Posted: January 8th, 2015

Proposal

Proposal

Order Description

Sunday, 06 October 2013

Dear Supervisor,

Our MSc in Clinical and Health Psychology students for Research Methods I module have been asked to complete an assignment which is i. to write a grant proposal based

on their proposed dissertation work, and ii. provide two peer reviews of grant proposals provided to student .

As an MSc student’s supervisor we require you to mark the student’s grant proposal. You are allowed to give feedback on one draft of the grant proposal. (I will mark

the peer reviews.)

• Pages 2-3 of this document provides you with details of the assignment.
• Detailed guidance for markers is given on pages 4-6 of this document.
• Please use the marking sheets on page 7 of this document.

All the best,
Trish Gooding (Module Leader).

The MSc in Clinical and Health Psychology, Conducting Applied Research: Assessments

1. A grant proposal (70% of your total mark)
Write a grant proposal. It is advised that your grant proposal is based on your proposed dissertation project. The research work described should last for a period of

12 months. You may discuss your proposal with your supervisor. The following sections must be included:
1. An abstract understandable by academics with expertise in the project area described (maximum word limit = 200 words).
2. An abstract understandable by lay people (maximum word limit = 200 words).
3. The grant proposal (maximum word limit = 2,350 words) comprising the following sub-sections:
a. Back-ground to the project
b. Overall aims or research questions
c. Method
i. A power analysis is advised if the work is quantitative
d. Analysis / Assessment of the data
e. Ethical considerations
f. Feasibility
g. Potential contribution to the research area
4. Dissemination strategy (250 words)
a. Include a dissemination strategy which is i. academically orientated (e.g., conference presentations, journal article submissions), ii clinical and health

professional orientated (e.g., talks at workshops, seminars which are focused on training such professionals), and iii service-user orientated (e.g., talks,

newsletters, discussion forums to those using clinical and health psychology services either via the NHS/voluntary organisations/charities).
The total word limit, including all of the above sections, is 3,000. Please do not exceed any of the word or space limits. Put the word count by each of the four sub-

sections.
5. Reference section (no word limit)
a. This must be in APA format. Use of EndNote is advised.
6. Where applicable, on one side of A4 paper, please indicate any costs incurred by the project. Costs should not exceed £10,000. Costs should be justified. Employment

of research staff is not acceptable. Please include any of the following examples:
a. Equipment or hardware (e.g. computers to run experiments, video cameras).
b. Software (e.g. Eprime to run experiments, NVivo to analyse qualitative data).
i. Microsoft Office and SPSS (including AMOS) are site licensed.
c. Participant payments.
d. Purchasing questionnaires.
e. Other costs (e.g. travel to participants).
Appendices are not acceptable.

Feedback from supervisors:
Feedback is acceptable on one draft only of the grant proposal.

2. Peer review of two grant proposals (30% of your total mark, each 15%)
You are required to write a review of two grant proposals (excluding abstracts) which will be provided for you. Costing have not been provided, so you do not need to

comment on “value for money”. References have also not been provided. Each review should be no more than 500 words.
Your review should be constructive and include the following issues:
• Overview or summary of the grant proposal
o What are the over-arching objectives of the proposal and upon what foundation are these objectives based?
• Clarity of the research question.
o Is the research question stated?
o Is the research question specific?
• Theoretical appropriateness and novelty of the proposal
o Is the proposal grounded in psychological theory?
o Is the proposal advancing psychological theory?
• Applied appropriateness and novelty of the proposal
o Will the proposal advance the testing and implementation of psychological procedures/therapies/interventions?
• Is the research proposal well thought out methodologically?
o Is the participant choice justified?
o Are sampling procedures realistic and appropriate?
? Particular attention should be given to participant sampling procedures in qualitative studies.
o Are recruitment rates detailed?
o Are attrition rates accounted for?
o Is there a power analysis?
o Is the design of the study (studies) clear?
? Does the design answer the research question?
? Where appropriate, are between and within subject factors described and accurate?
? Where appropriate, are predictor and outcome variables described and accurate?
? Are the DVs clear?
• Are primary outcome variables distinct?
? Have appropriate psychometrics been provided
o Is the procedure detailed?
? If appropriate, have topic guides for interviews/focus groups been given?
o Is the procedure clear?
o Have reliability and validity issues been considered?
o Are the analyses appropriate?
o Have the ethical implications been stated?
• Is the proposal feasible in the time frame of 12 months?
• Has a good dissemination strategy been provided?

Feedback from supervisors:
Feedback should not be given by supervisors.

Please give the word counts for each of the two reviews

Marking criteria
The grant proposal will be marked by your dissertation supervisor. Documentation given to staff and the marking criteria are given below.

Your two peer reviews will be marked by me (Trish Gooding).

Briefing notes for markers: the grant proposal

(Please note that students have access to all information given to markers.)

Back-ground to assignment:
This assignment includes i. a grant proposal (70% of total mark), ii. a peer review of two grant proposals provided to students, (30% of total mark, 15% each). The

assignment has been designed to cover a range of skills which should be transferrable, for example, writing a lay abstract, preparing and justifying a budget, and

developing a dissemination strategy. It includes a number of sub-sections which have been supported by specific lecture sessions. Topics covered in lectures were:

• Reviewing the literature
• Critical thinking and appraisal of research
• The peer review process
• Designing a programme of research
• Writing research proposals and grants
• Ethics
• Dissemination

What students have been asked to do:
Students have been asked to undertake two tasks:
1. Write a grant proposal – total word count 3000 words; 70% of mark
a. Dissertation supervisors will comment on ONE draft of the entire proposal
2. Peer review two grant proposals provided to them – 500 word limit for each review; 30% of mark
a. Dissertation supervisors provide NO feedback

What staff are asked to do:
1. Discuss the grant proposal with students during dissertation supervision meetings.
2. Give detailed and constructive comments on a draft grant proposal of their dissertation student(s).
3. Mark the grant proposal of their dissertation student(s).

