2021 Trainee Poster Competition Evaluation Criteria

AACP Article

Trainee Poster Abstract Evaluation

Trainee Poster Abstract submissions will undergo a two-phase review process. The criteria under Phase 1 will be used by AACP Section reviewers in evaluating abstracts. Accepted abstracts will be judged by multi-disciplinary teams, and one poster will be recognized in each of the following three categories: 1) Best poster by a student pharmacist, 2) Best poster by a graduate student, and 3) Best poster by a resident, fellow, or postdoc.

Please refer to the criteria and point values below below as a guide for the preparation of your abstract. Abstracts describing works in progress are eligible for consideration.

Contact the AACP Posters Team with any questions.

Phase 1: Abstract Review

The following criteria (point values in parenthesis) will be used by AACP Section reviewers in evaluating abstracts. 

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 (actual or anticipated) consistent with the results?
  • Excellent (3): The conclusions (actual or anticipated) are based on solid results or predicted based on solid methods provided in the abstract.
  • Good (2): The conclusions (actual or anticipated) 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 (actual or anticipated) are weakly supported by the results or can only be partially predicted by the methods described.
  • Unacceptable (0): The conclusions (actual or anticipated) 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 multi-disciplinary review teams to evaluate trainee posters during the Annual Meeting.

Attributes of the Poster

  • The appropriate components (objectives, methods, results) 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 conclusions (actual or anticipated) were 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.