DNP 960 Topic 1: DPI committee-approved document review
Nothing here is intellectually hard and that is exactly why it goes wrong. This is a completeness check across two systems, and the whole point is to fail it now rather than at the IRB in Topic 3.
Editorial process
Last reviewed · August 15, 2026
A completeness check with two destinations
This assignment exists to catch a missing document while it is cheap. Everything goes to your instructor for review and the same set is uploaded to the iRIS portal, so the deliverable is verified completeness in two places rather than a piece of writing. Treat it as a checklist exercise and build the checklist from the IRB's own submission requirements rather than from memory — the portal will ask for things the proposal template never mentioned: site authorisation letters, the CITI completion report, a data management plan, the consent document or the waiver request, recruitment materials, and every instrument you intend to use with evidence you are permitted to use it. Missing any of those in Topic 3 costs a review cycle, which is weeks. Find out too whether your site counts as a separate jurisdiction: a hospital that is not your university often needs its own approval on its own schedule.
Committee-approved is the other word to take literally. The documents submitted must be the versions your committee actually approved, and after several rounds of revision it is easy to upload the wrong file — the one on your desktop rather than the one they signed off. Version control is unglamorous and is the single most useful habit here: date the filenames, keep one authoritative folder, and check that the chapter three uploaded matches the chapter three approved. Then verify at the destination rather than at the source. An upload that appeared to succeed and a document visible in the portal are different facts, and the only way to establish the second is to open the portal as a reader and look. Do that explicitly, because a submission nobody can see is indistinguishable from one never made. Keep a copy of everything you submitted outside the portal too, since portals are replaced and access lapses when enrolment ends.
Likely learning objectives
Inferred from the brief — check these against your own rubric.
- 01Build a submission checklist from the reviewing body's own requirements.
- 02Distinguish committee-approved versions from working drafts.
- 03Maintain version control across a multi-document submission.
- 04Verify a submission at its destination rather than at its origin.
Read the full question
Review every instruction before using the planning guidance that follows.
Course-wide instructions that accompany this question
Name: Assignment Rubric Grid View List View Excellent Good Fair Poor Summarize your interpretation of the frequency data provided in the output for respondent’s age, highest school grade completed, and family income from prior month. 32 (32%) – 35 (35%) The response accurately and clearly explains, in detail, a summary of the frequency distributions for the variables presented. The response accurately and clearly explains, in detail, the number of times the value occurs in the data. The response accurately and clearly explains, in detail, the appearance of the data, the range of data values, and an explanation of extreme values in describing intervals that sufficiently provides an analysis that fully supports the categorization of each variable value. The response includes relevant, specific, and appropriate examples that fully support the explanations provided for each of the areas described. 28 (28%) – 31 (31%) The response accurately summarizes the frequency distributions for the variables presented. The response accurately explains the number of times the value occurs in the data. The response accurately explains the appearance of the data, the range of data values, and explains extreme values in describing intervals that provides an analysis which supports the categorization of each variable value. The response includes relevant, specific, and accurate examples that support the explanations provided for each of the areas described. 25 (25%) – 27 (27%) The response inaccurately or vaguely summarizes the frequency distributions for the variables presented. The response inaccurately or vaguely explains the number of times the value occurs in the data. The response inaccurately or vaguely explains the appearance of the data, the range of data values, and inaccurately or vaguely explains extreme values. An analysis that may support the categorization of each variable value is inaccurate or vague. The response includes inaccurate and irrelevant examples that may support the explanations provided for each of the areas described. 0 (0%) – 24 (24%) The response inaccurately and vaguely summarizes the frequency distributions for the variables presented, or it is missing. The response inaccurately and vaguely explains the number of times the value occurs in the data, or it is missing. The response inaccurately and vaguely explains the appearance of the data, the range of data values, and an explanation of extreme values, or it is missing. An analysis that does not support the categorization of each variable values is provided, or it is missing. The response includes inaccurate and vague examples that do not support the explanations provided for each of the areas described, or it is missing. Summarize your interpretation of the descriptive statistics provided in the output for respondent’s age, highest school grade completed, race and ethnicity, currently employed, and family income from prior month. 