Judging Criteria

How the Winners Will be Selected

Federal employees serving as judges will select up to three Challenge winners, subject to a final decision by the Award Approving Official.

How the Tools Will Be Evaluated

Solutions should address the following judging criteria from the NHLBI. The points assigned to each set of evaluation criteria suggest which scientific milestones interest the Institute and warrant emphasis. Find links to resources with information about SCD and software programs that may help Participants create and test Tools on the Online Resources webpage.

Evaluation Criterion 1:

Significance (15 points)

The Tool will be evaluated for significance by the following.

  1. Potential impact of the Tool in reducing stigma and bias by building awareness of SCD (pain, genetics, symptom identification, associated health issues, coping mechanisms, etc.) among the target audience(s).
  2. Inclusion of scientifically accurate information, including SCD evidence-based guidelines (e.g., reference NHLBI SCD guidelines, websites from NIH, the National Library of Medicine, etc.)

Evaluation Criterion 2:

Innovation (20 points)

The Tool should be innovative and creative.  This will be evaluated by the following:

  1. Novelty or distinctness from existing SCD-related awareness tools. Incremental advancements that improve awareness of SCD among the target audience are discouraged.
  2. Methodology for reaching the target audience, delivering the Tool to the target audience, and acceptability by the target audience.

Evaluation Criterion 3: 

Design, affordability, and usability (20 points)

The submission should be easy to use by the targeted audience, easy to comprehend using clear writing and plain language (see www.plainlanguage.gov for helpful information), cost-friendly, and culturally and health literate (see https://www.cdc.gov/healthliteracy/culture.html for resources).   This will be evaluated as follows.

  1. Functionality - generates the expected output efficiently
  2. User Centricity
    1. Shows evidence of co-design with and support from users of proposed Tool (e.g., patient, family, caregivers, community, and healthcare providers)
    2. Considers the needs of diversity (i.e. sex/gender, racial/ethnic, urban/rural,  social/cultural, and language))
    3. Reflects understanding of the social determinants that may affect the Tool
  3. Understandability
    1. Uses images/messaging appropriate for the intended audience
    2. Presents clear, concise, and well-organized messages
    3. Provides clear images and/or audio
  4. Accessibility
    1. Can be readily available  (easily and widely disseminated) and affordable for end-users
    2. Is written or composed in English
    3. Demonstrates compatibility with section 508 accessibility standards and guidelines

Evaluation Criterion 4:

Approach and quality of tool testing and outcomes (25 points)

The approach of the Tool should include and will be evaluated on the following:

  1. Research Objectives/Research Question/Literature Review
  2. Study Methods/Study Design
  3. Data management tool to collect information about study participants, dissemination of the Tool to study participants, impact of the intervention with study participants, etc.
  4. Variables/Data Collection (Qualitative, Quantitative, or Mixed-Methods)
  5. Statistical Analysis and Sample Size
  6. Results and discussion of pilot test outcomes (interpretation of the results in light of scientific literature and conclusions)

Evaluation Criterion 5:

Feasibility: Outreach, Communications, and Dissemination Plan (20 points)

  1. Methods for outreach, communication, and dissemination of the Tool. Tools that include proposals on how to reach a range of users, including those with disabilities and from underserved populations, are encouraged.
  2. Likelihood of future adoption of Tool (delivered as intended to target population and adopted by those audiences).