Trainee Poster Abstracts Review Evaluation Criteria

AACP Article

Trainee Poster Abstract Evaluation

Each poster abstract will be reviewed by three reviewers who will score based on the evaluation criteria below. The scores will be averaged and the Trainee Competition finalists will be identified based on the acceptance margin determined by the poster abstract review committee. 

Contact the AACP Posters Team with any questions.

Abstract Review Criteria

Criterion 1

How relevant is the work? (Relevance here means supports or aligns with contemporary topics in pharmacy education, practice, or pharmaceutical sciences). 

Rationale and significance are identified and suggest this to be meritorious educational or science research.

  • Excellent (3): The abstract describes a very 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 (if a hypothesis is applicable) 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 in the description of the 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? Research can be "research work in progress." 
  • 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.