45 (45%) – 50 (50%) The response accurately and clearly summarizes in detail the interpretation of the descriptive statistics provided. The response accurately and clearly evaluates in detail each of the variables presented, including an accurate and complete description of the sample size, the mean, the median, standard deviation, and the size and spread of the data. 40 (40%) – 44 (44%) The response accurately summarizes the interpretation of the descriptive statistics provided. The response accurately explains evaluates each of the variables presented, including an accurate description of the sample size, the mean, the median, standard deviation, and the size and spread of the data. 35 (35%) – 39 (39%) The response inaccurately or vaguely summarizes the interpretation of the descriptive statistics provided. The response inaccurately or vaguely evaluates each of the variables presented, including an inaccurate or vague description of the sample size, the mean, the median, the standard deviation, and the size and spread of the data. 0 (0%) – 34 (34%) The response inaccurately and vaguely summarizes the interpretation of the descriptive statistics provided, or it is missing. The response inaccurately and vaguely evaluates each of the variables presented, including an inaccurate and vague description of the sample size, the mean, the median, the standard deviation, and the size and spread of the data, or it is missing. Written Expression and Formatting – Paragraph Development and Organization: Paragraphs make clear points that support well-developed ideas, flow logically, and demonstrate continuity of ideas. Sentences are carefully focused—neither long and rambling nor short and lacking substance. A clear and comprehensive purpose statement and introduction is provided which delineates all required criteria. 5 (5%) – 5 (5%) Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity. A clear and comprehensive purpose statement, introduction, and conclusion is provided which delineates all required criteria. 4 (4%) – 4 (4%) Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity 80% of the time. Purpose, introduction, and conclusion of the assignment is stated, yet is brief and not descriptive. 3 (3%) – 3 (3%) Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity 60%–79% of the time. Purpose, introduction, and conclusion of the assignment is vague or off topic. 0 (0%) – 2 (2%) Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity < 60% of the time. No purpose statement, introduction, or conclusion was provided. Written Expression and Formatting – English writing standards: Correct grammar, mechanics, and proper punctuation 5 (5%) – 5 (5%) Uses correct grammar, spelling, and punctuation with no errors. 4 (4%) – 4 (4%) Contains a few (1 or 2) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors. 3 (3%) – 3 (3%) Contains several (3 or 4) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors. 0 (0%) – 2 (2%) Contains many (≥ 5) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors that interfere with the reader’s understanding. Written Expression and Formatting – The paper follows correct APA format for title page, headings, font, spacing, margins, indentations, page numbers, parenthetical/in-text citations, and reference list. 5 (5%) – 5 (5%) Uses correct APA format with no errors. 4 (4%) – 4 (4%) Contains a few (1 or 2) APA format errors. 3 (3%) – 3 (3%) Contains several (3 or 4) APA format errors. 0 (0%) – 2 (2%) Contains many (≥ 5) APA format errors. Total Points: 100 Name: Assignment Rubric
Turn the brief into deliverables
- 01A complete document set matching the IRB's requirements.
- 02Confirmation each document is the committee-approved version.
- 03Uploads present and visible in the portal.
- 04A dated, authoritative folder of the submitted versions.
Assemble, upload, then verify both places
The required set
Enumerate every document the IRB submission will need.
Version verification
Confirm each file is the committee-approved version.
Upload and confirmation
Place the documents in both systems and confirm visibility.
What is still missing
Identify outstanding items and how they will be obtained.
What the portal will demand that the template does not
Recommended databases
- Your IRB's submission checklist
- The iRIS portal help documentation
- Your committee's approval records
- Your programme's requirements
Search sequence
- 1.Download the IRB's own submission requirements before listing anything.
- 2.Confirm which committee approvals are recorded and where.
- 3.Check whether your site requires a separate authorisation letter.
- 4.Open the portal after uploading and view each document as a reviewer would.
Reference shortlist
These are authoritative starting points, not a ready-made bibliography. A qualified reviewer must confirm that each source fits the assignment and supports the claim beside which it is cited.
Nothing here is cleared for citation until you have read it.
- 01
Research Ethics
StatPearls, NCBI Bookshelf · 2023
The ethics framework the submission is assessed against, which explains why each supporting document is required.
- 02
Informed Consent
StatPearls, NCBI Bookshelf · 2023
On consent documentation, which is the item most often missing or in the wrong version.
- 03
Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) Compliance
StatPearls, NCBI Bookshelf · 2023
Covers the privacy requirements a data management plan has to satisfy.
- 04
Ethical issues in research on substance-dependent parents: The risk of implicit normative judgements
Clinical Ethics · 2018
On ethical review of a project involving a dependent population, illustrating what reviewers scrutinise most.
Review before submission
Common mistakes
- Building the checklist from the proposal template rather than the IRB's requirements.
- Uploading a working draft in place of the approved version.
- Assuming an upload succeeded without opening the portal to check.
- Omitting supporting documents the template never mentions.
Submission checklist
- Does your list come from the IRB's own requirements?
- Is every file the version your committee approved?
- Have you opened the portal and seen each document?
- Are site permissions and training certificates included?
Use this guide to plan and review your own work. Follow your institution's rules and read our academic-integrity policy.
Written by
Aaron Bishop
MA, Education
assignment interpretation and research-methods coaching across disciplines
Aaron leads the EssayCrackers editorial desk. He works on how assignment briefs are read — what a rubric is actually asking for, and where students most often answer a different question than the one set.
Reviewed by
Dr. Nathan Cole
PhD, Rhetoric & Composition
Argumentation and thesis development
Nathan teaches first-year composition and directs a university writing center. He reviews EssayCrackers guides for argumentative soundness and citation accuracy.