Comprehensive Exams:
Eligibility
Eligibility for the Written Comprehensive Examination is based upon meeting the
following criteria:
• Admission to the PhD degree program.
• Completion of the core curriculum of the PhD program (30 credits)
• An approved plan of study filed with the program director.
• A grade point average of 3.0 in graduate course work.
• Approval of the program director.
Process
All PhD students are required to pass comprehensive exams in order to advance to
candidacy. Offered in January and August, usually the week before the new
semester begins, the comprehensive exam is a three-day open-resources written
exam. The PhD Program Director emails exam questions out on Monday prior to
5pm and answers are emailed back to the PhD Program Director by 5pm on
Thursday. Questions are given in two categories: methodology and theory. Students
must answer at least one question from each category and three questions in total.
Students will be given at least three possible questions in each of the categories.
The answers to each question must be no longer than 5 pages in length.
Evaluation
Each paper returned is read by two faculty members in a double-blind process; a
third reader is brought in if one decides to fail the student. Students usually find out
if they have passed by that Sunday or Monday before the semester begins. Students
who fail questions on the exam are able to re-take questions from the specific
category that was failed two more times, after which, if they still do not pass, they
will be dismissed from the program.
The written responses are evaluated using the rubric below. The responses will
each be scored on five scales: concept, thesis, support, organization, and language.
Maximum possible score is 20 points (from each reviewer for each question).
Minimum passing score is 14 points (from each reviewer for each question) with no
scale subscore lower than 2.
Scoring Rubric for Comprehensive Exam
CONCEPT
THESIS
SUPPORT
ORGANIZATION
LANGUAGE
4
Responds incisively
to the prompt;
Analysis relevant,
sophisticated, and
original
Controlling thesis
is specific,
arguable, and
complex; Gives
response a sense of
inevitability
Apt, seemingly inevitable
sequence of paragraphs;
Appropriate, clear and
adequate transitions
between sentences and
paragraphs
Apt and precise diction, syntactic
variety, clear command of
Standard English
3
Responds well to
the prompt;
Analysis goes
beyond the obvious
Central thesis
determines
response's
structure
2
Responds
adequately to the
prompt; May have
some factual,
interpretive, or
conceptual errors
or irrelevancies
Confuses some
significant
concepts, including
some of those in
the prompt
Overly general
thesis; Gives no
indication of
organization to
follow
Provides
substantial, wellchosen evidence
(research or textual
citations) used
strategically; Apt
definitions
Provides sufficient
and appropriate
evidence and makes
effort to
contextualize it
Provides some
evidence but not
always relevant,
sufficient, or
integrated into the
response
Distinct units of thought
in paragraphs, coherently
arranged; Some
transitions between
sentences and paragraphs
Uneven: paragraphs
sometimes effective, but
some brief, weakly
unified, or undeveloped;
Some awkward or missing
transitions
Some mechanical difficulties;
Occasional problematic word
choices or awkward syntax
errors; Occasional grammar
errors; Some wordiness
Occasional major grammar
errors (e.g., agreement, tense);
Frequent minor grammar errors
(e.g., prepositions, articles);
Occasional imprecise diction;
Awkward syntax; wordiness
Repetitive, wanders
Misunderstands
prompt and/or
concepts
No discernable
thesis
Evidence usually
only narrative or
anecdotal,
awkwardly or
incorrectly
incorporated
Evidence simply
listed or not cited at
all
Frequent major and minor
grammar problems; Frequent
imprecise diction; Wordiness;
Awkward syntax; Repetitive
sentence patterns; Problems
impede meaning
Numerous grammatical errors
and stylistic problems;
Overwhelming non- Standard
English; Errors in every sentence
1
0
Vague or irrelevant
thesis
Arbitrary or no paragraph
structure, illogical or no
transitions
Dissertation Proposal:
Dissertation Committee
The student will form a dissertation committee comprised of at least three faculty
members (students may choose to have more than three members). At least two
members must be from the Department of Rehabilitation Science. The student must
also have at least one member from another department and/or a member external
to the University subject to the approval of the program director. The RHBS
doctoral committee form must be completed and turned into the program director
so that it may be added to the student’s file. The form is in the appendix of this
document and is posted on the department’s website.
Written Component
Preparation of the dissertation proposal is an iterative process between the doctoral
candidate and the committee chair involving numerous meetings and discussions.
The dissertation proposal that must be submitted to the dissertation committee is a
maximum 15-page (NSF-type or NIH-type format) research proposal on the
dissertation topic (excluding references). A copy of this proposal must be submitted
to every member of the committee no later than 2 weeks before the scheduled
meeting. Students are strongly encouraged to consult with committee members as
they are preparing this document. The committee chair must approve the document
before the final document is sent to the full committee.
This document must be limited to 15, single-spaced pages, including figures and
tables, but excluding references. Students are encouraged to review University
