OToPS/Poster Rubric
< OToPS
Rubric for evaluating presentations edit
These are more detailed explanations of the scoring rubric for evaluating a poster or similar presentation, along with the supporting information.
Format type edit
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
These are things that every poster should have.
| Rating | Required Element |
|---|---|
| 0 or +1 | Introduction/Background |
| -And | |
| -But | |
| -Therefore | |
| Clear question or hypothesis? | |
| 0 or +1 | Methods |
| N | |
| 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
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: |
| Moderation/interaction | |
| Mediation | |
| 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
These are mistakes that you want to avoid with your presentation.
| 0 or -1 | Penalty Points |
| Typos | |
| 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
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
Use Abelson's "MAGIC" principles to evaluate the project.
| 5 to 1 | Gestalt ratings (consider the whole package!) |
| Aesthetics (style!) | |
| Magnitude | |
| Articulation | |
| Generalizability | |
| Interest | |
| Credibility | |
| Rate these on a 5 (Excellent) to 1 (Missing or egregious) scale; mode should be a 3 (not like Uber!) | |
Other notes edit
More stuff here.