Contents
Follow the criteria provided on this page to rate posters and presentations in the semifinals for the AMA Research Challenge Poster Symposium & Semifinals. Posters are graded 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.