policy for the formatting and required elements of the dissertation. The guides can
are located at: http://thesis.gmu.edu/guides.html
The research proposal should include the following information:
 Abstract of proposed work
 General introduction that puts the proposed project into perspective and
reviews the relevant literature in the field
 Rationale for and importance of the research
 Statement of aims, objectives, and/or hypotheses
 Relevant preliminary research already completed or in progress
 Research design, including proposed methods and research plan
 Proposed budget
 References
A full presentation of your research design should include:
1. Subjects and setting. The characteristics of participants of the study, how they
will be selected, and the setting of the study should be presented in detail.
Inclusion of a sample size analysis, when relevant to the research proposed.
2. Apparatus and instrumentation. If the researcher plans to use any tools or
instruments that might be important for readers to understand (such as,
assessment instruments, surveys, interview formats, observation protocols, and
data collection devices), these should be described in detail. If subjects will
interact with special equipment or software, or other materials, a detailed
description is essential. Actual copies of instruments or photographs of
equipment can be included in appendices. (Be sure to obtain copyright
permission if needed.)
3. Data collection procedures. The readers should be given a thorough description
of all the steps involved in data collection. Timelines are helpful, either in
outline or graphical representation. Efforts to protect the reliability of findings
and the validity of inferences should be detailed.
4. Data analysis. Regardless of the data collection method you use, some analytic
strategy must be applied to make sense of the observations. Methods of “data
cleaning” and refinement, categorization schemes and how they will be
developed, data transformations, statistical tests, and checks on the validity and
generalizability of conclusions are suitable topics. You should provide sufficient
information for readers to determine the reasonableness of your analysis plan.
Therefore, the doctoral dissertation proposal provides a broad literature review,
well-developed rationale, a research design, and a data analysis plan.
Oral Presentation
The student should prepare a 20- minute formal presentation on his/her written
research proposal. The presentation should be of a format acceptable at a national
professional meeting, should highlight the questions addressed by the student’s
research, and include sufficient details on methods to be analyzed by the committee.
Committee Discussion
The committee discussion with the candidate will include a critique of the research
presented by the student, but will also probe the student’s knowledge of the
contemporary and historical literature relating to the student’s proposed research.
Students are encouraged to seek advice from all committee members about their
expectations concerning subject matter and level of knowledge for this exam. No
restrictions are placed upon committee members with regard to subject matter
relevant to the dissertation topic.
Criteria for Advancement to Dissertation
The oral presentation and research proposal will be discussed with reference to the
rubric below. In order to advance to dissertation the candidate must reach at least
the level of competency. The outcome of the meeting is either: (1) Approve, (2)
Approve with Minor Revision or (3) Revise and Resubmit. The student must have an
approved proposal in order to be eligible to enroll in RHBS 999. In addition, Human
Subjects Review Board submission cannot be made prior to proposal acceptance. A
copy of the Dissertation Proposal form is located in the appendix of this document
and is posted on the department website.
Criteria for Advancement to Dissertation
5
Exemplary
4
Strong
3
Competent
2
Marginal
1
Unacceptable
SCIENTIFIC
KNOWLEDGE
Provides substantial,
well-chosen evidence
(research or textual
citations) to support
scientific concepts.
Demonstrates high
knowledge of
concepts and
terminology.
Provides sufficient
and appropriate
evidence to support
scientific claims, and
makes effort to place
scientific findings in
context.
Provides some evidence to
support scientific claims,
but not always relevant,
sufficient, or integrated into
the response. May have
some factual, interpretive,
or conceptual errors.
Evidence to support
scientific findings
usually only
narrative or
anecdotal, and is
generally awkwardly
or incorrectly
incorporated.
Little or no evidence
cited to support
scientific claims.
RESPONSE TO
QUESTIONS
Responds incisively
and directly to the
questions asked.
Responses to
questions are specific,
defendable, and
complex.
Most responses are
direct and relevant to
the questions asked.
Responses to
question are more
general, but still
accurate; analyses
goes beyond the
obvious.
Responds adequately to the
questions asked;
occasionally responds with
unrelated information.
Responses to questions are
overly general and
disorganized; may have
some factual, interpretive,
or conceptual errors.
Confuses some
significant concepts
in the questions
asked. Responses to
questions are vague
or irrelevant.
Does not
understand
questions and/or
concepts. No
discernable
responses.
Dissertation:
Written Component
The final defense document is the formal recounting of your thesis or dissertation
research project that was proposed and approved during your dissertation proposal
defense. It includes the following:
 A cover page with a “signature block” below the title and author. (template can
