Lisa L Willett1, Anuradha Paranjape, Carlos Estrada. 1. Department of Medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham, BDB 339, 1530 3rd Avenue South, Birmingham, AL 35294-0012, USA. lwillett@uab.edu
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Residents demonstrate scholarly activity by presenting posters at academic meetings. Although recommendations from national organizations are available, evidence identifying which components are most important is not. OBJECTIVE: To develop and test an evaluation tool to measure the quality of case report posters and identify the specific components most in need of improvement. DESIGN: Faculty evaluators reviewed case report posters and provided on-site feedback to presenters at poster sessions of four annual academic general internal medicine meetings. A newly developed ten-item evaluation form measured poster quality for specific components of content, discussion, and format (5-point Likert scale, 1 = lowest, 5 = highest). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Evaluation tool performance, including Cronbach alpha and inter-rater reliability, overall poster scores, differences across meetings and evaluators and specific components of the posters most in need of improvement. RESULTS: Forty-five evaluators from 20 medical institutions reviewed 347 posters. Cronbach's alpha of the evaluation form was 0.84 and inter-rater reliability, Spearman's rho 0.49 (p < 0.001). The median score was 4.1 (Q1 -Q3, 3.7-4.6)(Q1 = 25th, Q3 = 75th percentile). The national meeting median score was higher than the regional meetings (4.4 vs, 4.0, P < 0.001). We found no difference in faculty scores. The following areas were identified as most needing improvement: clearly state learning objectives, tie conclusions to learning objectives, and use appropriate amount of words. CONCLUSIONS: Our evaluation tool provides empirical data to guide trainees as they prepare posters for presentation which may improve poster quality and enhance their scholarly productivity.
BACKGROUND: Residents demonstrate scholarly activity by presenting posters at academic meetings. Although recommendations from national organizations are available, evidence identifying which components are most important is not. OBJECTIVE: To develop and test an evaluation tool to measure the quality of case report posters and identify the specific components most in need of improvement. DESIGN: Faculty evaluators reviewed case report posters and provided on-site feedback to presenters at poster sessions of four annual academic general internal medicine meetings. A newly developed ten-item evaluation form measured poster quality for specific components of content, discussion, and format (5-point Likert scale, 1 = lowest, 5 = highest). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Evaluation tool performance, including Cronbach alpha and inter-rater reliability, overall poster scores, differences across meetings and evaluators and specific components of the posters most in need of improvement. RESULTS: Forty-five evaluators from 20 medical institutions reviewed 347 posters. Cronbach's alpha of the evaluation form was 0.84 and inter-rater reliability, Spearman's rho 0.49 (p < 0.001). The median score was 4.1 (Q1 -Q3, 3.7-4.6)(Q1 = 25th, Q3 = 75th percentile). The national meeting median score was higher than the regional meetings (4.4 vs, 4.0, P < 0.001). We found no difference in faculty scores. The following areas were identified as most needing improvement: clearly state learning objectives, tie conclusions to learning objectives, and use appropriate amount of words. CONCLUSIONS: Our evaluation tool provides empirical data to guide trainees as they prepare posters for presentation which may improve poster quality and enhance their scholarly productivity.
Authors: Mohit Bhandari; P J Devereaux; Gordon H Guyatt; Deborah J Cook; Marc F Swiontkowski; Sheila Sprague; Emil H Schemitsch Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2002-04 Impact factor: 5.284
Authors: Sheila Sprague; Mohit Bhandari; P J Devereaux; Marc F Swiontkowski; Paul Tornetta; Deborah J Cook; Douglas Dirschl; Emil H Schemitsch; Gordon H Guyatt Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2003-01 Impact factor: 5.284
Authors: Arun R Mahankali Sridhar; Lisa L Willett; Analia Castiglioni; Gustavo Heudebert; Michael Landry; Robert M Centor; Carlos A Estrada Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2008-12-18 Impact factor: 5.128