STATEMENT OF ORIGINAL WORKI understand that Capella Univer.docx

STATEMENT OF ORIGINAL WORK
I understand that Capella University’s Academic Honesty Policy
(3.01.01) holds learners accountable for the integrity of work
they submit, which includes, but is not limited to, discussion
postings, assignments, comprehensive exams, and the
dissertation. Learners are expected to understand the Policy and
know that it is their responsibility to learn about instructor and
general academic expectations with regard to proper citation of
sources in written work as specified in the APA Publication
Manual, 6th Ed. Serious sanctions can result from violations of
any type of the Academic Honesty Policy including dismissal
from the university.
I attest that this document represents my own work. Where I
have used the ideas of others, I have paraphrased and given
credit according to the guidelines of the APA Publication
Manual, 6th Ed. Where I have used the words of others, (i.e.
direct quotes), I have followed the guidelines for using direct
quotes prescribed by the APA Publication Manual, 6th Ed.
I have read, understood, and abided by Capella University’s
Academic Honesty Policy (3.01.01). I further understand that
Capella University takes plagiarism seriously; regardless of
intention, the result is the same.
Signature for Statement of Original Work
Learner Name
Mentor Name
Learner Email

Mentor Email
Learner ID
Date
School of Education Research Plan: Action ResearchResearch
Plan Process
You will use this form in obtaining approval for Milestones 2-5.
The goals of this process are to: (1) facilitate the planning of
the details of your research study, (2) allow for scientific merit
review and (3) facilitate your progress through dissertation
completion. You must obtain approval of this form, your
Research Plan (RP) before seeking IRB approval, collecting
data, and writing your full dissertation or any of your chapters.
Approval of this Research Plan (RP) satisfies Milestone 5;
indicating that the Research Plan (RP) has passed the “scientific
merit review,” part of the IRB process. Scientific Merit
the following criteria will be used to establish scientific merit.
The purpose of the review will be to evaluate if the study:
1. Advances the scientific knowledge base.
2. Makes a contribution to research theory.
3. Demonstrates understanding of theories and approaches
related to your selected methodology.
**Obtaining Scientific Merit approval for your Research Plan
(RP) does not guarantee you will obtain IRB approval. A
detailed ethical review will be conducted during the process of
IRB approval.
How to Use This Form

This Research Plan (RP) form is intended to help you plan the
details of your EdD Dissertation. It provides a space for you
and your mentor to work out all the details of your design. Once
you have obtained Research Plan (RP) approval, you should be
able to easily expand on the information you have submitted
here and write the dissertation chapters because these sections
follow the outline of the Dissertation Chapters 1-3. It is
recommended that you use this form in a step-by-step way to
help you design your study. Expect that you will go through
several revisions before obtaining approval this form. Research
Planning is an iterative process, each revision often sparking
the need for further revisions until everything is aligned. These
iterations and revisions are a necessary and customary part of
the research process.Specialization Chair’s Approval after
Section 1
When you have completed Section 1 along with initial
references in section 3, send the Research Plan (RP) to your
mentor for review. When your mentor considers it is ready, he
or she submits it to your Specialization Chair. The Chair
approves the topic as appropriate within your specialization.
You then go on to complete the remaining sections of the
Research Plan (RP).
Do’s and Don’ts
· Do use the correct form! This Research Plan is for Action
Research designs. Do prepare your answers in a separate Word
document. Editing and revising will be easier.
· Set font formatting to Times New Roman, 11 point, regular
style font. Do set paragraph indentation (“Format” menu) for no
indentation, no spacing.
· Do copy/paste items into the designated fields when they are

ready.
· Don’t delete the descriptions in the left column!
· Don’t lock the form. That will stop you from editing and
revising within the form.
· Do complete the “Learner Information” (A) of the first table,
and Section 1 first.
· Don’t skip items or sections. If an item does not apply to your
study, type “NA” in its field.
· Do read the item descriptions and their respective Instructions
carefully. Items request very specific information. Be sure you
understand what is asked. (Good practice for IRB!)
· Do use primary sources to the greatest extent possible as
references. Textbooks or dissertations are not acceptable as the
only references supporting methodological and design choices.
· Do submit a revisedRPif, after approval, you change your
design elements. It may not need a second review, but should be
on file before your IRB application is submitted.
GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS
Complete the following steps to request scientific merit
approval (SMR) for your RP.Topic Approval – Milestone 2
1. Develop topic and methodological approach:
· Talk with your mentor about your ideas for your dissertation
topic and a methodological approach.
· Collaborate with your mentor to refine your topic into a
specific research study that will add to the existing scholarly

