Presenters should be judged on a scale from 1 to 4 as follows:

4 - Exemplary: student demonstrates mastery, significantly above the criteria reflective of an undergraduate research presentation, surpassed expectations, student nears the graduate level

3 - Competent: student satisfactorily meets criteria reflective of an undergraduate research presentation, no major deficiencies, more than adequate for effective performance, reflective of an A/B attempt in an upper-level course

2 - Developing: student is attempting to meet criteria, some deficiencies exist in the areas assessed, reflective of a C attempt in an upper-level course

1 - No attempt: student has made no or an inappropriate attempt, many deficiencies exist in the areas assessed, few or no criteria met, major problems exist, reflective of a D/F attempt in an upper-level course

Total points equals the totals of all categories. Judging groups should decide as a group whether they want to allow half-point scores.

1. Background

  • Relevant background work thoroughly reviewed (Rated 1–4)
  • Gap in knowledge identified (Rated 1–4)
  • Appropriate background provided to give context to the study (Rated 1–4)

2. Objectives

  • Clearly stated question(s) or hypotheses addressed (Rated 1–4)
  • Well-explained rationale/justification for the study (Rated 1–4)
  • Significance to the field and/or society is identified clearly (Rated 1–4)

3. Research Methods

  • Clear description of the methods used (Rated 1–4)
  • Use of methods appropriate to answer the question (Rated 1–4)

4. Conclusions

  • Use of appropriate statistical tests (if applicable) (Rated 1–4)
  • Figures/tables used appropriately to present the data (if applicable) (Rated 1–4)
  • Interpretation of results relate to the study’s problem/question (Rated 1–4)
  • Conclusions are sufficiently supported by results (Rated 1–4)
  • Interpretation of results and conclusions are sound and clear (Rated 1–4)
  • Results are placed into a broader context (Rated 1–4)
  • Limitations of research are fully addressed (Rated 1–4)
  • Future studies are discussed and linked to conclusions and limitations (Rated 1–4)

5. References

  • References are present and follow a consistent citation format (Rated 1–4)
  • The references are adequate in number and type to create a framework for the study (Rated 1–4)

6. Poster composition

  • Title and main headings are clearly readable from 4 to 6 feet away (Rated 1–4)
  • Title and main headings are clear and concise (Rated 1–4)
  • Poster includes all names, collaborators, advisers, and so on (Rated 1–4)
  • Acknowledgements are clear (funding resources, departments, etc.) (Rated 1–4)
  • Layout is well-organized, creating a logical flow of information (Rated 1–4)
  • Visuals are clear, effective, and enhance understanding of the content (Rated 1–4)
  • Jargon is avoided or explained clearly (Rated 1–4)
  • Spelling and grammar is correct (Rated 1–4)

7. Presentation Style (spoken)

  • Articulates ideas and major points clearly, succinctly, and logically (Rated 1–4)
  • Demonstrates an in-depth understanding of how study results fit within the field (Rated 1–4)
  • Captivates audience attention (Rated 1–4)
  • Answers questions about their study with sufficient detail (Rated 1–4)
  • Jargon is avoided or explained clearly (Rated 1–4)

8. Judge discretionary score (Rated 1–4)