DNP Project Proposal Document Evaluation

• As part of the DNP Project proposal defense process the DNP Project Committee Chair and all the Committee Members will complete and submit an proposal document evaluation within 24 hours of the completion of a students' DNP Project proposal defense.
• Passing the DNP Project proposal defense requires an overall score of 80% or greater on the proposal document from two or more committee members. If two or more committee members score the proposal document less than 80% the DNP Project proposal defense is a failure.
• The committee chair and each committee member will evaluate the document sections and score them using a three-point scale, Does not meet criteria = 1, Minimally meets criteria = 2, Meets criteria = 3

Project Title Criteria: Logical, precise clearly focused on topic of DNP Project

1. Title is not clear or not included or is >12 words
2. Title does not reflect the focus of the DNP Project and is > 12 words
3. Title is clearly written to reflect the focus of the DNP Project and is < 12 words

Introductory Paragraph Criteria: Concisely and precisely introduces DNP project topic

1. Inaccurate, unfocused, or no introductory paragraph provided.
2. Overview of project, purpose is clear within paragraph
3. Overview of project is comprehensive and project purpose is clear in first few sentences

Background Knowledge-1 Criteria: Clear logical problem statement

1. Problem statement not discussed or linked to project
2. Problem statement adequately developed and weakly linked to the project
3. Problem statement comprehensively developed and clearly linked to the project

Background Knowledge-2 Criteria: Incorporated literature is synthesized to support the focus and proposed solutions of the project

1. Literature not incorporated, not linked to the project focus, or proposed solutions
2. Literature incorporated, adequately synthesized, and weakly linked to the project and proposed solutions
3. Literature incorporated, comprehensively synthesized and clearly linked to the project and proposed solutions

Background Knowledge-3 Criteria: Clearly links projects focus to healthcare significance

1. Healthcare significance not discussed or linked to project
2. Healthcare significance adequately discussed and weakly linked to the project
3. Healthcare significance comprehensively discussed and clearly linked to the project

Local Problem-1 Criteria: Local problem discussed and linked to project and key stakeholders identified.

1. Local problem not discussed, and stakeholders not identified
2. Local problem adequately discussed, weakly linked to the project and stakeholders identified
3. Local problem comprehensively discussed, clearly linked to the project and key stakeholders identified

Local Problem-2 Criteria: Needs assessment logically linked to the focus of the project

1. Needs assessment not discussed or linked to project
2. Needs assessment adequately discussed and weakly linked to the project
3. Needs assessment comprehensively discussed and clearly linked to the project  

Project Purpose Criteria: Stated purpose logically aligns with the focus of the project

1. Purpose not discussed or linked to project
2. Purpose adequately discussed and weakly linked to the project
3. Purpose comprehensively discussed and clearly linked to the project  

Project Question Criteria: Project question logically aligns with the purpose and focus of the project  

1. Project question not discussed or linked to purpose of the project
2. Project question adequately developed and weakly linked to the purpose of the project
3. Project question comprehensively developed and clearly linked to the purpose of the project   

Project Objective(s) Criteria: Project objective(s) clearly stated utilizing SMART

1. Objectives not included or not well defined.
2. Objective(s) discussed and match the project purpose and question utilizes SMART criteria
3. Objective(s) clearly described and closely align with the project purpose and utilize SMART criteria.

Theoretical Framework-1 Criteria: Theoretical framework is described and clearly linked to focus of project

1. Theoretical framework not discussed or linked to the project
2. Theoretical framework adequately discussed and weakly linked to the project
3. Theoretical framework comprehensively discussed and clearly linked to the project   

Theoretical Framework-2 Criteria: Theoretical framework logically aligns with the purpose and focus of the project:

1. Theoretical framework not discussed or linked to purpose of the project
2. Theoretical framework adequately developed and weakly linked to the purpose of the project
3. Theoretical framework comprehensively developed and clearly linked to the purpose of the project   

Theoretical Framework-3 Criteria: Figure(s) of theoretical framework clearly illustrate and links to focus of project:

1. Figure(s) of framework not used or linked to focus of the project
2. Figure(s) of framework adequately developed and weakly linked to the focus of the project
3. Figure(s) of framework comprehensively developed and clearly linked to the focus of the project   

Theoretical Framework-4 Criteria: Theoretical framework main concepts described and linked to the project:

1. Theoretical framework concepts not discussed or linked the project
2. Theoretical framework concepts adequately discussed and weakly linked to the project
3. Theoretical framework concepts comprehensively discussed and clearly linked to the project   

Evidence Search-1 Criteria: Actions used for literature search process described in detail

