

Submit completed rubric to: research@waldenu.edu

1. Abstract includes all of the

Comments: (click here) 1. Table

2. The Introduction section has a

Comments: (click here)

3. In quantitative studies the 3: Approved with revisions suggested, not required

Submit completed rubric to: research@waldenu.edu

Comments: (click here) 1. May

4. The Nature of the Study,

5. The Purpose of the study is

6. In quantitative studies the

7. Operational Definitions of 4: Acceptable as written

Submit completed rubric to: research@waldenu.edu

Comments: (click here)

Comments: (click here)

9. The Significance of the Study is

Comments: (click here)

10. Chapter 1 ends with a

Comments: (click here)

Submit completed rubric to: research@waldenu.edu

1. There is an Introduction that

Comments: (click here)

2. The review of related research

Comments: (click here)

3. The review of related research

4. The review contains concise 4: Acceptable as written

Submit completed rubric to: research@waldenu.edu

Comments: (click here)

Comments: (click here)

6. The content of the review is

Comments: (click here)

7. Literature related to the

8. Literature related to the use of

9. The review is an integrated,

Comments: (click here)

Submit completed rubric to: research@waldenu.edu

3. The Role of the Researcher in the data collection procedure is described.

Comments: (click here) NA

6. Measures for ethical protection of participants are adequate.

Comments: (click here) NA

Submit completed rubric to: research@waldenu.edu

Comments: (click here) NA

Chapter 3 – Quantitative Studies

1. Introduction includes a clear outline of the major areas of the chapter.

Comments: (click here) 4: Acceptable as written

2. Research Design and approach:

3. Setting and Sample

Comments: (click here)

4. If a treatment is used, it is described clearly and in detail.

Comments: (click here) NA

Submit completed rubric to: research@waldenu.edu

5. Instrumentation and Materials