literature on your topic.
2. Complete Section 1 of the RP form.
· Complete Section 1 addressing the topic and intervention and
e-mail the form to your mentor for approval. Follow the
instructions carefully.
· Collaborate with your mentor until you have mentor approval
for the topic. After you have received mentor approval for
Section 1, your mentor will submit this form to your
Specialization Chair for topic approval via the Dissertation
Support Center (DSC).
· The Specialization Chair will notify the DSC of the
specialization’s decision. The DSC will email a formal approval
notice to you and your mentor. The Specialization Chair may
notify you and your mentor of their decision before you receive
the approval notice from the DSC.
· If the topic is not approved, the DSC will send the deferral
notice to your mentor. Your mentor will notify you about the
deferral and help you understand the revisions that need to be
made for approval.
Mentor Approval - Milestones 3 and Committee Approval -
Milestone 4
3. Complete the remaining Research Plan Sections.
· After your Specialization Chair approves the topic, continue to
collaborate with your mentor to plan the details of your research
approach.
· Once you and your mentor have agreed on clear plans for the
details of the research approach, complete the remainder of the

RP form, and submit the completed RP form to your mentor for
approval.
· Expect that you will go through several revisions. Collaborate
with your mentor until you have his or her approval of your RP.
· After you have a polished version, you and your mentor should
both review the RP criteria for each section, to ensure you have
provided the requisite information to demonstrate you have met
each of the scientific merit criteria.
4.
After your mentor has approved your RP (Milestone 3), she or
he will forward your RP to your Committee for their approval
(Milestone 4).
· After you have obtained mentor AND committee approvals of
the completed RP, your mentor will submit the completed RP
via the DSC to have your plan reviewed for Scientific Merit by
the School of Education.
· Mentor and committee approval does not guarantee RP
approval. Each review is independent and serves to ensure your
RP demonstrates research competency.
Milestone 5 – School of Education approval of Research Plan
5. After you have obtained mentor (Milestone 3) AND
committee (Milestone 4) approvals of the completed RP form,
your mentor will submit the completed RP via the DSC to have
your form reviewed for scientific merit.
a) RP form in review: The scientific merit reviewer will review
each item to determine whether you have met each of the
criteria. You must meet all the criteria to obtain reviewer
approval. The reviewer will designate your RP as one of the

following:
· Approved
· Deferred for minor or major revisions
· Not ready for review
You will be notified by the DSC once your RP is approved.
b) If the RP is deferred:
· If your RP is deferred for major or minor revisions, or is not
ready for review, the DSC will notify your mentor.
· The SMR reviewer will provide feedback to your mentor on
any criteria that you have not met.
· Your mentor will review the feedback with you to be sure that
you understand what revisions are needed.
· You are required to make the necessary revisions and obtain
approval for the revisions from your mentor.
· Once you have mentor approval for your revisions, your
mentor will submit your RP for a second review via the DSC.
· Up to three attempts to obtain scientific merit approval (SMR)
are allowed. Researchers, mentors, and reviewers should make
every possible attempt to resolve issues before the RP is failed
for the third time.
c) If your RP does not pass the scientific merit review on the
third attempt, then the case will be referred to the research
specialists and the Research Chair in the School of Education
for review, evaluation, and intervention. While you await
approval of your RP, you should be working to complete your

Institutional Review Board (IRB) application and supporting
documents. Once you have gained SMR approval (Milestone 5),
you are ready to submit your Institutional Review Board (IRB)
application and supporting documents for review by Capella
University’s Institutional Review Board (IRB) Committee.
Milestone 6 – Institutional Review Board (IRB) Approval
6. Submit the Approved RP to the IRB:
· Once you obtain RP approval of the completed RP, write your
IRB application and accompanying materials.
· Consult the Institutional Review Board page on iGuide for
IRB forms and detailed process directions.
· You are required to obtain RP approval before you may
receive IRB approval. Obtaining RP approval does not
guarantee that IRB approval will follow.
Milestone 7 – Pre-Data Collection Conference Call
7. Complete the Research Plan Conference call:
· Once you have gained approval by the IRB, you are ready to
schedule your Pre-Data Collection Conference Call. You may
not proceed to data collection until you have completed this
conference call.
· Work with your mentor and committee to set a date for the
conference call.
· Upon successful completion of the Pre-Data Collection
Conference Call, your mentor will complete the corresponding
Milestone Report and you are ready for data collection.

