Rubric for evaluating presentations
These are more detailed explanations of the scoring rubric for evaluating a poster or similar presentation, along with the supporting information.
What format of presentation is it? Traditional posters look like this. The 2.0 version looks like this. A "visual abstract" is a third approach that some journals are experimenting with now. Poster Format: New ("2.0") or Traditional (1)
Required elements
These are things that every poster should have.
| Rating |
Required Element |
|---|
| 0 or +1 |
Introduction/Background |
|
-And |
|
-But |
|
-Therefore |
|
Clear question or hypothesis? |
| 0 or +1 |
Methods |
|
N |
|
Where from? (Data, and also participants) |
|
Anchor references for measures, methods |
| 0 or +1 |
Results |
|
-Analyses address question |
|
-Clearly indicate significance |
| 0 or +1 |
Discussion |
|
-Addresses question |
|
-States implications |
| 0 or +1 |
Contact info |
|
Email and/or OSF.io |
Bonus points
These are more advanced analyses or models, not typical for undergraduate projects.
| Rating |
Bonus Points |
|---|
| 0 or +1 |
Vizualization |
|
Good data/ink ratio |
|
Matches narrative |
|
Shows lots of data (e.g., beeswarm vs. bar chart) |
|
Multivariate? (how many variables?) |
| 0 or +1 |
Advanced Results |
|
Effect size reported |
|
Practical significance |
|
Power analysis |
|
-sensitivity analysis for null results |
| 0 or +1 |
Fancy analyses: |
|
Moderation/interaction |
|
Mediation |
|
Comparing results to other study (meta-analysis or Bag o'Tricks) |
|
Technique outside of Intro toolkit |
| 0 or +1 |
References |
|
Old, New, Borrowed, Blue (1 pt each) |
Penalty points
These are mistakes that you want to avoid with your presentation.
| 0 or -1 |
Penalty Points |
|
Typos |
|
Missing a key element (e.g., no hypothesis; no Methods) |
|
Faux 3D figure |
|
Other chartjunk |
|
Misrepresent a citation |
|
Looks like p-hacking, fishing |
|
Big assumption violations |
|
QR code goes to wrong place |
| 0 or -1 |
Incorrect analyses |
|
-Wrong type for level of measurement |
|
-Error in interpretation |
|
-Impossible values |
|
Not italicizing statistics (p, N, r) |
|
Use variable names instead of constructs |
This is supporting material, technically not part of the poster itself.
| Rating (0,1) |
Meta Data |
|
Code in speaker notes |
|
Code on OSF |
|
Data on OSF |
|
Executes! (without fatal errors!) |
|
Abstract on OSF |
|
OSF entry has doi |
|
OSF entry has contributors added for bibliographic citation |
|
OSF has 3+ tags (OTOPS2019, etc.) |
|
Bonus: Handout with references |
|
Bonus: Knit version (HTML, PDF, Word) |
MAGIC
Use Abelson's "MAGIC" principles to evaluate the project.
| 5 to 1 |
Gestalt ratings (consider the whole package!) |
|
Aesthetics (style!) |
|
Magnitude |
|
Articulation |
|
Generalizability |
|
Interest |
|
Credibility |
| Rate these on a 5 (Excellent) to 1 (Missing or egregious) scale; mode should be a 3 (not like Uber!) |
Other notes
More stuff here.