UOPX Material



University of Phoenix Material

Dissertation Criteria and Rating Scale Overview (PhD)

The purpose of this crosswalk document is to provide a practical overview of the Dissertation Criteria and Rating Scale. The rating scale document provides information on two levels of the scale. Baseline information—derived from the revised dissertation process—is provided for each individual tab, of the Microsoft® Excel® document, and summary detail—summarized from the criteria provided in the scale—is provided for the domains contained therein.

Tab 1: Prospectus Review Criteria

The prospectus review is a basic outline of the foundation and formation of a learner’s dissertation research. This review is conducted as an evaluative assessment for DOC/720, the first dissertation proposal course in the PhD higher education administration and nursing sequences. At this point in their respective programs, students must create a well-developed first chapter that details three elements: problem formation and contribution to knowledge, an initial discussion of the relevant scholarship that delineates and contextualizes the proposed study, and a clear explanation and articulation of the research method and design for the proposed study. At this stage, students are assessed on their capability in developing and articulating a feasible and appropriate study for doctoral-level inquiry.

Problem Formation

Criteria in this domain address the ways in which the background of the research has been articulated, how a need for inquiry has developed from this background, why this inquiry is needed, and how the researcher proposes to undertake this inquiry. Additionally, the criteria in this domain explain the significant contributions the research will make to literature and theory in the field of inquiry. Accordingly, elements from subsequent sections of the rating scale may be present in this domain, but they should be summative accounts, rather than repetitious accounts. This domain also addresses the alignment of the research design to the identified question, as well as the study’s feasibility and appropriateness.

Literature Review

The literature review criteria in the prospectus are the same as on the Committee Review tab. In the prospectus, students should clearly address each element and must support the context and method in their study. The depth should be sufficient to substantiate the proposal in the field of study. The exhaustiveness and depth of a learner’s treatment of the literature is addressed in the subsequent Committee Review.

Design and Logic

The criteria in this section are the same as the criteria in the Quality Review – Proposal tab. In the prospectus, students must address each element and must provide a clear account of a proposed study’s design. The depth should be sufficient to substantiate the alignment of the chosen research approach and tradition to the proposed area of inquiry. A clear alignment of the study’s design, its intent, and its intended outcomes must be evident. The rigor and alignment of the design approach are assessed in the subsequent Quality Review – Proposal.

Tab 2: Committee Review – Literature

Members of the learner’s dissertation committee assess whether the learner’s treatment of the literature is adequate for doctoral-level inquiry. At this level, the learner must have exhaustively reviewed, synthesized, and situated the literature corresponding to the study’s topic, its methodological approach, and its potential contribution to the discipline.

Literature Review

The domain that addresses the study’s literature review contains several elements related to content and form: coverage of the content literature, coverage of the methodological literature, synthesis of the literature, a treatment of the dissertation’s significance in relation to the literature, and the rhetorical narrative developed through the review. Literature reviews are expected to evidence students’ grasp of the historical and current literature related to their studies, as well as the literature that describes and supports the decision to utilize their methods of inquiry. These content elements must be synthesized into a cogent narrative that provides a comprehensive background to, argues the need for, and situates the proposed research in the discipline.

Tab 2: Quality Review – Proposal

All students in the School of Advanced Studies (SAS) doctoral programs submit their dissertation proposals for a quality review by appointed SAS faculty. This review ensures that students have clarified the research questions or hypotheses they are using to guide the study and that they have developed a method and approach to inquiry that appropriately respond to the problem, the question, and the literature.

Design and Logic

Criteria in this section focus on the detailed account of a proposed study’s design. Subdomains also focus on the appropriate application of a particular research tradition to the proposed area of inquiry and the comprehensive alignment of the study’s design, its intent, and its intended outcomes.

Tab 3: IRB Review

Largely because of the difficulty in assessing ethical components in proposed or completed research, the application of the IRB Review tab of criteria is largely the purview of the IRB. These criteria are assessed using evidence from the proposal and the IRB forms that must be completed by all students prior to data collection.

Ethics in Reporting

Criteria in this domain focus on the appropriate use and reporting of informed consent, the strategies for ensuring participant confidentiality, and the clarity, safety, and transparency of procedures in the research design and protocols.

Tab 4: Quality Review – Final

The final quality review centers on the data analysis and interpretation components of the study. The review is conducted by appointed faculty and qualified external reviewers to ensure that the highest levels of intellectual rigor are maintained in the systematic process of analyzing and contextualizing data in terms of the study’s design. Students cannot defend their dissertations until successfully completing this quality review.

Sources of Evidence

This domain’s criteria center on the description of the study’s data sources, how collection processes were engaged throughout the research, the larger context in which data collection took place, and the ways in which these procedures supported the research design and intent.

Measurement and Classification

The measurement and classification criteria address the presence, accuracy, and clarity of a researcher’s structuring and organizing of data. Elements assessed with these criteria include coding structures, descriptive statistics, scales, data reduction techniques, and member checking regarding the coding or classifications used by the learner.

Analysis and Interpretation

A general set of criteria are applied to all dissertations regarding data analysis and interpretation. These criteria center on the nature of the evidence that supports any outcomes or claims, the presence of some inquiry toward disconfirming evidence, congruence with the research questions and the outcomes suggested from the evidence, and links between interpretation, previous research described in the literature review, and the contributions of the present study.

Quantitative Study Analysis and Interpretation

The rating scale enhances the quantitative research criteria with additional emphases on the presence and accurate utilization or interpretation of descriptive or inferential statistics, statistical testing, and effect indices, as well as considerations of possible compromises to the study’s validity.

Qualitative Study Analysis and Interpretation

The scale enhances the qualitative research criteria with additional emphases on clarity/transparency of interpretation processes, warrant for claims made that are grounded in concrete examples from the data, and greater contextualization of the claims made due to the more subjective nature of qualitative inquiry.

Generalization

This domain addresses the intended scope of a study’s generalizability, the depth of the learner’s discussion of the study’s population and context, and the logic applied to any claims of generalization.

Tab 5: Editorial Review

After final approval by the chair or committee, students must submit their final manuscripts to an editing service sponsored by the university. The final tab contains the criteria the editing service provides in this review.

Title, Abstract, and Headings

Criteria herein address the accuracy and appropriateness of the title, abstract, and headings.

Writing

These criteria assess the clarity, tone, precision, and mechanics of the writing in the dissertation.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download