Stakeholder Interview Rubric Clinical Needs Spec Template Worksheet 2.2: Interview Protocol Worksheet 3.1: Precedent Benchmarking Worksheet 4.1: Biophysical Modeling Course Master Rubrics ← Syllabus Week 2
Instructor Assessment & Formative Feedback

Clinical Stakeholder Interview Evaluation Rubric

Standardized assessment criteria for evaluating student discovery interviews with clinical specialists (neurologists, neuroradiologists, neurosurgeons, and clinical technologists). Directly assesses the evidentiary rigor of Criterion 01 in the Midterm PDR Review.

Total Stakeholder Discovery Score

Select performance ratings across all 5 evaluation dimensions below.

0 / 100 --
Auto-saved locally
Evaluation Standard: High-scoring student teams conduct active primary interviews with practicing clinicians rather than relying solely on textbook literature. Look for explicit quotes, real clinical workflows, identified friction points, and translation of qualitative clinical feedback into quantitative engineering constraints.
01. Stakeholder Breadth & Clinical Diversity 0 / 20 pts

Diversity and appropriateness of queried specialists across the care continuum. Engages multiple perspectives: diagnosing physician (neurologist), imaging specialist (neuroradiologist), surgical interventionist (neurosurgeon), and bedside operator (technologist/nurse).

Exemplary
18–20 pts
Interviews ≥3 distinct clinical specialties (e.g. Neurologist, Neuroradiologist, Surgeon); engaging primary practitioners with direct care experience; comprehensive stakeholder map.
Proficient
15–17 pts
Interviews 2 relevant clinical specialists; good clinical relevance but lacks operator/technologist or surgical counterpart perspective.
Developing
12–14 pts
Only 1 specialist queried, or interviews confined to general research trainees lacking clinical care responsibilities.
Unsatisfactory
0–11 pts
No primary clinician contact; relies entirely on secondhand assumptions or textbook generalizations.
02. Semi-Structured Inquiry Rigor & Protocol Design 0 / 25 pts

Formulation of non-leading, open-ended, and penetrating questions. Systematic exploration across diagnostic bottlenecks, clinical workflows, actionability triggers, and error tolerance.

Exemplary
23–25 pts
Mastery of semi-structured inquiry; non-leading probes that uncover unstated assumptions; balances diagnostic odyssey, workflow pain points, and decision boundaries.
Proficient
19–22 pts
Solid question bank covering primary clinical workflow; questions occasionally biased or overly focused on technical specs rather than clinical pain points.
Developing
15–18 pts
Shallow question list; predominantly binary yes/no questions; fails to investigate workflow bottlenecks or diagnostic delays.
Unsatisfactory
0–14 pts
Disorganized, leading questions that pitch the team's preconceived engineering solution rather than discovering clinical needs.
03. Actionability & Clinical Decision Trigger Discovery 0 / 25 pts

Identification of the exact quantitative threshold or diagnostic milestone that alters clinical management (e.g. changing medication, proceeding to craniotomy, withholding biopsy).

Exemplary
23–25 pts
Pinpoints unambiguous clinical decision triggers; defines what change in biomarker output alters patient treatment; evaluates medical penalties of false positives vs. false negatives.
Proficient
19–22 pts
Identifies general clinical utility; understands treatment decision context but missing quantitative threshold confidence bounds.
Developing
15–18 pts
Vague understanding of how clinicians would use data; proposes biomarkers that do not alter therapy or patient outcomes.
Unsatisfactory
0–14 pts
No evidence that the proposed diagnostic output is clinically actionable; ignores existing medical decision pathways.
04. Translation into Engineering Specifications 0 / 20 pts

Translation of qualitative clinician statements and workflow constraints into rigorous quantitative engineering specifications (spatial/temporal resolution, scan duration, form factor, motion tolerance).

Exemplary
18–20 pts
Seamless mapping from stakeholder quotes directly into quantitative engineering bounds; conflicting requirements identified and addressed with clear trade-off rationale.
Proficient
15–17 pts
Reasonable translation from clinical needs to engineering bounds; some metrics remain qualitative or disconnected from physical limits.
Developing
12–14 pts
Weak linkage between interview data and engineering specs; arbitrary target numbers chosen without clinical backing.
Unsatisfactory
0–11 pts
Failure to translate clinical feedback into engineering parameters; disconnected design goals.
05. Professional Rigor & Synthesis Quality 0 / 10 pts

Professionalism in clinical outreach, ethical conduct, fidelity of interview notes/quotes, and synthesis of cross-stakeholder perspectives.

Exemplary
9–10 pts
Meticulously documented interview log with verbatim quotes; exemplary clinical engagement etiquette; thoughtful synthesis of conflicting stakeholder viewpoints.
Proficient
8 pts
Clear interview documentation; captures primary takeaways and quotes; minor gaps in synthesis across roles.
Developing
6–7 pts
Sparse notes or undocumented conversations; summary lacks specific clinical evidence or quotes.
Unsatisfactory
0–5 pts
Incomplete, sloppy, or fabricated interview notes; unprofessional engagement.
Overall Formative Assessment & Recommendations

Key strengths, critical omissions, and actionable recommendations for the Phase 1 Deliverable Dossier submission.