"

VII. Comprehensive Examination

The University of Iowa requires PhD students to “satisfactorily complete a comprehensive examination, consisting of written or oral parts or both at the discretion of the major department…. It is intended to evaluate a candidate’s mastery of the subject at or near the end of the candidate’s formal preparation and prior to the completion of the dissertation.” (Manual of Rules and Regulations of the Graduate College, Section XII. K). In the College of Nursing, the comprehensive exam evaluates the student’s mastery of the literature and methodological approaches to science in their chosen interest area in order to make original contributions to knowledge.  Satisfactory completion of the comprehensive exam advances the student to PhD candidacy.

To evaluate the student’s mastery of the literature and the methods appropriate to advance knowledge, the comprehensive exam has three components: [1] An integrative scholarship paper; [2] A doctoral research prospectus and; [3] An oral examination, which addresses the content of the Doctoral Research Prospectus (DRP). Each component occurs at distinct times in the program of study.

Detailed information can be found by clicking on this link: Comprehensive Exam Instructions – 2022.08.02.

A. Components of the Comprehensive Examination

1. The Integrative Scholarship Paper (ISP)

The ISP is the first component of the Comprehensive Examination for the PhD. Students begin the ISP during the first semester of year one and must pass the ISP by the end of Spring semester, year two.

The goal of the ISP exam is to ensure that the student completes a thorough integrative scholarly product that provides the foundation for the DRP.  Therefore, multiple iterations of the ISP are passed between the student and committee until successful completion (see below). Each student will complete the 7 steps as noted in the first column of the table below. The second and third columns illustrate how each step is operationalized by approach (scoping vs. critical-realist) used to integrate and synthesize the literature: Most students will start with scoping and may or may not move on to critical-realist.

Guidelines for completion

  1. The student works with all members of the ISP committee to determine the focus and breadth of the paper.
  2. The student schedules a planning session (telephone or video conference format allowable) with the chair and committee to develop a content outline. Note: this should be done during the first semester of the PhD so that work on the ISP happens simultaneously with the core courses.
  3. Once the topical outline of the ISP has been determined, the student works primarily with the chair to share drafts back and forth. The chair will provide substantive feedback on the paper but does not contribute detailed edits (i.e. does not revise the text but rather provides feedback about both the content, organization, and quality of the writing). The chair expects that significant changes and improvements will occur with each revision.
  4. Once the chair has determined the ISP is a “satisfactory draft,” the paper is then shared with the rest of committee for comment and feedback.
  5. With each iteration of the ISP, the student will revise the paper as needed to address the comments and feedback of the committee. The student will revise the ISP using a word processing program and highlight the changes either by using the track changes mode in MS Word or by using bold or colored text. The student will also prepare a document describing how they have responded to the reviewers’ suggestions.
  6. The revised paper is shared with the committee, who then determines if/when it has achieved the standards of a final ISP paper (see criteria for grading below). Again, no specific limits are set for the number of drafts but each draft is expected to be a significant improvement from the previous. The committee may meet with or without the student as needed to facilitate successful completion of the ISP.
  7. A designation of “complete” by at least two of the three committee members is required to move to the DRP. The student should successfully complete the ISP by the end of the spring semester year two.  The student may petition the PhD Admissions and Progression committee for an extension detailing the extenuating circumstances that warrant an extension. See Evaluation and Completion in the next section.
  8. There is a no formal ISP defense.
  9. The chair will communicate in writing the date of the final completion of the ISP to the student, Felton Student Success Center and the Director of the PhD Program.

Grading Criteria

Depending on the topic and state of the science, the length of the paper is approximately 20-40 pages, excluding figures and tables and references. Grading criteria include:

  1. The purpose(s) of the ISP is clearly stated.
  2. The scope of the literature review is clearly circumscribed and fits well with the purpose(s).
  3. The search strategy (including inclusion criteria and strategies for identifying literature related to the topic) for identifying the literature is clearly specified.
  4. Appropriate literature is identified for the review.
  5. Findings are presented in a clear and organized manner.
  6. The analysis of the literature and critique of results is appropriate.
  7. The synthesis of the literature is coherent and appropriate.
  8. The state of science in the area is clearly expressed in terms of gaps in knowledge;
  9. Appropriate implications for theory, research and practice are logically derived from the review of the literature and adequately discussed.
  10. The paper is clearly articulated and logically constructed.
  11. A standard style format, such as APA, is consistently and accurately used for citing references in text and in the bibliography.

Evaluation and Communication

The ISP committee members will individually review and evaluate the ISP. The ISP will be rated as complete or needs revision. When revisions are required the faculty will provide written comments and feedback to guide the student in their revisions.  Committee members will submit their written evaluation to the chair within two weeks of receiving the paper. This process will recur until at least two of the three committee members designate the ISP to be complete.  (Refer to ISP Grading Form).

2. The Doctoral Research Prospectus (DRP)

The Doctoral Research Prospectus addresses a particular research problem and purpose informed by the ISP. The DRP includes a specific aims page and a one-two page significance section (based on the ISP) similar to an NIH grant.  The remainder of the DRP focuses on the approach/design, including the conceptual model that guides the study, setting/site, sample size, phenomenon of interest or measurement of study variables, and data analysis as appropriate. This content is to be consistent with the problem, overall study goals, purpose, specific aims and choice of a specific design.  The student must provide alternative approaches for each component in the approach/design and provide rationale for selecting one strategy over another including level of innovativeness. The DRP is defended by the student during the Oral Exam and concludes when the DRP committee judges the DRP to meet criteria for passing at the conclusion of the Oral Exam. 

Guidelines for Completion

  1. The student selects 1 additional member to serve on the DRP/Oral Exam committee (see page 3).
  2. The student writes a 1- to 2-page paper summarizing the topic and problem to be addressed in the DRP in consultation with the chair and sends it to the DRP committee, along with a copy of the ISP. A proposed timeline for completion is also submitted to the committee.
  3. Each member of the DRP committee will send questions/comments about the summary to the chair within two weeks of receipt.  All members must approve the DRP plan and timeline.
  4. Graduate College Paperwork
    • The Graduate Program Coordinator will fill out and submit the Request for the Comprehensive Examination which must be forwarded to the Graduate College at least two weeks in advance of the examination and must include the date and time.
    • The Request for the Comprehensive Examination will be accompanied by a Doctoral Plan of Study Summary Sheet, which is prepared by the Felton Student Success Center in consultation with the student’s advisor.
    • The Doctoral Plan of Study Summary Sheet requires the Graduate Program Coordinator to perform a transcript review indicating successful completion of essential coursework in the student’s focal area and indicating coursework remaining to be completed to be eligible to graduate.
    • The Doctoral Plan of Study Summary is signed by the student’s advisor, the Director of the PhD Program and submitted to the Graduate College for approval/signature by the Graduate College Dean, along with the Request for Comprehensive Exam.
    • Department and student copies of the Doctoral Plan of Study Summary Sheet are returned to the Felton Student Success Center. After this point, the Felton Student Success Center must be notified of any changes to the Doctoral Plan of Study so that the appropriate document can be submitted to the Graduate College.
  5. Once the problem/purpose has been determined, the student completes the paper independently. During this period of time, the student should not consult with faculty, students, or outside individuals. It is expected that the work is solely that of the student.
  6. The student schedules a submission date and a date for the Oral exam. It is the student’s obligation to make arrangements for a meeting time for the oral portion of the examination, and notify the members of the committee and the Felton Student Success Center of the date and time. The Felton Student Success Center will reserve a room.
  7. The student submits the DRP two weeks prior to the Oral Exam (must occur one semester after the ISP).

Grading Criteria

Depending on the topic, the length of the paper is approximately 20-40 pages, excluding figures and tables and references. Grading criteria are as follows:

  1. Relevant literature is included and synthesized appropriately on the specific aims page.
  2. The research problem and purpose of the study are well articulated.
  3. The aims (and when appropriate hypotheses) are clearly delineated and in the case of a quantitative study, measurable.
  4. The significance section includes an appropriate evaluation of the level of knowledge or state of the science related to the proposed research question or topic.
  5. The conceptual framework or theoretical orientation is appropriate with respect to the aims of the project and type of design.
  6. The selected research design fits the research problem, purpose, and proposed aims.
  7. The rationale for the selection of the research design is clearly described. Strengths and limitations of the design are clearly and appropriately identified; a discussion of alternative designs is included and is comprehensive and appropriate.
  8. The selected data collection method(s) will permit the researcher to address the aims. The rationale for the selection of data collection methods and the strengths and limitations of particular data collection methods are clearly and appropriately presented. A discussion of alternative data collection methods is included and is comprehensive and appropriate.
  9. The analytic plan is specific and appropriate. A discussion of alternative analysis methods is included and is comprehensive and appropriate.
  10. Ethical issues are adequately and appropriately addressed.
  11. The prospectus is clearly written and logically developed.
  12. A standard style format, such as APA, is consistently and accurately used for citing references in text and in the bibliography.
 Evaluation and Communication
The DRP committee will individually review and evaluate the written DRP. Each committee member will rate the DRP as Satisfactory, Reservation, or Unsatisfactory. Committee members will submit their written evaluation of the DRP to the chair at the Oral exam (refer to the DRP Grading Form).  