be found at: http://thesis.gmu.edu/signaturesheets.html)
 All other sections of a dissertation (i.e., abstract, table of contents, list of tables,
list of figures, references, etc.) required by the University. (dissertation guide
can be fond at: http://thesis.gmu.edu/guides.html)
 The main text, which will be a self-contained “chapter” consisting of (a) journalstyle manuscript(s) based on your dissertation work. This will mirror (a)
manuscript(s) that one may submit for publication and so will include all of the
parts required of such a manuscript.
 An appendix that, at minimum, includes your proposal (minus the reference
section). You may also include as appendices additional materials associated
with your project such as supplementary analyses, tables, scales, etc. – as
deemed necessary by you and your advisory committee. As well as a discussion
of implications that are beyond what a journal would accept.
 In sum your final defense document will, at minimum, contain all of the
following:
o Abstract
o Title Page
o Table of Contents, List of Tables, List of Figures
o Main Text (i.e., self-contained journal-style manuscript(s))
o Reference Section (which includes all references cited in the proposal
and final defense documents)
o Appendix (i.e., your proposal and any supplementary materials
deemed necessary)
The final form of the dissertation includes one or more journal-length manuscripts.
These should each include a focused literature review, well-grounded hypotheses, a
clear description of the method and relevant results, and a discussion of theoretical
and practical implications of the research. In order to be acceptable, the committee
must judge the manuscript(s) to be of publishable quality.
Oral Component
In order for the final oral defense of the dissertation to occur, the student must
submit copies of his/her dissertation to the members of the dissertation committee.
The chair of the committee must approve the version before it is given to the rest of
the committee. It is essential that doctoral committee members have sufficient time
to read and evaluate dissertation drafts with care prior to the dissertation defense
date. It is also essential that students have sufficient time after the defense to do
final revisions, editing, and formatting. The University determines the deadlines for
final library submission in order to graduate in any given semester. All defenses
must be scheduled at least 30 days prior to this date and complete drafts of
dissertations to be defended must be delivered to each member of the committee 30
days prior to the defense (committee members will review the work within 21 days
of receipt). In other words, if a student wishes to graduate in Spring of a given year
and the university-determined submission deadline is May 1, the defense must take
place prior to April 1 and the full draft dissertation must be delivered to the full
committee before March 1. If the committee members agree that the defense may go
forward, the dissertation reviewers’ report must be signed and returned to the
department. This form must be signed by all of your committee members and
submitted at least one week prior to the scheduled defense date (in the example
above, the form needs to be submitted by March 22). The form is in the appendix of
this document and is posted on the department’s website.
The dissertation is to be orally defended in public, with at least the whole committee
present. However, anyone else is free to attend. This ensures that the University's
standards are met, and offers an opportunity to all to hear the result of the work.
After a successful defense, the members of the Dissertation Committee sign the
cover page and the student is responsible for delivering the appropriate copies to
the appropriate sources. (guidance for this process can be found at:
http://thesis.gmu.edu/submission.html)
Department of Rehabilitation Science
4400 University Drive, MS 2G7, Fairfax, Virginia 22030
703-993-1950
DOCTORAL COMMITTEE FORM
Student must file with department prior to dissertation proposal defense meeting.
Student Name:
Email:
G-Number:
Date:
Research Emphasis:
Committee Member Approval:
Name
Committee
Chair
Department
Signature
Date
Committee
Member
Committee
Member
Committee
Member
(if necessary)
Committee
Member
(if necessary)
* The committee must be composed of at least two members from the Department of
Rehabilitation Science and at least one member from outside this department.
Tentative dissertation topic:
Approval/Date:
(Program Director)
Version 1.1 October 7, 2011
Department of Rehabilitation Science
4400 University Drive, MS 2G7, Fairfax, Virginia 22030
703-993-1950
DISSERTATION PROPOSAL REPORT
Committee chair must file with department after dissertation proposal defense meeting.
Student Name:
G-Number:
Date:
Outcome of Proposal Defense Meeting:

APPROVE

APPROVE WITH MINOR REVISIONS

REVISE AND RESUBMIT
Name
Signature
Date
Committee
Chair
Committee
Member
Committee
Member
Committee
Member
(if necessary)
Committee
Member
(if necessary)
Version 1.1 October 7, 2011
Department of Rehabilitation Science
4400 University Drive, MS 2G7, Fairfax, Virginia 22030
703-993-1950
DOCTORAL DISSERTATION REVIEWERS’ REPORT
Student must file with department one week prior to public dissertation defense meeting.
Student Name:
Email:
G-Number:
Date:
Dissertation Title:
Committee Member Approval:
Dissertation
is READY
for defense
with no more
than minor
revisions
Dissertation
is
NOT
READY
for defense
Committee
Chair


Committee
Member


Committee
Member






Name
Committee
Member
(if necessary)
Committee
Member
(if necessary)
Signature
Date
Version 1.1 October 7, 2011