OToPS/Poster Rubric

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Rubric for evaluating presentations[edit | edit source]

These are more detailed explanations of the scoring rubric for evaluating a poster or similar presentation, along with the supporting information.

Format type[edit | edit source]

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[edit | edit source]

These are things that every poster should have.

Rating Required Element
0 or +1 Introduction/Background
Clear question or hypothesis?
0 or +1 Methods
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[edit | edit source]

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:
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[edit | edit source]

These are mistakes that you want to avoid with your presentation.

0 or -1 Penalty Points
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

Meta-data[edit | edit source]

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[edit | edit source]

Use Abelson's "MAGIC" principles to evaluate the project.

5 to 1 Gestalt ratings (consider the whole package!)
Aesthetics (style!)
Rate these on a 5 (Excellent) to 1 (Missing or egregious) scale; mode should be a 3 (not like Uber!)

Other notes[edit | edit source]

More stuff here.