Evaluation of Research Posters
Scale 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Notes:
General
1. Clarity and/or understanding of topic
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
2. Well written (no spelling or grammatical errors)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
3. Well organized (material in each section "belonged there")
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
4. Visually appealing
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Title
1. Informative title 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
2. Concise 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Introduction
1. Provided adequate, accurate and appropriate background information with no "fluff"
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
2. Went from general to specific and ended with brief statement of purpose of proposed study
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
3. Hypothesis is clearly stated
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Methods
1. Provided enough detail (or cited appropriate references) that the reader could replicate the study.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
2. Clearly stated how data would be collected and analyzed
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Results
1. Data were analyzed appropriately and presented in graphical or tabular form.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
2. Graphs or tables were visually appealing.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
3. Graphs or tables were titled and captioned appropriately.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Discussion
1. Discussed outcomes as related to the hypotheses
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
2. Related the proposed study and possible findings to what is already known or what was expected
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
3. Discussed any confounds of current project (e.g., small sample size).
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
4. Proposed future project based on current findings.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Optional: Literature cited
1. Effective/enough references used 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
2. Cited appropriately in text 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
3. Format of Literature Cited section, proper format of citations
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
4. Effective paraphrasing of work of others
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Acknowledgements:
1. Those who supported/aided project are recognized
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Names of evaluators: ______
2