PRELIMINARY INFORMATION
Learners, please insert your answers directly into the
expandable boxes that have been provided!
A. Learner and Specialization Information
(to be completed by Learner)
Learner Name
Learner Email
Learner ID Number
Mentor Name
Mentor Email
Specialization
Specialization Chair Name
Specialization Chair Email
Committee Member #1 Name
(assigned by SOE)
Committee Member #1 Email
Committee Member #2 Name
(assigned by SOE)
Committee Member #2 Email
Methodology
ACTION RESEARCH
PART 1 RESEARCH PLAN FORM

Section 1 Diagnose the Problem
1.1
Proposed Dissertation Title
Usually a two-part statement separated by a colon (:) and based
on the research question—short and to the point.
Part 1: Brief statement of what is to be improved/changed (x) in
what organizational entity (y) by what intervention (z). No
details such as operational definitions are needed in the Title
section itself, because they belong elsewhere in the RP.
Part 2: The words “An Action Research Study” (should follow
the colon as the last part of EVERY title).
Learners, please insert your answers here directly into the
expandable boxes that have been provided. Please single space
using Times Roman 11 pt throughout the form – the boxes will
expand as you input text. Part 1 may not be more than 15 words
in length. Total length of the Title may not exceed 19 words.
Reviewer Comments:
1.2
Topic (approximately 200-250 words)
· Write no more than one or two paragraphs about the topic or
issue that provides a larger context for your local problem.
· Do not write about your own research setting here. That comes

later in your RP.
Learners, while staying within the boundaries of length, provide
ALL information requested, and NOTHING that is not
specifically requested. Your mentor will be checking to be sure
that the parameters for this section are met.
Reviewer Comments:
1.3
Problem (approximately 200-250 words)
The ‘problem’ in an action research study is an organizational
situation that needs to be improved. It is not necessary that it be
earth-shaking and it should not be a Key Performance Indicator
(KPI) such as retention or student performance (these are too
large for dissertations). The best problem is a specific
organizational process that needs clarification or modification
to become more efficient.
· Write no more than one clear, concise paragraph that describes
the problem that needs to be addressed. It should describe the
opportunity for improvement at your site.
The problem statement does NOT contain a solution or
description of the intervention.
·

Reviewer Comments:
1.4
Intervention (approximately 100 words)
· Write no more than one clear concise paragraph that describes
the intervention that will address the problem.
· Do not give details here of HOW the intervention will be
carried out. (That comes later in Part 2)
that the parameters for this section are met. NOTE: The most
common flaw here is a tendency to give too many details.
Reviewer Comments:
1.5
Contributions to the Specialization (approximately 300 words)
The response in this section is critical to the specialization’s
approval of your topic. The implications for the specialization
address the ‘so what?’ question for the study in a broader sense
than how the study will help the specific institution. It’s about
the specialization and not the institution.
· Describe how your study will contribute to your
specialization. Consider the following dimensions:
a) What makes the topic of your study appropriate for your
specialization?
b) What implications will your study have for advancing theory
and practice in your specialization?

A well-written justification of how the topic fits your
specialization (while staying within the boundaries of length)
needs careful composition and refinement.
Reviewer Comments:
DISSERTATION LEARNERS: STOP!!!
Learners: Please forward completed Section 1 plus your
references gathered so far (section 3) to your Mentor for review
and for Specialization Chairs’ Approval. (Work on your full
Literature Review while waiting for topic approval).
Specialization Reviewer: Please review the sections 1.1.
through 1.5 (i.e., dissertation title, topic, problem, intervention,
and contributions to the specialization). Please comment if not
approved. Insert your electronic signature and date. Return to
[email protected]
____YES or ____ NO
Reviewer Comments:
Specialization Topic Approval
Signature ____________________________________________
Date _________________
PART 2 RESEARCH PLAN FORM
Section 2 Methodology: Design of the Action Plan