3. Oral Examination 

The Oral Exam is the third component of the Comprehensive Examination for the PhD. It focuses on the quality and content of the DRP. It also provides an opportunity for the student to defend and address any deficiencies in their written DRP. It allows the committee to delve further into the student’s breadth and knowledge of alternative approaches and methods to address the specified research problem. At the conclusion of the Oral Exam, a final evaluation of both the DRP and Oral Exam will be rendered. Students complete the Oral Exam 2 weeks after submitting the DRP to the DRP/Oral Exam committee. The primary goal of the Oral Exam is to evaluate the student’s ability to defend and extend ideas/methods proposed in the DRP a two-hour oral session. The intent is that at the conclusion of the Oral Exam, the committee can offer recommendations for the dissertation proposal.

Guidelines for completion

  1. The student schedules the Oral Exam with the committee.
  2. The Oral Exam is conducted as a closed examination, attended by only the student and all members of the Oral Exam committee.
  3. At the beginning of the Oral Exam, the committee discusses their individual evaluations of the DRP without the student present and develop a plan for posing questions/issues for the student to respond in regard to the DRP during the Oral Exam.
  4. The student responds to committee questions surrounding the DRP.
  5. At the conclusion of the oral questions, without the student present, the committee discusses strengths and weaknesses of the defense including whether or not the student has passed the DRP and the Oral Exam components.
  6. When successfully completed, Comprehensive Exam Grading Form and Comprehensive Examination Report will be filed as described below with the Graduate College indicating that the Comprehensive Exam has been completed and the student will be considered a doctoral candidate.

Evaluation and Communication

The committee will discuss strengths and weaknesses of the defense including whether or not the student has passed the DRP and the Oral Exam components. Based on this discussion, the Comprehensive exam will be rated Satisfactory, Reservation, or Unsatisfactory. Please see Graduation College website for further description of Reservations versus Unsatisfactory. (see Comprehensive Exam Grading Form; this form is to be completed by the Chair on behalf of the committee).

Two forms are needed to communicate the final evaluation outcome:

  1. The Comprehensive Exam Grading Form. This form will be reviewed by the Director of the PhD Program; members of the PhD Admissions and Progression committee may also review this form for the purposes of program evaluation or in the case of a student disputing the outcome of the exam.
  1. Report of Doctoral Comprehensive Exam form with committee members signatures. This form will be circulated using DocuSign for committee members to complete. It will also be signed by the Director of the PhD Program (aka DEO) and routed back to the Graduate College.

Upon completion of the oral exam, the Chairperson turns The Comprehensive Exam Grading Form into the PhD Graduate Coordinator. (110 CNB).

B. Comprehensive Exam Committee

1. Criteria for PhD Advisor/Chair/ Committee

  1. College of Nursing (CON) PhD Adviser(s)/Comprehensive Exam Chair(s)
    • CON faculty appointment (Tenure/Tenure track)
    • Justifiable relationship between the advisor and student
      • For example, an active program of research and peer-reviewed publications within last five years in the student’s area of scholarship is desired
    • Co-advising experience for at least one PhD nursing student with a senior faculty member (at a minimum)

2. CON PhD Comprehensive Exam Committee Member:

    • Iowa faculty tenure-track appointment or consent from Graduate College. 
    • PhD or equivalent degree such as DNS, etc.
    • Method and/or content expertise in the student’s area of scholarship

3. Committee Members Outside the University of Iowa 

It is possible to add an expert from outside the UI to a student’s comprehensive exam and dissertation proposal committees if the new member offers specific expertise in a narrow range or specific research focus, which is not provided by other members of the committee or other UI faculty. The Graduate College must approve these requests.

2. Committee Reviewer Roles

Graduate Faculty Member ISP Reviewers DRP Reviewers Oral Examination Reviewers
Faculty #1 (CON-Chair) X X X
Faculty #2 (Member) X X X
Faculty #3 (Member) X X X
Faculty #4 (Non-CON member preferred) X X

 

 

 

 

 

License

University of Iowa College of Nursing Graduate Student Handbook Copyright © 2024 by University of Iowa College of Nursing. All Rights Reserved.

Share This Book