Difference between revisions of "CON Faculty Practice Fund Scoring Rubric"

From University of Nebraska Medical Center
Jump to: navigation, search
 
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 51: Line 51:
  
 
     <tr>
 
     <tr>
     <td valign="top">&nbsp;</td>
+
     <td valign="top">Referenced documents:</td>
 
     </tr>
 
     </tr>
  
Line 58: Line 58:
 
<table width="100%" style="max-width:70em !important;">
 
<table width="100%" style="max-width:70em !important;">
 
<tr><td align="center">'''Faculty Practice Fund Scoring Rubric'''</td></tr>
 
<tr><td align="center">'''Faculty Practice Fund Scoring Rubric'''</td></tr>
<tr><td align="center">'''Applies to:'''</td></tr>
+
<tr><td align="center">'''Applies to'''</td></tr>
 
<tr><td align="center">'''Projects, Conferences or Continuing Education'''</td></tr>
 
<tr><td align="center">'''Projects, Conferences or Continuing Education'''</td></tr>
 
</table>
 
</table>
<p style="max-width:70em !important;">'''Scoring Rubric:'''</p>
+
<p style="max-width:70em !important;">'''Scoring Rubric'''</p>
 
<br />
 
<br />
 
<table width="100%" style="max-width:70em !important;">
 
<table width="100%" style="max-width:70em !important;">
Line 94: Line 94:
 
</table>
 
</table>
 
<br />
 
<br />
<p style="max-width:70em !important; margin-bottom:15px">'''Scoring Explanation:'''</p>
+
<p style="max-width:70em !important; margin-bottom:15px">'''Scoring Explanation'''</p>
 
<p style="max-width:70em !important; margin-bottom:15px">Not applicable – This item is not relevant to this particular application.</p>
 
<p style="max-width:70em !important; margin-bottom:15px">Not applicable – This item is not relevant to this particular application.</p>
 
<p style="max-width:70em !important; margin-bottom:15px">Score of 1 – The application poses a '''weak''' explanation for the request.  There is little explanation of what the funding request is for or how the outcomes might benefit faculty practice at the UNMC CON.</p>
 
<p style="max-width:70em !important; margin-bottom:15px">Score of 1 – The application poses a '''weak''' explanation for the request.  There is little explanation of what the funding request is for or how the outcomes might benefit faculty practice at the UNMC CON.</p>
 
<p style="max-width:70em !important; margin-bottom:15px">Score of 2 – The application poses a '''reasonable''' explanation for the request.  The explanation of the funding request is clear and concise.  The outcomes would benefit faculty practice at the UNMC CON.</p>
 
<p style="max-width:70em !important; margin-bottom:15px">Score of 2 – The application poses a '''reasonable''' explanation for the request.  The explanation of the funding request is clear and concise.  The outcomes would benefit faculty practice at the UNMC CON.</p>
 
<p style="max-width:70em !important; margin-bottom:15px">Score of 3 – The application poses a '''strong''' explanation for the request.  The explanation of the funding request is clear and concise.  Additionally, it includes a strong explanation for significance, innovation, and approach.  The outcomes directly benefit faculty practice at the UNMC CON and the individual’s personal trajectory towards promotion and tenure.</p>
 
<p style="max-width:70em !important; margin-bottom:15px">Score of 3 – The application poses a '''strong''' explanation for the request.  The explanation of the funding request is clear and concise.  Additionally, it includes a strong explanation for significance, innovation, and approach.  The outcomes directly benefit faculty practice at the UNMC CON and the individual’s personal trajectory towards promotion and tenure.</p>

Latest revision as of 15:38, July 18, 2019

Home   Appendices                    


UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA MEDICAL CENTER
COLLEGE OF NURSING
Faculty Practice Fund Scoring Rubric Subsection: Appendix Z4
Appendix - Appendices Originating Date: May 2017
Responsible Reviewing Agency:
Faculty Practice Committee
Executive Council
 
Referenced documents:


Faculty Practice Fund Scoring Rubric
Applies to
Projects, Conferences or Continuing Education

Scoring Rubric


  Not Applicable 1 2 3
Connection to
practice role
       
Well-developed
plan or design
       
Plans for
dissemination
       


Scoring Explanation

Not applicable – This item is not relevant to this particular application.

Score of 1 – The application poses a weak explanation for the request. There is little explanation of what the funding request is for or how the outcomes might benefit faculty practice at the UNMC CON.

Score of 2 – The application poses a reasonable explanation for the request. The explanation of the funding request is clear and concise. The outcomes would benefit faculty practice at the UNMC CON.

Score of 3 – The application poses a strong explanation for the request. The explanation of the funding request is clear and concise. Additionally, it includes a strong explanation for significance, innovation, and approach. The outcomes directly benefit faculty practice at the UNMC CON and the individual’s personal trajectory towards promotion and tenure.