Masters in Clinical Dentistry (MClinDent)

Protocol
Module: Evidence Based Dentistry: Professional Project

Assignment Level: Level 7

Assignment type: Summative assessment

Protocol assignment: A Research Protocol is required as part of the summative assessment for the Evidence Based Dentistry: Professional Project module.
It is essentially expansion of your research proposal and represents a planning-type document that starts the process of your research. The Research
Protocol should be approximately 3000 words in length excluding appendices and refecences. The assessment of your Protocol follows the marking
guidelines for level 7 work illustrated below. It should be hand in with a completed Research and Ethics Review Form. Failure to do so will results in an
automatic fail.

Your protocol should be clear and easy to understand. The protocol overall purpose is to enable you to present a scientific argument for your study, to think
through your methodology and to anticipate the outcomes (negative and positive). It is important that you follow the below major section headings:

1. Introduction: to justify the project (rationale) and end with a statement of the Research Question
2. Literature Review (for primary research) OR Background (for secondary research): mini literature review for primary research OR background
knowledge needed to understand the project for secondary research (reviews)
3. Methodology: sufficient details to enable an assessment of the feasibility of the project and its ethical acceptability
4. Possible/Expected Outcomes: This section explains what you hope to find and how you plan to prevent things going wrong. This section should be
subdivided to feasibility, contingency and impact assessment. The feasibility subsection should be subdivided into cost analysis, time management,
practicality and ethics considerations.
5. Reference list
6. Appendices: Ethics Review Form and at least one supervision record.

1
Marking Descriptors: your protocol will be assessed according to the descriptors below:
Section Unsatisfactory (<50%) Satisfactory (50-55%) Good (56-59%) Very good (60-69%) Excellent (70%+)
Introduction • No clear introduction • Some evidence of introducing • Sound introduction to project. • Focused introduction to the • Clear identification of the focus of
(10%) • Unclear research question. the project • Research question stated with project project and a logical original RQ
• Poor communication of ideas. • Research question justified by some justification. • Good understanding of the posed
• No use of referencing. some limited analysis • Demonstrates a sound topic area. • Excellent evidence informed
understanding of topic area. • Evidence informed rationale & rational & justification of the RQ.
justification to RQ.
Background • Very limited. • Basic in range or depth • Moderate range and depth • Good range and depth • Extensive range and depth of
(30%) • Little evidence of reading. • Limited range of reference appropriate to topic. appropriate to topic. sources judiciously selected.
• Unsubstantiated sources Evidence of critical • Evidence of wider reading. • Evidence of logical & • Thorough critical review of
generalisation of research appraisal, but in a limited or • Evidence of linking literature analytical thinking. literature, well integrated into
evidence. descriptive manner. into study with some criticism • Literature integrated well with study.
• Poor range of reference • Some use of evidence to apparent. sound degree of critical • Clear knowledge of limitations of
sources. support comments, but not • Emergent appreciation of review. literature base.
• Poor degree of critical consistent in interpretation. alternatives. • Accurate communication of • Exploration of other ideas and
appraisal. ideas and concepts. contradictions.
• Lack of attempt to analyse or
evaluate literature.
Methodology • Inappropriate and unclear • Clearly outlined method of data • Clearly outlined method with a • Focussed method of data • Demonstrates originality in the
(30%) methodology and / or not collection but not wholly degree of reflection. collection with critical choice or development of
correctly applied in practice. correctly applied in practice. • Methods generally correctly reflection on design. methods.
• Lack of appreciation of • Lack of detail. applied. • Demonstrates competency in • Provides evidence of
research methodology. • Basic appreciation of research • Shows a good appreciation of research methodology. understanding of complex
methods. research methodology. • Evidence of considered methods.
reliability and validity. • Evidence of high-quality analysis
including reliability & validity.
Possible • Inadequate / incomplete • Adequate predictions of • Good predictions of possible • Very good predictions of • Excellent predictions of possible
Outcomes discussion of possible possible outcomes both positive outcomes both positive and possible outcomes both outcomes both positive and
(15%) outcomes. and negative. negative. positive and negative. negative
• Only covered positive • Simple feasibility • Some feasibility assessment. • Sound feasibility analysis with • Clearly shown impact of the
predictions. • Limited evidence of the • Generally shows the potential mitigation. research in the context of current
• No evidence of impact of the prospective value of the impact of the research in the • Clearly shown impact of the knowledge.
research in the context of research in the context of context of current knowledge. research in the context of • Evidence of extensive personal
current knowledge. current knowledge. current knowledge. research & evaluation.
Presentation • Poor structure & meaning. • Borderline quality of • Satisfactory quality of • Sound presentation quality. • Excellent presentation quality.
& • Poor referencing with many presentation presentation. • Clear meaning and fluent • Articulate & fluent.
Research errors. • Clear meaning but unclear • Clarity of meaning & language. language. • Precise, full & appropriate
skills. • Inconsistencies or omissions language. • Sound referencing with minor • Full, appropriate & correct referencing.
(15%) in referencing. • Competent referencing but with errors or inconsistencies. use of the Harvard system. • Consistent & correct use of
• Academic conventions used errors and inconsistencies. • Appropriate academic skills. • Sound use of academic Harvard system.
weakly or ignored. • Academic conventions largely • Correct use of Harvard convention. • Consistent & accurate use of
• Incorrect use of Harvard evident. system. • Successful demonstration of academic convention.
referencing. • Limited use of Harvard • Evidence of research ability research skills with minimal • Successful demonstration of
• No evidence of required system. under limited guidance & guidance & supervision. research skills with a significant
research skills. • Some evidence of research supervision.. • Takes initiative in identifying degree of autonomy.
ability but with substantial • Able to identify problems and problems and planning • Identification of problems and
guidance & supervision. plan mitigation. mitigation. effective planning of mitigation
using a range of resources.