Fillable Printable Project Evaluation Form - New York
Fillable Printable Project Evaluation Form - New York
Project Evaluation Form - New York
Evaluation Form Feb. 2008
Evaluation Form for Proposed & Completed Honors Projects
Student’s Name: ___________________ Date of Submission: ___________
Project Title: ___________________________________________________________
Mentor’s Name: ________________________________________________________
Poor
(1)
Fair
(2)
Acceptable
(3)
Good
(4)
Excellent
(5)
NA
Conceptualization (Introduction)
Measures & design **
Analysis (proposed or completed)
Clarity of communication & APA
format
Feasibility (proposal only)
Discussion (final only)
** For non-experimental projects (e.g., a critical review of the literature), this section
should describe the scope of the review and the methods used to identify and select topics
to be included in the review.
For a proposed or completed project to be accepted by the HSR Committee:
- The manuscript must be complete (all required sections are submitted at the same time).
- The manuscript must be in APA format.
- For each reviewer, the average score is higher than the scale midpoint (i.e., 3.0 on a 1-5
scale).
- Across all reviewers, no category has an average score of less than 2.0 on a 5 point scale.
- Across all reviewers, no more than 1 category has an average score less than the
scale midpoint (3.0).
Written comments:
Evaluation Form Feb. 2008
Scoring Criteria & Issues
Reviewers: Rate each of the following questions on the 1-5 scale.
1 = poor 2 = Fair 3 = Acceptable 4 = Good 5 = Excellent (or NA)
Conceptualization
___ does the author effectively argue that the topic is important?
___ are all focal variables addressed in the literature review?
___ are relations between focal variables addressed in the review?
___ are hypotheses stated adequately & accurately?
___ are hypotheses consistent with the work described in the literature review?
___ are confounding variables acknowledged?
___ does the student cite a sufficient number of sources?
Measures & design
___ as written, is the sample appropriate for the research questions and hypotheses?
___ are the focal variables adequately and appropriately assessed?
___ are key confounding variables adequately and appropriately assessed?
___ as written, does the design allow for testing of the hypotheses?
Analysis (proposed and completed)
___ are the analyses appropriate for the hypotheses?
___ are the analyses appropriate for the design?
___ will/do the analyses provide results for all hypotheses?
___ do the proposed analyses include an alternate plan, if necessary?
___ does the student have the ability to conduct the analyses and understand the findings?
___ do the completed analyses include adequate descriptive statistics?
Clarity of communication & APA format
___ is the structure/organization clear?
___ does the student use a professional style?
___ is the manuscript easy to read/follow?
___ are there grammatical errors? typographical errors?
___ adherence to APA format
Complete lack of adherence to APA format should be reflected by a score of 1. A small
number of format violations should not be the difference between an acceptable and an
unacceptable project.
Feasibility (proposal only)
Consider issues related to sample recruitment, time required to test each participant, materials
needed (including participant compensation), HSC approval, student’s ability to perform the
analyses, and anticipated graduation date.
1 = not possible for a student to complete in time
3 = student may experience some time pressure, but should finish on time
5 = very likely that student will complete the project on time
Discussion (final only)
___ does the discussion state the question/hypothesis and indicate the result?
___ does the interpretation go beyond a simple (re)statement of the results?
___ are limits acknowledged?
___ are future directions discussed?
___ does the student appropriately set these results in the context of the work presented
in the literature review?
