Directions and Article have been attached below.

Papers should be typed; 12-point font is preferred.

All pages should be numbered.

The written exam should have the following sections and format:

I. Description

The reviewer should provide a concise description of the project including specific aims, hypotheses, and descriptive information presented in the application. The description may be adapted from the investigator’s abstract or executive summary.

II. Overall impact

Score: 0(1=exceptional, 9=poor)

Definition of Overall Impact according to the NIH: Reviewers will provide an overall impact score to reflect their assessment of the likelihood for the project to exert a sustained, powerful influence on the research field(s) involved, in consideration of the following five core review criteria, and additional review criteria (as applicable for the project proposed).

II.a. Significance

Score: 0(1=exceptional, 9=poor)

Definition of Significance according to the NIH: Does the project address an important problem or critical barrier to progress in the field? If the aims of the project are achieved, how will scientific knowledge, technical capability, and/or clinical practice be improved? How will successful completion of the aims change the concepts, methods, technologies, treatments, services, or preventative interventions that drive this field?

The scientific contribution of the project is assessed in two key dimensions:

1) The review should comment on the significance of the question or issue proposed to be studied. Is it a priority area for the agency or foundation?; and

2) The review should indicate the significance of the applicant’s particular project.

In the critique you should note both the strengths and weaknesses. In addition to these two points above, a thorough review should comment on the adequacy of the literature reviewed. Is it relevant to the research problem and does it accurately review the scientific base on which the research rests? For purposes of this exercise, assume that all references are accurate and real.

II.b. Investigators

Score: 0(1=exceptional, 9=poor)

Comment here on the experience of the investigators and their qualifications to perform the requisite work.

II.e. Environment

Score: 0(1=exceptional, 9=poor)

Comment on the adequacy of facilities and resources at the applicant’s institution and other study sites as well as the documentation of agreements among the participants. Is support and commitment from key organizations and consultants included?

III. Human subjects

<Exclude for this exam> Assess the adequacy of proposed procedures for protecting human subjects against potential risks. Identify and explain any reservations and indicate whether reservations are a comment or a concern.

IV. Women and minority subjects

<Exclude for this exam>Address the adequacy of including women and minorities in the study population. If women and minorities are not included, clear and compelling reasons should be provided.