Importance of factors in the review of grant proposals

Abstract

50 National Institutes of Health program directors, executive secretaries, and administrators rated hypothetical evaluations of grant proposals. Presence or absence and the value of 8 evaluative factors were varied in a fractional factorial design. Ratings of scientific merit and traditional "priority scores" were analyzed using an information integration model. Results indicate large differences in the effects of the information due to both level and presence or absence in the review. The most important factors had to do with the scientific relevance of the proposed research, the clarity of the proposal, the soundness of the experimental methods, and the evaluation of the principal investigator. A strong set-size effect was found such that more information led to more extreme rating when the value of the information was in the same direction. Implications for reviewers' implicit policies and the resulting strategies adopted by those seeking funding are discussed. (21 ref) (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved)