DNP 960 Topic 2: DPI project proposal defense
There are no findings to present — the project has not run. What is being defended is a set of decisions, and the committee's job is to test whether they hold together.
Editorial process
Last reviewed · August 15, 2026
A defence, not a presentation of findings
A proposal defence is a different genre from a results presentation and confusing the two is the commonest preparation error. You have no findings. What you have is a chain of decisions — this problem, therefore this question, therefore this design, therefore this measure, therefore this analysis — and the committee's job is to test whether the chain holds and whether the project is feasible as described. So build the deck around the chain rather than around the proposal's chapter structure. A slide per chapter reproduces a document they have already read; a deck that walks the logic gives them something to interrogate, which is what the meeting is for. Note who is in the room. A full-committee call is the first time your chair and content expert discuss the project together, and disagreements invisible in separate feedback surface here. If their comments have pointed different ways, raise it yourself rather than being caught between them.
Prepare for the questions specifically, because they are predictable. Why this design and not a stronger one. What happens if you cannot recruit the numbers. How will you know the intervention was actually delivered. What is your plan if the site withdraws. Who has approved this and what did they commit to. Why this outcome measure rather than the obvious alternative. Have answers, and where the honest answer is a limitation, say so rather than defending it — a candidate who names their design's weakness before the committee does establishes more credibility than one who argues it away, and committees are experienced enough to find it regardless. Keep supporting detail in reserve rather than on the slides: backup slides for the sample size calculation, the instrument's psychometrics and the timeline mean you can answer precisely without making the main deck unreadable. Send the deck ahead, so the meeting is spent on the argument rather than the slides.
Likely learning objectives
Inferred from the brief — check these against your own rubric.
- 01Distinguish a proposal defence from a results presentation.
- 02Structure a defence around the alignment chain.
- 03Anticipate the standard interrogation questions.
- 04Concede a limitation rather than defending it.
Read the full question
Review every instruction before using the planning guidance that follows.
Course-wide instructions that accompany this question
Name: Assignment Rubric DNP 960 Topic 2 DPI Project – Proposal Defense PowerPoint and Call 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 deck following the required template.
- 02The alignment chain presented as the spine.
- 03Prepared answers to feasibility and design challenges.
- 04Backup slides holding supporting detail.
- 05An honest statement of the design's limitations.
Alignment on the slides, detail in your head
Problem and question
Open with the problem and the clinical question it produced.
The design decision
Present the design and why alternatives were rejected.
Measurement and analysis
Show what will be measured, with what, and how analysed.
Feasibility
Address recruitment, site permission, timeline and contingency.
Limitations
State the design's real weaknesses before being asked.
Anticipating the questions that will actually come
Recommended databases
- Your DNP Project Proposal Defense Template
- Your committee's previous comments
- StatPearls methods chapters
- Your proposal
Search sequence
- 1.Re-read every comment your committee has made and check each is addressed.
- 2.List the six questions you would least like to be asked.
- 3.Prepare a backup slide for each of those.
- 4.Practise the alignment chain aloud without the slides.
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
Human Subjects Research Design
StatPearls, NCBI Bookshelf · 2023
On the question-to-design dependency, which is the chain the defence walks.
- 02
Study Bias
StatPearls, NCBI Bookshelf · 2023
Catalogues the biases a committee will probe, which is where the design questions come from.
- 03
Type I and Type II Errors and Statistical Power
StatPearls, NCBI Bookshelf · 2023
On power and error, which is behind the recruitment and sample size challenge.
- 04
Explanation and elaboration of the SQUIRE (Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence) Guidelines, V.2.0: examples of SQUIRE elements
BMJ Quality & Safety · 2016
Shows what a reviewer checks for consistency between rationale, methods and outcomes.
Review before submission
Common mistakes
- Preparing as though there were findings to report.
- Building one slide per chapter, reproducing the document.
- Defending a limitation the committee will find anyway.
- Putting supporting detail on the main slides and losing readability.
Submission checklist
- Does the deck follow the required template?
- Is the alignment chain visible rather than the chapter structure?
- Do you have answers to the recruitment and feasibility questions?
- Are limitations conceded rather than argued?
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.