1. Did not describe search terms, databases, inclusion criteria, exclusion criteria
2. Adequately described search terms, databases, inclusion criteria, exclusion criteria
3. Comprehensively described search terms, databases, inclusion criteria, exclusion criteria

Evidence Search-2 Criteria: Literature search results described in detail

1. Did not describe number of articles reviewed, how search was narrowed, final number articles, and rational articles selected
2. Adequately described number of articles reviewed, how search was narrowed, final number of articles, and rational for articles selected
3. Comprehensively described number of articles reviewed, how search was narrowed, final number of articles, and rational for articles selected

Evidence Search-3 Criteria: Flow diagram of a logical article selection process

1. Flow diagram absent or does not show appropriate selection of articles
2. Flow diagram shows an appropriate selection process for articles
3. Flow diagram is comprehensive and clearly shows logical selection process for articles

Synthesis-1 Criteria: Review and synthesis of current evidence related to focus of project

1. Review and synthesis of current evidence not discussed or linked the project
2. Review and synthesis of current evidence adequately discussed and weakly linked to the project
3. Review and synthesis of current evidence comprehensively discussed and clearly linked to the project   

Synthesis-2 Criteria: Strengths of evidence related to focus of project

1. Strengths of evidence not discussed or linked the project
2. Strengths of evidence adequately discussed and weakly linked to the project
3. Strengths of evidence comprehensively discussed and clearly linked to the project    

Synthesis-3 Criteria: Weakness of evidence related to focus of project

1. Weakness of evidence not discussed or linked the project
2. Weakness of evidence adequately discussed and weakly linked to the project
3. Weakness of evidence comprehensively discussed and clearly linked to the project      

Synthesis-4 Criteria: Gaps and limitations of evidence related to focus of project

1. Gaps and limitations of evidence not discussed or linked the project
2. Gaps and limitations of evidence adequately discussed and weakly linked to the project
3. Gaps and limitations of evidence comprehensively discussed and clearly linked to the project      

Methods Introduction Criteria: Methods introductory paragraph aligns with the project purpose

1. Methods introduction not used or aligned to the project purpose
2. Methods introduction adequately developed and weakly aligned to the project purpose
3. Methods introduction comprehensively developed and clearly aligned to the project purpose     

Model for Implementation Criteria: PDSA cycle described and related to the focus of the project

1. PDSA cycle not discussed or linked the project
2. PDSA cycle adequately discussed and weakly linked to the project
3. PDSA cycle comprehensively discussed and clearly linked to the project      

Setting & Stakeholders Criteria: Description of implementation setting & stakeholders related to focus of project

1. Setting and stakeholders not discussed or linked the project
2. Setting and stakeholders adequately discussed and weakly linked to the project
3. Setting and stakeholders comprehensively discussed and clearly linked to the project      

Planning the Intervention Criteria: A detailed step by step guide for project implementation.

1. Implementation steps not identified or adequately discussed.
2. Implementation steps are complete with sufficient level of detail and clearly organized.
3. Implementation steps are comprehensive with excellent level of detail and organized with precision

Recruitment and Participants Criteria: Describe participant recruitment process and selection criteria for participants

1. Recruitment process not addressed or does not state selection criteria
2. Recruitment process and selection criteria adequately described
3. Recruitment process and selection criteria comprehensively described

Consent and Ethical Considerations Criteria: Discussion of consent process and ethical considerations related to the project

1. Consent process not addressed or does not adequately address ethical considerations
2. Consent process addressed adequately addresses ethical considerations
3. Consent process addressed in detail and comprehensive discussion of ethical considerations

Data Collection Criteria: Discussion of data collection process and data collection tool used for the project

1. Data collection process not addressed or does not adequately discuss data collection tool
2. Data collection process addressed adequately, and data collection tool described
3. Data collection process addressed in detail and comprehensive discussion of data collection tool

Data Analysis Criteria: Discussion of data analysis process for the project

1. Data analysis process not addressed or does not adequately discuss data analysis process
2. Data analysis process addressed adequately
3. Data analysis process addressed in detail

APA Formatting Criteria: APA formatting is adhered to thought-out the document

1. APA formatting is not followed or is followed in up to 79% of the document
2. APA formatting is correctly followed in 80% or more of the document
3. APA formatting is precisely followed in 95% or more of the document

Writing & Grammar Criteria: Professional writing and correct grammar is adhered to thought-out the document

1. Professional writing and correct grammar are not followed in up to 79% of the document
2. Professional writing and correct grammar are correctly followed in 80% or more of the document
3. Professional writing and correct grammar are precisely followed in 95% or more of the document

Upon submission the student, the committee member and the committtee chair are automatically emailed a copy of the evaluation with a PDF file attached for their records.