2.1
Organizational context of your study (approximately 300 words)
This section is NOT a description of the problems at the site
where the study is to be done. It is rather an account of the
societal forces (listed) that cause, amplify, or moderate the
problem/issue as it exists at the site. Organizational context is
the background of the problem, not the problem itself or the
solution. Assumptions derive from the analysis of context and
form the basis of the study’s intervention. To achieve a good
statement, you may have to write it several times for your
mentor.
· Provide a brief (one to two paragraphs) synopsis of your
analysis of the organizational context of the problem/issue.
Include political, economic, social, and ethical systems
considerations as appropriate.
· State main assumptions about the problem situation and the
organizational context.
Provide ALL information requested, and NOTHING that is not
Reviewer Comments:
2.2
Existing Research. What are the key concepts and topics you
reviewed to 1) better understand the problem and 2) design your
intervention? (approximately 500 words)
This section on existing research is NOT a literature review.
Rather is it an outline and a synopsis of the themes and
concepts in the scholarly literature that BECOME the literature
review chapter. The themes need to be sufficiently well-
explained (and, of course, cited in correct APA 6th ed. style) in
a logical flow that supports the connection between the needed

improvement (problem) and the intervention, as stated in the
research question.
· Identify the research and theories of your specialization that
help explain the problem that your study will address.
· Explain how systems theory, action research theory, and
change theory provide a conceptual framework for your
expectation that the intervention you have chosen will bring
about the changes you seek.
· (Attach the most current list of references with the SMR.)
Reviewer Comments:
2.3
Research Method and Research Questions (approximately 200
words)
· State the research method that will be used to address the
research questions
There is only one correct way to describe the method. That is to
write that “the research method to be used is action research.”
Simple and complete. All others aspects (quantitative,
qualitative, mixed, correlational, etc.) refer to data rather than
method.
· State the action research questions of the study.
Similarly, there are only certain correct ways to state the
research questions of an action research study:
· How will [the intervention] bring about a change in [the
problem] at [a specific organizational site]? The ‘How’ in this

formulation refers to
a) the process by which the intervention does its work (known
as ‘process tracking); and is answered by telling the story of
how the intervention works, and
b) The ways in which the problem is changed/improved (known
as the assessment of outcomes) when using qualitative data
· If the outcome is assessed by a quantitative data, then the
formulation “To what extent” can be used as a research
question.
Reviewer Comments:
2.4
Population and Sample (approximately 200-250 words)
In an AR study, the POPULATION consists of the stakeholders
of the institution in which you carry out the study, and
stakeholders of similar sufficiently similar institutions.
The SAMPLE consists of those who will be selected to directly
participate in your intervention. Select a sufficient number to
support the analysis you intend to use:
· For parametric statistics, sample must be > 30
· Non-parametric statistics are to be used for samples of 11 to
29.
· Qualitative analysis must be used for samples of 10 or fewer.
· Describe the key stakeholders of your study by specifying

their characteristics and the characteristics of the institution.
· Describe your sample selection process, including any criteria
for inclusion or exclusion from the study.
· Justify your sample selection process and explain why/how the
size and make-up of your sample will serve the purpose of the
study.
Reviewer Comments:
2.5
Detailed Description of the Intervention and the Assessment of
the Outcomes of the Study (approximately 400-450 words)
This section is a synopsis of Chapter 3 in anticipation, and
should be clear and full. Give a detailed (step-by-step)
description of each stage of your intervention. Include:
· Invitation to the participants and their preparation for the
intervention;
· Detailed description of each step in the intervention and the
way data will be gathered to track its process.
· A clear timeline for how the intervention will be arranged and
implemented.
· Detailed description of the way the outcomes of the
intervention will be assessed.
· Include a schedule of the qualitative data to be collected
DURING the intervention in order to tell the story.
Reviewer Comments:
2.6

Data Collection – Phase 1 - Tracking the process of the
intervention as it takes place.
Again, this is the place for detail of just what will be done in
COLLECTING a specific kind of data. None of this detail
should have appeared in Part 1 or in any other part of the form.
Be careful not to make the common mistake of combining the
data collection description and the data analysis description.
Special care should be taken to separate the data collection
discussion from the data analysis discussion.
Remember that in AR, telling the story of the intervention is
just as important as is the reporting of data results. In fact, the
reporting of the qualitative data taken DURING the intervention
is essential to telling the story.Process tracking data will help
you explain HOW the intervention brings about change.
1) List and describe each form of qualitative (interviews,
records) or quantitative (observations or questionnaires) data
you gather DURING the intervention to track its process.
2) Attach a copy of each data collection tool you plan to use.
· If permission is required to use the instrument, attach a copy
of documentation showing permission has been granted.
· All researcher-developed data collection tools (surveys,
interviews, observation schedules) must be field-tested
DURING the preparation of the Research Plan. Attach the report
of the field test to the RP.
Learners, please note that any Quantitative test instruments or
inventories used in your study MUST be existing published
instruments.
Reviewer Comments:

