Phase 1: Abstract Review
The following criteria (point values in parenthesis) will be used by disciplinary review teams in evaluating abstracts. Please refer to the criteria and point values below below as a guide for the preparation of your abstract.
Criterion 1: How relevant is the work? Rationale and significance are identified and suggest this to be meritorious educational or science research.
- Excellent (3): The abstract describes a highly relevant topic, approaches and methods.
- Good (2): The relevance of the work described in the abstract is good.
- Fair (1): The relevance of the abstract is fair.
- Unacceptable (0): This abstract does not describe a relevant approach or methods of interest in educational or scientific research.
Criterion 2: How clearly does the abstract describe the work that was conducted? Clarity of title, abstract, and objectives.
- Excellent (3): The title, abstract, and objectives clearly describe the project.
- Good (2): The abstract and objectives are generally described.
- Fair (1): The title, abstract, and objectives are unclear.
- Unacceptable (0): The title, abstract, and objectives are incomplete or difficult to understand.
Criterion 3: Are the objectives and hypothesis clearly defined and testable by the methods employed?
- Excellent (3): The hypothesis and all objectives are clear and well tested by the methods used in the project.
- Good (2): The hypothesis and objectives are moderately defined, appropriate, and testable.
- Fair (1): The hypothesis and objectives are unclear and/or the methods used are not all appropriate.
- Unacceptable (0): The hypothesis, objectives and methods are inappropriate.
Criterion 4: Are the methods sound?
- Excellent (3): The abstract provides a clear description of appropriate and sound methods.
- Good (2): The abstract provides an adequate explanation of methods. There is room for improvement with proposed techniques.
- Fair (1): The abstract provides an unorganized explanation or methods.
- Unacceptable (0): Methods are not provided or are inappropriate for hypothesis and objectives.
Criterion 5: Are the conclusions consistent with the results?
- Excellent (3): The conclusions are based on solid results or predicted based on solid methods provided in the abstract.
- Good (2): The conclusions are mostly supported by the results provided in the abstract, or the methods used will likely generate results that support the predicted conclusions.
- Fair (1): The conclusions are weakly supported by the results or can only be partially predicted by the methods described.
- Unacceptable (0): The conclusions are not at all correlated with the results or cannot be predicted using the methods described.
Phase 2: Judging of Posters
The following criteria are used by multidisciplinary teams to evaluate poster presentations during the Annual Meeting. The trainee must present the poster to be considered for an award.
Attributes of the Poster
- The appropriate components of the poster are present.
- The poster's structure is clear and organized.
- The poster is readable and tables/figures are clearly labeled.
- The poster is visually appealing
The Trainee's Presentation of the Poster
- The aims of this study are clear and the methods appropriately test those aims.
- The presenter has clearly described the results.
- The conclusion was clearly articulated and supported by the results.
- The implications of the work in the field were clearly articulated and supported.
- The presenter answered questions effectively.
- The speaker was engaging during their presentation.