The National Academies Press

Currently Skimming:

Attachment C
Pages 25-39

The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.

From page 25... ... Attachment C This attachment comprises five parts: C-1, the grantee invitation letter; C-2, an informed consent form; C-3, the grantee questionnaire for the summative evaluation; C-4, the committee review procedures for the summative evaluation; and C-5, the rating sheet for committee members for the quality of outputs. Read the entire page →
From page 26... ... and Its Grantees that is being conducted by an expert committee of the National Research Council of the National Academies. This independent evaluation is being sponsored by NIDRR for the purpose of: (1) Read the entire page →
From page 27... ... Sincerely, Jeanne Rivard, Ph.D., Co-Study Director Mary Ellen O'Connell, Co-Study Director The National Academies The National Academies National Research Council National Research Council 500 Fifth Street, NW 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 Washington, DC 20001 Phone: 202-334-2967 Phone: 202-334-2607 Email: jrivard@nas.edu Email: moconnell@nas.edu 27 Read the entire page →
From page 28... ... ["Peer review" refers to a process in which experts review the merits of a grant application in considering whether it should be funded. "Outputs" are publications, measures, intervention protocols, devices, or information resources that are produced as part of a grant.] Read the entire page →
From page 29... ... . This list, along with the data collected, will be stored securely at the National Research Council, and will be accessible only by the Study personnel. Read the entire page →
From page 30... ...  For publications, the material for review would be pdf copies of each article.  For the other outputs, materials for review would include: o Electronic or hard copies of the measures, tools, intervention protocols, manuals; or links to websites, pictures or other graphic representations of tools or devices that have been produced. Read the entire page →
From page 31... ...  Your completed Grantee Questionnaire Please send these materials by ___DATE___ to: Matt McDonough The National Academies National Research Council 500 Fifth Street, NW WS 1134 Washington, DC 20001 We are enclosing an addressed Fedex form that can be used when mailing your package of materials to us. We estimated a shipment cost that would cover a weight up to 10 lbs. Read the entire page →
From page 32... ... 2. INSERT GRANTEES' PROJECTS TABLE HERE The table below lists all of the publications and other outputs that were listed in the APR data provided by NIDRR. Read the entire page →
From page 33... ... Technical Quality of Output In the space below, please describe examples of the technical quality of your output, such as:  The particular approach or methodology used in developing your output  Relevant peer recognition such as peer reviews or evaluations, peer endorsements, invitations to present at professional forums or conferences, invitations to present testimony, receipt of awards or honors, etc.  Receipt of a patent, FDA approval, or use of your output in standards development  Evidence of the usability and accessibility of the output B2. Read the entire page →
From page 34... ...  Other Include information about how this potential impact was tested, and what the results were. Read the entire page →
From page 35... ... C1. In the space below please describe what types of planning, project management, and budgetary processes were used to promote high quality outputs. Read the entire page →
From page 36... ... All reviewers will independently rate outputs using the following quality criteria (Dimensions of these criteria are shown on the attached rating sheet.) :  Technical quality of output  Advancement of knowledge or the field (research, practice, or policy) Read the entire page →
From page 37... ...  Staff will document discussion points that lead to the consensus group ratings and will record the subgroup's rationale for each criterion, the overall rating, and the grant performance rating in a brief narrative.  At the end of the review of each output, the individual subgroup members' rating sheets will be gathered. Read the entire page →
From page 38... ... proceedings 5. intervention protocol 5. Read the entire page →
From page 39... ...  Consumers (people with disabilities: health, quality of life, participation)  Provider practice  Health and social system  Social and health policy  Private sector/commercialization  Other Score Rationale: Dissemination  Identification and tailoring of materials for reaching different audience/user types  Collaboration with audience/users in identifying content and medium needs/preferences  Delivery of information through multiple media types and sources for optimal reach and accessibility  Evaluation of dissemination efforts and impacts  Commercialization/patenting of devices, if applicable Score Rationale: Overall Score Score Rationale: 39 Read the entire page →

From page 25...

... Attachment C This attachment comprises five parts: C-1, the grantee invitation letter; C-2, an informed consent form; C-3, the grantee questionnaire for the summative evaluation; C-4, the committee review procedures for the summative evaluation; and C-5, the rating sheet for committee members for the quality of outputs.

Attachment C Pages 25-39

Attachment C
Pages 25-39