|
Dear Grant Review Participant,
Your feedback is valuable. Please take a few minutes to complete our survey. We would especially appreciate comments for items that did not meet your satisfaction so we may further improve future grant review sessions. Thank you.
I. CONTRACTOR SUPPORT
In this section, please evaluate the contractor’s support.
|
|
| 1 |
The contractor’s communication in regards to recruiting me to participate in this grant review was:
N/A Unacceptable Poor No Opinion Good Excellent
Comment
|
| 2 |
The contractor’s communication in regards to confirming my participation for this grant review was:
N/A Unacceptable Poor No Opinion Good Excellent
Comment
|
| 3 |
The contractor’s ability to provide information I needed to conduct a successful review was:
N/A Unacceptable Poor No Opinion Good Excellent
Comment
|
| 4 |
The contractor’s ability to provide assistance for ARM was:
N/A Unacceptable Poor No Opinion Good Excellent
Comment
|
| 5 |
Overall, The contractor’s performance in managing the review process was:
N/A Unacceptable Poor No Opinion Good Excellent
Comment
|
II. TRAINING AND MATERIALS
In this section, please evaluate the training and materials used to support this grant review. |
| 6 |
In terms of preparing me to conduct a successful review, the programmatic information provided during the Orientation Conference Call was:
N/A Unacceptable Poor No Opinion Good Excellent
Comment
|
| 7 |
In terms of preparing me to conduct a successful review, the ARM training provided online was:
N/A Unacceptable Poor No Opinion Good Excellent
Comment
|
| 8 |
In terms of "usefulness," I would rate the ARM user manual as:
N/A Unacceptable Poor No Opinion Good Excellent
Comment
|
| 9 |
In terms of being “convenient,” I would rate the use of the Reviewer Information Web Page to access documents as:
N/A Unacceptable Poor No Opinion Good Excellent
Comment
|
|
III. ARM
The Application Review Module (ARM) was designed to facilitate the evaluation of applications electronically. In this
section, please evaluate the ARM system.
|
| 10 |
In terms of being "user friendly," I would rate ARM as:
N/A Unacceptable Poor No Opinion Good Excellent
Comment
|
| 11 |
Overall, I would rate the ARM system as:
N/A Unacceptable Poor No Opinion Good Excellent
Comment
|
IV. PROCESS EVALUATION
Please reflect on the work you have completed and evaluate the review process in this section. |
| 12 |
The time allotted for me to review each application thoroughly given the number of applications assigned to my panel was:
N/A Unacceptable Poor No Opinion Good Excellent
Comment
|
| 13 |
Overall, I think my panel's performance in terms of providing an objective evaluation of the applications was:
N/A Unacceptable Poor No Opinion Good Excellent
Comment
|
| 14 |
Overall, I would rate my satisfaction with this review experience as:
N/A Unacceptable Poor No Opinion Good Excellent
Comment
|
| 15 |
Overall, I would rate the remote review process as:
N/A Unacceptable Poor No Opinion Good Excellent
Comment
|
V. OTHER ITEMS
In this section, please complete the following additional questions to better inform our processes. |
| 16 |
Did you find it useful to copy “commonly used” comments from a word processing tool (e.g., Microsoft Word) and paste them into ARM?
N/A Yes No
Comment
|
| 17 |
In considering the evaluation criteria, did you find that the division of main criteria into sub-criteria allowed for a more thorough review of applications?
N/A Yes No
Comment
|
| 18 |
How far in advance of an upcoming review would you like to be confirmed for participation?
N/A 45 days 30 days 21 days 14 days 7 days
Comment
|
| 19 |
Please provide any suggestions on how to improve the grant review process below:
|
|
|