AACP › Events › Annual Meetings › Upcoming

Research and Education Poster Abstracts Evaluation Criteria

AACP Article

Evaluation Criteria and Categories of Work

The AACP Council of Sections (COS) which consists of the nine AACP Sections’ officers and an administrative board, is responsible for implementing the poster abstract review process. Abstracts are reviewed by the Section to which the abstract is submitted. The following criteria (point values in parentheses) are used to evaluate abstracts describing theoretical models and completed research. Abstracts describing works in progress are not eligible for presentation at the AACP Annual Meeting.

Each abstract will be reviewed by three reviewers who will score based on the evaluation criteria below. The scores will be averaged and the top 20% of the abstracts in these categories will be identified based on the acceptance margin determined by the poster abstract review committee.

Contact Nidhi Gandhi-Patel, Director of Transformation and Academic Initiatives, or Rosa Bello, Project Coordinator, at AACP Posters with any questions or inquiries. 

Categories of Work

  1. Education Research: Describes research involving previously established courses or initiatives, including but not limited to enhancement or changes to such courses or the method of assessment employed in those courses.
  2. Research in the Discipline: Describes studies that align with the general emphasis of research conducted in the section to which the abstract is submitted or the mission of that section.
  3. Educational Development and Innovation: Describes the development and assessment of relatively new courses or educational initiatives.
  4. Administrative and/or Broad Programmatic Issues: Describes approaches to, or aspects of, management, leadership, strategy; policy; or governance of programs/institutions.
Evaluation Criteria: 1. Education Research; 2. Research in the Discipline

Criterion 1

How important/novel is the work?
  • Excellent (3): This abstract describes novel approaches, methods, and/or concepts. Rationale and significance are identified. 
  • Good (2): This abstract describes a novel approach, method, or concept but provides only a partial description of rationale and significance.
  • Fair (1): This abstract describes a somewhat novel topic and is lacking in clarity, significance, or relevance.
  • Unacceptable (0): This abstract does not describe a novel topic of interest in educational or scientific research.

Criterion 2

How clearly does the abstract describe the research that was conducted? Clarity of writing.
  • Excellent (3): All sections of the abstract clearly describe the project and are well-written.
  • Good (2): The project is generally described and would be improved with minor revisions; but is otherwise clear.
  • Fair (1): The abstract is somewhat clear and needs several revisions.
  • Unacceptable (0): The abstract would require major revisions prior to publication.

Criterion 3

Is the hypothesis clearly stated and do the study objectives address the hypothesis?
  • Excellent (3): A study hypothesis or research question is stated. All objectives are clearly defined and appropriate.
  • Good (2): The hypothesis or research question must be inferred from the objectives. Objectives are moderately defined but appropriate.
  • Fair (1): No hypothesis or research question is given, or it is unclear if the objectives will address the hypothesis or research question.
  • Unacceptable (0): No hypothesis or research question is stated. The objectives are inappropriate for the hypothesis or research question, or the objectives are not testable. 

Criterion 4

Are the methods described appropriately?
  • 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 and data analysis. There is room for improvement with detailed description of the proposed techniques and analytical approaches.
  • Fair (1): The abstract provides an unorganized explanation or methods/data analysis. It is uncertain if proposed data will be produced.
  • Unacceptable (0): Methods and data analysis are not provided or are inappropriate for the hypothesis or research question and objectives.

Criterion 5

Are the results and findings described appropriately?
  • Excellent (3): The abstract provides detailed explanation of the findings to address the research question and data analysis.
  • Good (2): The abstract provides a partial explanation of the results and findings. There is room for improvement with detailed description of the success or failure of the research question and data analysis.
  • Fair (1): The abstract provides a vague explanation of the results and findings to address the research question and data analysis.
  • Unacceptable (0): The results do not provide any evidence of success of failure of the research question and data analysis.

Criterion 6

Are the conclusions consistent with the results?
  • Excellent (3): The conclusions are based on results provided in the abstract. Implications of the project are also provided in detail.
  • Good (2): The conclusions are not fully supported by the results provided in the abstract. Implications of the project could be explained in more detail.
  • Fair (1): The conclusions are not clearly stated, or results to support the conclusions are not solid. Implications of the project were not clearly mentioned.
  • Unacceptable (0): The conclusions are not at all correlated with the results. Implications of the project were not mentioned.
Evaluation Criteria: 3. Educational Development and Innovation; 4. Administrative and/or Broad Programmatic Issues

Criterion 1

Are new approaches described that will help other educators and/or administrators to implement a similar program, course, or initiative?
  • Excellent (3): The program, course, or initiative described will likely make a significant contribution to advancing pharmacy education and have broad appeal to meeting attendees.
  • Good (2): The program, course, or initiative will likely contribute to pharmacy education and may be of interest to meeting attendees.
  • Fair (1): The program, course, or initiative will likely make a small contribution to pharmacy education but may be of limited interest to meeting attendees.
  • Unacceptable (0): The program, course, or initiative will likely not contribute to pharmacy education and will not be of interest to meeting attendees.

Criterion 2

How clearly does the abstract describe the program, course, or initiative? Clarity of writing.
  • Excellent (3): All sections of the abstract are well-written and clearly describe the program, course, or initiative.
  • Good (2): The abstract describes the program, course, or initiative and would be improved with minor revisions.
  • Fair (1): The abstract is somewhat clear and would be improved by several revisions.
  • Unacceptable (0): The abstract is not clearly written and would require major revisions. 

Criterion 3

Was the work conducted in a scholarly manner, including consideration of potential advantages and disadvantages of the approach? 
  • Excellent (3): Work was conducted a scholarly manner that is grounded in evidence. Advantages and disadvantages of the approach are described.
  • Good (2): Some evidence that work was conducted in a scholarly manner. Advantages and disadvantages of the approach are partly addressed.
  • Fair (1): Development of the program, course, or initiative needs improvement to be considered scholarly. Advantages and disadvantages of the approach are unclear.
  • Unacceptable (0): Development of the program, course, or initiative was not conducted in a scholarly manner. No discussion of advantages or disadvantages to support development of the program, course, or initiative. 

Criterion 4

Does the abstract describe how the program, course, or initiative was assessed?
  • Excellent (3): Appropriate assessment technique(s) of the program, course, or initiative is/are described.
  • Good (2): Appropriate assessment technique(s) of the program, course, or initiative is/are partially described.  
  • Fair (1): Assessment technique(s) of the program, course, or initiative is/are not clearly described.
  • Unacceptable (0): Description of the assessment technique(s) of the program, course, or initiative is missing.

Criterion 5

Do the results describe evidence regarding success or failure of the program, course, or initiative?
  • Excellent (3): The results provide detailed evidence of success or failure of the program, course, or initiative.
  • Good (2): The results partially address the success or failure of the program, course, or initiative.
  • Fair (1): The results vaguely describe success or failure of the program, course, or initiative.
  • Unacceptable (0): The results do not provide any evidence of success or failure of the program, course, or initiative.

Criterion 6

Do results of the program, course, or initiative support the conclusions?
  • Excellent (3): The conclusions of the abstract are fully supported by the results.
  • Good (2): The conclusions are generally discussed OR mostly supported by the results.
  • Fair (1): Conclusions are limited OR are only partially supported by the results.
  • Unacceptable (0): Conclusions are missing OR not at all supported by the results.
Back to Top

Related Content