The following gives staff detailed guidance on the grant proposal.

The grant proposal
Students have been advised that the most efficient strategy for them is to write a grant proposal based in their proposed dissertation work. However, this is not

mandatory and the topic of their proposal is their choice. Clearly, if they choose not to write the grant proposal on their dissertation work, then this will limit the

contribution of supervisors during dissertation supervision meetings.

Students have been asked to include specific sections in their grant proposal which are as follows:
1. An academic abstract (200 words)
a. This should be of the kind of academic standard seen in high quality journals (e.g., the Journal of Abnormal Psychology).
2. A lay abstract (200 words)
a. It is important that sentences in the academic abstract are not just paraphrased in the lay abstract. For example, “A ruminative response style has been found to be

a mediator of depressed mood in both cross-sectional and prospectively designed studies……” should not be written something like “A ruminative response style amplifies

depressed moods both in studies which sample peoples feelings at one time point and also in studies which aim to predict negative mood states.”
3. The proposal (2,350 words)
a. The back-ground should:
i. Give the context and scope of the proposal.
ii. Clearly lead into the aims.
iii. Be written in a concise style with pertinent points only covered, i.e. it shouldn’t be overly inclusive.
iv. Be properly and appropriately referenced.
b. The research aims/research questions should be clear, specific and precise.
i. There should not be too many aims (three always seems about right).
c. The method section should be detailed – students have been warned not to devote too much space to the back-ground at the expense of the method section. Students

have been advised that their studies should map onto their research questions. The following should have been considered:
i. The design of the study/studies:
1. The design of the studies should match the research questions/goals (e.g., “Study 1. The goal of the first study was to determine whether resilience measured at

time 1 inversely predicts suicidal ideation at time 2.” The first research question/aim should be something like “The first aim was to determine the extent to which

high resilience predicts low levels of suicidal ideation.”).
2. The design should be detailed (e.g., Experimental/quasi-experimental; Cross-sectional/longitudinal; BS and WS factors (levels), DVs; predictors, outcome variables).
ii. Sampling and recruitment (a power analysis would be a bonus if the study is quantitative).
1. Type of sampling should be identified (e.g., purposive; stratified, opportunistic).
2. Inclusion and exclusion criteria should be given as appropriate.
iii. Attrition rates, where appropriate.
iv. Procedural details.
1. Topic guides should be given for interviews and focus groups
d. Analysis
i. The analysis should be appropriate for the research questions and the design of the study/studies.
ii. Where appropriate, techniques for dealing with missing data should be considered.
e. Ethical considerations
i. The correct level of ethical approval required should be stated (e.g., NHS, School, University Senate).
ii. Confidentiality, anonymity, and data storage issues should be considered where appropriate.
1. Qualitative studies should specifically state, for e.g., procedures for taking consent for audio-taping; treatment / storage of audiotapes; maintaining anonymity

when transcribing dialogues etc.
f. Feasibility
i. Proposed studies should be feasible in the 12 month time span.
1. Studies recruiting from vulnerable groups should be realistic.
a. Recruitment rates should be realistic
2. Use of specialist techniques or specialist procedures, should be realistic.
g. Potential contribution to the research area
i. The theoretical/methodological and professional impact of the proposed work should be explicit and realistic in the context of the proposal.
4. Dissemination strategy (250 words)
a. This should go beyond publishing academic papers and attending academic conferences.
b. Dissemination to specific service-users groups should be identified where appropriate.
c. Dissemination to professionals should be specified.
d. Dissemination methods should be detailed, e.g., web information, newsletters.
5. Costings (1 sheet of A4 – no word count)
a. Costings are limited to £10K and will not cover RA or other contracted staff employment.
b. The employment of casual labour paid on an hourly basis may be appropriate (e.g., to transcribe tapes)
c. Costs should be realistic. The following examples have been given to students:
i. Equipment or hardware (e.g. computers to run experiments, video cameras)
ii. Software (e.g. Eprime to run experiments)
iii. Participant payments
iv. Purchasing questionnaires
v. Other costs (e.g. travel to participants)
The word count must be placed by each section and sub-section and must not be exceeded.
Appendices are not acceptable.

Marking:
Please give comments on the components of the assignments. Students find it helpful if comments are not hand written.

The comments given should be specific enough and comprehensive enough to help the student understand how to improve their weaknesses and also how to optimise their

strengths.

It is very important that the final agreed marks accurately reflect the feedback given. So, positive and negative feedback given should make sense to the student

(e.g., 52% for comments stating that the work is ‘well-structured, to the point, and well-thought out’ will not make sense, nor will 80% for primarily negative

feedback).

Please mark all section of the assignment out of 100% using the standard marking schemes (42%, 45%, 48%, 52%, 55%, 58%, 62%, 65%, 68%, 74%, 80%, 90%).

Please don’t over-mark. Marks of 74% and above indicate that the work is of a publishable/very high academic standard.

PLACE THIS ORDER OR A SIMILAR ORDER WITH US TODAY AND GET AN AMAZING DISCOUNT 🙂