Evaluation Review

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click Here for More Information

Click here for more information

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (1)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Whaley, A. L.
Right arrow Articles by Alexander, L. A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Whaley, A. L.
Right arrow Articles by Alexander, L. A.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Evaluation Review, Vol. 30, No. 1, 3-26 (2006)
DOI: 10.1177/0193841X05275586

Development of a Rating Form to Evaluate Grant Applications to the Hogg Foundation for Mental Health

Arthur L. Whaley

Hogg Foundation for Mental Health, The University of Texas at Austin

Reymundo Rodriguez

Hogg Foundation for Mental Health, The University of Texas at Austin

Laurel A. Alexander

Hogg Foundation for Mental Health, The University of Texas at Austin

Reliance on subjective grant proposal review methods leads private philanthropies to underfund mental health programs, even when foundations have mental health focuses. This article describes a private mental health foundation’s efforts to increase the objectivity of its proposal review process by developing a reliable, valid proposal rating form. Staff from the Hogg Foundation for Mental Health, an administrative unit of The University of Texas at Austin, developed the items for the grant proposal rating form (GPRF). Four interns, who had educational backgrounds equivalent to the foundation’s grant-making staff, used the GPRF to independently rate 20 grant proposals previously reviewed by the foundation. Internal consistency and interrater reliability were very good. It had good face and construct validity and moderate criterion validity. The GPRF’s psychometric properties are sufficient to recommend its use in the foundation’s review process and suggest private philanthropies’ grant proposal review processes can be made more objective and reliable without compromising validity.

Key Words: foundations • grant proposal • mental health funding • psychometrics • philanthropy • rating form


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Eval RevHome page
A. L. Whaley
An objective rating form to evaluate grant proposals to the hogg foundation for mental health: a pilot study of implementation.
Eval Rev, December 1, 2006; 30(6): 803 - 816.
[Abstract] [PDF]