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.
- 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 and abstract.
- Excellent (3): The title and abstract clearly describe the project.
- Good (2): The title and abstract are generally described.
- Fair (1): The title and abstract are unclear.
- Unacceptable (0): The title and abstract are incomplete or difficult to understand.
Criterion 3
Are the objectives and hypothesis or research question clearly defined and testable by the methods employed?
- Excellent (3): The hypothesis, or research question, and all objectives are clear and appropriate tests are used to evaluate the hypothesis of the project.
- Good (2): The hypothesis, or research question, and objectives are moderately defined, appropriate, and testable.
- Fair (1): The hypothesis, or research question, and objectives are unclear and/or the methods used are not all appropriate.
- Unacceptable (0): The hypothesis, research question, and objectives are inappropriate.
Criterion 4
Are the methods described to address the research question and data analysis?
- Excellent (3): The abstract provides a clear description of appropriate methods to address the research question and data analysis.
- Good (2): The abstract provides an adequate explanation of methods or data analysis. There is room for improvement in the description of proposed techniques.
- Fair (1): The abstract provides an unorganized explanation of methods and data analysis.
- Unacceptable (0): Methods and data analysis are not provided or are inappropriate for hypothesis and objectives.
Criterion 5
Are the results and findings described appropriately?
- Excellent (3): The results provide detailed explanation of the findings and statistical results to address the hypothesis or research question.
- Good (2): The results provide a partial explanation of the findings and some explanation on statistical results.
- Fair (1): The results provide a vague explanation of the findings and statistical results.
- Unacceptable (0): The results provide no explanation of the findings and does not address the statistical results.
Criterion 6
Are the conclusions (actual or anticipated) consistent with the results? Research can be "research work in progress."
- Excellent (3): The conclusion (actual or anticipated) are supported by the actual or predicted results based on the methods provided in the abstract.
- Good (2): The conclusion (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 conclusion (actual or anticipated) are not at all correlated with the results or cannot be predicted using the methods described.