2.7
Data Collection – Part 2 – Assessing the Outcome(s) of the
Intervention
Data collectedAFTER the intervention can be either
Qualitative (interviews, observations) or quantitative
(questionnaires or testing instruments). Again, this is the place
for detail of just what will be done. None of this detail should
appear in Part 1 or in any other part of the form. This section
deals ONLY with data collection. Be careful not to make the
common mistake of combining the data collection description
and the data analysis description. Special care should be taken
to separate the data collection discussion from the data analysis
discussion.
1) List and describe each form of qualitative (interviews,
records) or quantitative (observations or questionnaires) data
you gather AFTER the intervention to assess its outcomes.
Attach a copy of each data collection tool you plan to use.
2) If permission is required to use the instrument, attach copy of
documentation showing permission has been granted.
3) If using an investigator-developed survey, provide a plan for
field-testing the tool. REMINDER: any Quantitative test
instruments or inventories used in your study MUST be existing
published instruments.
Reviewer Comments:

2.9 Data Analysis Table
Instead of a long and complex narrative of how data will be
analyzed, create a table of all of the data you are collecting for
both (a) process tracking and (b) outcome assessment with
certain specific pieces of information about EACH form of data.
The rows should be the different pieces of data that will be
collected. Each piece of data from the section 2.6 and 2.7
should have a row, and be listed in column 1.
The columns of the table should be:
Column 1 – Data being collected.
Column 2 – Type of data – quantitative or qualitative.
Column 3 – Form of analysis to be used.
Column 4 - How the data will contribute to the study (telling
the story or assessing the outcome(s)). NOTE: This should
include how the data will address the research question(s).
Cells formed by the columns and rows should contain
descriptions of what each column calls for. Complete a cell for
each type of data.
Reviewer Comments:
2.10
General Data Procedures
Certain practices regarding data are general, and are carried out
for all data, regardless of type. Briefly describe general

procedures for the
· organization of raw data, management and processing of data,
· preparation of data for analysis, and storage and
· protection of data.
Reviewer Comments:
2.11
Limitations
· Describe in depth any limitations of your study that are
apparent at this time. Be careful not to confuse limitations with
issues of scope.
· Indicate areas to be improved before start of your study and
areas that cannot be improved.
· Give reasons for not redesigning to address any of the
limitations identified.
Reviewer Comments:
2.10
Credibility, Dependability, and Transferability
After you have read the action research literature on these
topics (credibility, dependability, and transferability), present a
strategy to ensure credibility, dependability, and transferability
of your study. Recall that these are action research analogues to
validity, reliability, and generalizability in inquiry research, and
should be used INSTEAD of the conventional inquiry terms.
(Check the text, Action Research by Stringer)

This I the section, for instance, in which you should explain
briefly how you have established that any data-collection tool
you have constructed is VALID for the purposes you intend.
Reviewer Comments:
2.12
IRB Issues: Ethics and Risk
Review the CITI Training and the IRB application that you will
complete later. NOW is the time to consider issues that could
delay or prevent later IRB approval.
Describe any ethical and risk aspects of your study. These
include:
· Participant risk
· Potential coercion
· Conflict of interest
· Confidentiality
Reviewer Comments:
Section 3 References
Provide references for all citations in correct APA 6th ed. style.
Submit your reference list below.
Learner: Stop here and submit to your Mentor for final
approval. Continue working on your final literature review

while you wait for SMR approval.
Mentor: This form must be approved by all committee members
prior to submission for SMR review. Please send completed and
approved RP to [email protected] for SMR review.
Directions for Reviewers
The reviewer determines if the SMR form is approved,
disapproved, or deferred for major or minor revisions. A first
submission may be returned as “not yet ready for review.” The
SMR is approved if the reviewer has been able to answer “MET
EXPECTATIONS” to all of the evaluation questions. A
researcher has three opportunities to pass scientific merit
review.
If any of the items have been checked as “BELOW
EXPECTATIONS,” then the reviewer is asked to comment
specifically and provide recommendations. Most of the time
recommendations will lead to the reviewer requesting major or
minor revisions. Minor revisions are things like needing to
include more detail. Major revisions are issues where there are
major design flaws, potential ethical concerns or inconsistency
in terms of the research questions, the design, and the proposed
data analysis. Disapproval occurs if the researcher fails to pass
the SMR review on the third attempt. Disapproval could also
occur earlier in the process if it is clear that the study 1.) Does
not have any potential for scientific merit or 2.) the study has
major ethical or methodological flaws that can not be corrected.
Please indicate your decision for this review in the correct place
(First Review, Second Review, etc) and insert your electronic
signature and the date below. If the SMR has a Final Status of
“Approved” or “Not Approved”, please be sure to indicate this
Final Scientific Merit Review status below as well.
Scientific Reviewer Evaluation

