Examples of using Structured application format in English and their translations into French
{-}
-
Colloquial
-
Official
Feedback on the structured application format.
Over half of Stage 1 applicants(56.6%) and the majority of Research administrators(70.1%)agreed that the structured application format was easy to work with.
The structured application format was helpful in my review process.
Additionally, Stage 1 reviewers(72.6%) found the Stage 1 structured application format easy to work with Table 37.
The structured application format was intuitive and easy to use.
A small minority of Stage 2 reviewers commented that the structured application format was useful and reduced reviewer burden.
As part of the new structured application format, applicants were only permitted to attach certain items to their applications. .
A large majority of Stage 1 andStage 2 reviewers agreed that the structured application format was helpful in their review process.
As part of the new structured application format, applicants were only permitted to attach certain items to their applications figures, tables, references, CVs, Letters of Collaboration, and Letters of Support from Knowledge Users or Partners.
Over half of Stage 2 applicants(59.2%) found the Stage 2 structured application format easy to work with and 55.8% agreed it was intuitive Table 38.
In addition, a majority of Stage 1 andStage 2 reviewers agreed that applicants were able to convey the information required to conduct a complete review using the structured application format Figure 13 and 14.
Thoughts regarding the structured application format i.e. having one section for each adjudication criterion.
The following section provides an overview of the respondents' experience and feedback on the structured application format, one of the new design elements of the Project grant.
The majority of Stage 1 reviewers(74.7%)agreed that the structured application format was helpful in their review process and 74.7% agreed that using this format, applicants were able to convey the information required for them to conduct a complete review Table 43.
Applicants(n=54) and Research Administrators(n=13)were asked to indicate whether they thought the structured application format was intuitive(B) and their degree of satisfaction with the application process C.
Similarly, the majority of Stage 2 applicants also agreed that the structured application format was easy to work with, intuitive and were generally satisfied with the process Figure 11.
Overall, at Stage 1, the large majority of research administrators andthe majority of Stage 1 applicants found the structured application format easy to work with, intuitive, and indicated that they were satisfied with the format Figure 10.
Small majorities of both applicants andresearch administrators found the structured application format intuitive and easy to use, and were relatively satisfied with the structured application process Figure 1.
Overall, at Stage 1, the large majority of research administrators andthe majority of Stage 1 applicants found the structured application format easy to work with, intuitive, and indicated that they were satisfied with the format Figure 10.
When asked tocompare their previous experience, 31.5% of Stage 1 applicants agreed that the current experience submitting the structured application format was better than their previous experience with CIHR, 32.6% were neutral, and 17.2% said it was worse Table 40.
Reviewers were also asked for their feedback on the structure of the application format.
New application format and structure(including the CCV);