Contents
We encourage evaluators to use the suggested criteria provided on this page to rate posters and presentations for the AMA Poster Showcase Best in Show voting. Posters should be scored in three areas: organization/visual presentation of poster; verbal presentation; and scientific value. Posters are scored on a scale of 1–5, with 5 indicating extraordinarily high quality and 1 marking low quality.
Organization/visual presentation of poster
5 rating
- The content was clearly presented, and easy to follow in the absence of the presenter. Grammar and syntax are correct.
4 rating
- The content was clearly presented, and some labels were used to improve understanding. Grammar and syntax are correct.
3 rating
- Appropriate content was provided, but not organized well. Minor grammatical errors.
2 rating
- The content provided is limited and does not improve understanding of the project.
1 rating
- The content is poorly laid out, and the text is difficult to read.
Verbal presentation
5 rating
- The presenter spoke naturally with enthusiasm, and demonstrated strong knowledge of the project. Presentation was rich and informative, and complied with the two minute time requirement.
4 rating
- The presenter demonstrated strong knowledge of the project. Presentation was limited to or barely exceeded two minutes.
3 rating
- The presenter demonstrated some knowledge of the project. Presentation exceeds two minutes.
2 rating
- The presenter demonstrated poor knowledge of the project. Presentation significantly exceeds two minutes.
1 rating
- The presenter spoke in unclear tones and maintained little to no visual contact.
Scientific value
5 rating
- The research question/objective was clearly stated and was directly related to the provided background information.
- The results/anticipated results were substantial and sufficiently addressed the research question/objective.
4 rating
- The research question/objective was clearly stated and was directly related to the provided background information.
- There was a clear presentation of results/anticipated results.
3 rating
- The research question/objective was clearly stated, but was not directly related to the provided background information.
- The results/anticipated results were discussed, but presentation of data was not clear.
2 rating
- The research question/objective was not clearly stated or was not directly related to the provided background information.
- There was some discussion of the results/anticipated results.
1 rating
- The research question/objective was missing or was not supported with background information.
- There was no discussion of the results/anticipated results.