Criteria
Met Expectations
Below Expectations
Reviewer Comments
1
Did the Specialization Chair approve the dissertation title,
topic, and the basis for the project as appropriate for the
specialization area?
2
Has the researcher provided an adequate analysis of the
organizational context and diagnosis of the problem based on
evidence and data?
3
Will the study improve a practice related to a specific area and
therefore contribute to the larger community by meeting these
three criteria?
1. How is this proposed change in practice new or different
from current practice?
2. If your action research study is successful, how could your
project impact your field of interest—“So What?”

3. What are the practical implications of your study? For
instance, what will be the impact of this project on your sample,
your site location, or your workplace—“Who Cares?”
4
Does the researcher adequately describe a theoretical and/or
conceptual framework for the study? Does the researcher
address systems and change theory? Does the researcher include
justification of an action research or action research approach?
5
Do the research questions address the research problem?
6
Does the researcher describe in detail the procedure to be
followed in a step-by-step way so that it is completely clear
how the study will be conducted?
Does the basic procedures and rationale proposed seem
appropriate to answer the research questions?

7
Are the data collection and analysis procedures clearly and
accurately described? Can the design answer the research
questions with the proposed sample, design, and analysis?
8
Are any concerns about using the particular population, sample,
site or how participants will be contacted, sufficiently addressed
by the methodology?
9
Are participant involvement, selection, and recruitment fully
described and appropriate for the project?
10
Are all data collection instruments, measures, scales, interview
questions, or observations, appropriate for this study? Have
field tests (if necessary) been described?

11
Are the proposed data analyses appropriate?
12
Is there alignment between the research questions, proposed
methodology, types of data to be collected and proposed data
analysis? Is the language used to describe the type of design and
data analysis plans consistent throughout?
13
Have any potentially serious ethical concerns been considered
and sufficiently addressed?
14
Have risks been adequately identified? Were assumptions and
limitations adequately identified and explained?
Scientific Review Information (to be completed by Reviewer
only)
Reviewer Name:

Date
Decision
First Review
FORMCHECKBOX
Date Approved____________
FORMCHECKBOX
Date Deferred___________
Rationale for Deferment (see comments on form)
Check all that apply
FORMCHECKBOX
Minor Revisions
FORMCHECKBOX
Major Revisions
FORMCHECKBOX
Not ready for review
FORMCHECKBOX
Conference call needed with mentor
Second Review
(if needed)
FORMCHECKBOX
Date Approved___________
FORMCHECKBOX
Date Deferred__________

FORMCHECKBOX
Minor Revisions
FORMCHECKBOX
Major Revisions
FORMCHECKBOX
Third Review
(if needed)
FORMCHECKBOX
FORMCHECKBOX
Date Deferred___________
FORMCHECKBOX
Minor Revisions
FORMCHECKBOX
Major Revisions
FORMCHECKBOX
Sent to Research Chair for Review and Consultation (if needed)
Date:
Research Chair Process Review Outcome (see attachments if
needed)
Conference Call
FORMCHECKBOX

FORMCHECKBOX
Date Deferred_____________
Rationale for Deferment (see comments on form):
FORMCHECKBOX
Minor Revisions
FORMCHECKBOX
Major Revisions
FINAL SCIENTIFIC MERIT STATUS
FORMCHECKBOX
Approved
FORMCHECKBOX
Not Approved
Reviewer Signature:
_____________________________________
Date Approved:________________________
This has been a Scientific Merit Review. Obtaining Scientific
Merit approval does not mean you will obtain IRB approval. If
a mentee does not pass the scientific merit review on the 3rd
attempt, then the case will be referred to the Research Chair for
review, evaluation, and intervention. Mentees, mentors and
reviewers should make every attempt possible to resolve issues
before the SMR is failed on a 3rd attempt.

STATEMENT OF ORIGINAL WORKI understand that Capella Univer.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to STATEMENT OF ORIGINAL WORKI understand that Capella Univer.docx

Similar to STATEMENT OF ORIGINAL WORKI understand that Capella Univer.docx (19)

More from dessiechisomjj4

More from dessiechisomjj4 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

STATEMENT OF ORIGINAL WORKI understand that Capella Univer.docx