Abstract
This concept paper examines a persistent challenge facing dissertation chairs in professional doctoral programs: institutional evaluation rubrics are frequently adapted from research-oriented PhD standards without addressing the ways evaluation criteria should differ for a practice-oriented degree. Drawing on a structured, multi-institution comparative review of ten dissertation evaluation documents spanning the PhD, EdD, and DBA, this paper introduces the Dissertation Quality Assurance Framework (DQAF), which separates dissertation quality standards into two categories: Core Domains that should remain constant across all doctoral degree types, and Differentiated Domains that should legitimately vary according to a degree's stated purpose. The paper explains why four domains, methodological rigor, ethical conduct, clarity of scholarly writing, and coherent logical argument, should not change based on degree type, while three domains, nature of contribution, primary audience, and standard of relevance, should. Using real institutional evaluation criteria and illustrative committee feedback scenarios, the paper demonstrates how applying PhD-oriented standards to DBA dissertations produces predictable evaluation errors. The paper concludes with practical recommendations for applying this framework during proposal review, chapter review, and final defense, and offers a five-question checklist dissertation chairs can use to evaluate applied doctoral research more consistently.