Research and Education Poster Abstracts Review Evaluation Criteria

Criterion 1

How important/novel is the work?

• Excellent (3): This abstract describes novel approaches, methods, and/or concepts. Rationale and significance are identified. 
• Good (2): This abstract describes a novel approach, method, or concept but provides only a partial description of rationale and significance.
• Fair (1): This abstract describes a somewhat novel topic and is lacking in clarity, significance, or relevance.
• Unacceptable (0): This abstract does not describe a novel topic of interest in educational or scientific research.

Criterion 2

How clearly does the abstract describe the research that was conducted? Clarity of writing.

• Excellent (3): All sections of the abstract clearly describe the project and are well-written.
• Good (2): The project is generally described and would be improved with minor revisions; but is otherwise clear.
• Fair (1): The abstract is somewhat clear and needs several revisions.
• Unacceptable (0): The abstract would require major revisions.

Criterion 3

Is the hypothesis clearly stated and do the study objectives address the hypothesis?

• Excellent (3): A study hypothesis or research question is stated. All objectives are clearly defined and appropriate.
• Good (2): The hypothesis or research question must be inferred from the objectives. Objectives are moderately defined but appropriate.
• Fair (1): No hypothesis or research question is given, and/or it is unclear if the objectives will address the hypothesis or research question.
• Unacceptable (0): No hypothesis or research question is stated. The objectives are inappropriate for the hypothesis or research question, or the objectives are not testable. 

Criterion 4

Are the methods described appropriately?

• 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 detailed description of the proposed techniques.
• Fair (1): The abstract provides an unorganized explanation or methods. It is uncertain if proposed data will be produced.
• Unacceptable (0): Methods are not provided or are inappropriate for the hypothesis or research question and objectives.

Criterion 5

Are the conclusions consistent with the results?

• Excellent (3): The conclusions are based on solid results provided in the abstract.
• Good (2): The conclusions are not fully supported by the results provided in the abstract.
• Fair (1): The conclusions are not clearly stated, or results to support the conclusions are not solid.
• Unacceptable (0): The conclusions are not at all correlated with the results.

Criterion 1

Are new approaches described that will help other educators and/or administrators to implement a similar program, course, or initiative?

• Excellent (3): The program, course, or initiative described will likely make a significant contribution to advancing pharmacy education and have broad appeal to meeting attendees.
• Good (2): The program, course, or initiative will likely contribute to pharmacy education and may be of interest to meeting attendees.
• Fair (1): The program, course, or initiative will likely make a small contribution to pharmacy education but may be of limited interest to meeting attendees.
• Unacceptable (0): The program, course, or initiative will likely not contribute to pharmacy education and will not be of interest to meeting attendees.

Criterion 2

How clearly does the abstract describe the program, course, or initiative? Clarity of writing.

• Excellent (3): All sections of the abstract are well-written and clearly describe the program, course, or initiative.
• Good (2): The abstract describes the program, course, or initiative and would be improved with minor revisions.
• Fair (1): The abstract is somewhat clear and would be improved by several revisions.
• Unacceptable (0): The abstract is not clearly written and would require major. 

Criterion 3

Was the work conducted in a scholarly manner, including consideration of potential advantages and disadvantages of the approach? 

• Excellent (3): Work was conducted a scholarly manner that is grounded in evidence. Advantages and disadvantages of the approach are described.
• Good (2): Some evidence that work was conducted in a scholarly manner. Advantages and disadvantages of the approach are partly addressed.
• Fair (1): Development of the program, course, or initiative needs improvement to be considered scholarly. Advantages and disadvantages of the approach are unclear.
• Unacceptable (0): Development of the program, course, or initiative was not conducted in a scholarly manner. No discussion of advantages or disadvantages to support development of the program, course, or initiative. 

Criterion 4

Does the abstract describe how the program, course, or initiative was assessed?

• Excellent (3): An appropriate and sound method of the assessment technique(s) of the program, course, or initiative is described.
• Good (2): Appropriate assessment techniques of the program, course, or initiative is partially described.  
• Fair (1): Assessment technique(s) of the program, course, or initiative is not clearly described or has room for improvement.
• Unacceptable (0): Description of the assessment technique(s) of the program, course, or initiative is missing.

Criterion 5

Do the results describe evidence regarding success or failure of the program, course, or initiative?

• Excellent (3): The results provide detailed evidence of success or failure of the program, course, or initiative.
• Good (2): The results partially address the success or failure of the program, course, or initiative.
• Fair (1): The results vaguely describe success or failure of the program, course, or initiative.
• Unacceptable (0): The results do not provide any evidence of success or failure of the program, course, or initiative.

Criterion 6

Do results of the program, course, or initiative support the conclusions?

• Excellent (3): The conclusions of the abstract are fully supported by the results.
• Good (2): The conclusions are generally discussed or mostly supported by the results.
• Fair (1): Conclusions are limited or are only partially supported by the results.
• Unacceptable (0): Conclusions are missing or not at all supported by the results.