"Presentation Evaluation Form"

ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT

Download "Presentation Evaluation Form"

391 times
Rate (4.3 / 5) 23 votes
Presentation Evaluation Form
Presenter Name ___________________________________________
Date ___________________________
Evaluator _____________________________________
Start Time _______________
End Time_____________
CONTENT – Organization
Comments
Evaluation
1. Presentation flowed logically and was clear. Title matches presentation.
Excellent
Discussion precise and confined to topic.
Generally well organized; occasionally skipped around; occasionally
Good
wordy.
Hard to follow; more logical flow needed. Discussion not relevant to
Poor
subject matter.
2. Presenter was knowledgeable about subject matter.
Excellent
Presenter somewhat knowledgeable about subject matter. Occasionally
Good
unable to clearly explain some concepts.
Presenter was not knowledgeable about subject matter.
Poor
Unable to clearly explain most concepts.
CONTENT - Objectives (should list a minimum of 3 learning objectives.)
All objectives were stated and emphasized; all objectives were
covered/met. Thorough elaborate discussion of topics and relevant
Excellent
recommendations.
Some objectives were not clearly stated; the discussion did not reflect the
objectives. Minimal discussion with no extrapolation to relevant
Good
information.
Objectives were not stated and appeared to be not considered given
Poor
design of discussion.
CONTENT - Discussion of Disease States and Drug Therapy
1. Thorough critique of drug therapy; all aspects of drug therapy reviewed as
applicable (pharmacology, dosing, adverse effects, interactions,
Excellent
complications, appropriateness). Other therapeutic options discussed.
Good critique to drug therapy; some aspects of drug therapy reviewed.
Good
Several options discussed.
Drug therapy presented, but not critiqued; no options discussed.
Poor
2. Disease state discussion relevant to presentation; good balance between
Excellent
disease state and drug therapy.
Disease state too broad and difficult to relate to presentation.
Good
Not enough disease state information presented.
Poor
CONTENT - Interpretation of Primary Literature
1. Primary literature thoroughly reviewed and relevant to presentation.
Excellent
Appropriate literature reviewed.
Primary literature somewhat reviewed and relevant to presentation.
Good
Incomplete review of data.
Primary literature reviewed but not relevant to presentation and/or too
Poor
many/few studies.
2. Accurate and thorough interpretation of primary literature(comments on
design, limitations, statistics, and applicability to patient population).
Excellent
Discussed strengths and weaknesses of studies and provided own
opinion.
Partial assessment/interpretation of primary literature. Only presented
Good
investigator's conclusions. .
Did not interpret primary literature. No discussion of strengths and
Poor
weaknesses of studies. Did not provide rational conclusions.
Presentation Evaluation Form
Presenter Name ___________________________________________
Date ___________________________
Evaluator _____________________________________
Start Time _______________
End Time_____________
CONTENT – Organization
Comments
Evaluation
1. Presentation flowed logically and was clear. Title matches presentation.
Excellent
Discussion precise and confined to topic.
Generally well organized; occasionally skipped around; occasionally
Good
wordy.
Hard to follow; more logical flow needed. Discussion not relevant to
Poor
subject matter.
2. Presenter was knowledgeable about subject matter.
Excellent
Presenter somewhat knowledgeable about subject matter. Occasionally
Good
unable to clearly explain some concepts.
Presenter was not knowledgeable about subject matter.
Poor
Unable to clearly explain most concepts.
CONTENT - Objectives (should list a minimum of 3 learning objectives.)
All objectives were stated and emphasized; all objectives were
covered/met. Thorough elaborate discussion of topics and relevant
Excellent
recommendations.
Some objectives were not clearly stated; the discussion did not reflect the
objectives. Minimal discussion with no extrapolation to relevant
Good
information.
Objectives were not stated and appeared to be not considered given
Poor
design of discussion.
CONTENT - Discussion of Disease States and Drug Therapy
1. Thorough critique of drug therapy; all aspects of drug therapy reviewed as
applicable (pharmacology, dosing, adverse effects, interactions,
Excellent
complications, appropriateness). Other therapeutic options discussed.
Good critique to drug therapy; some aspects of drug therapy reviewed.
Good
Several options discussed.
Drug therapy presented, but not critiqued; no options discussed.
Poor
2. Disease state discussion relevant to presentation; good balance between
Excellent
disease state and drug therapy.
Disease state too broad and difficult to relate to presentation.
Good
Not enough disease state information presented.
Poor
CONTENT - Interpretation of Primary Literature
1. Primary literature thoroughly reviewed and relevant to presentation.
Excellent
Appropriate literature reviewed.
Primary literature somewhat reviewed and relevant to presentation.
Good
Incomplete review of data.
Primary literature reviewed but not relevant to presentation and/or too
Poor
many/few studies.
2. Accurate and thorough interpretation of primary literature(comments on
design, limitations, statistics, and applicability to patient population).
Excellent
Discussed strengths and weaknesses of studies and provided own
opinion.
Partial assessment/interpretation of primary literature. Only presented
Good
investigator's conclusions. .
Did not interpret primary literature. No discussion of strengths and
Poor
weaknesses of studies. Did not provide rational conclusions.
COMMUNICATION – Verbal
Comments
Evaluation
1. Presenter easily heard (adequate volume/tone/enunciation). Easy to
Excellent
follow & listen to. Proper use of all terminology
Presenter with adequate volume, but some words lost to mumbling.
Good
Presenter not easily heard from the back of the room. Demonstrated lack
Poor
of interest in top and/or inappropriate medical terms.
2. Efficient use of time, good pace.
Excellent
Rate appropriate the majority of the time with some parts too fast or too
Good
slow.
Rate of delivery was too slow/too fast; inefficient use of time.
Poor
COMMUNICATION - Non-Verbal
No distracting mannerisms, gestures; exhibited polish, poise; maintained
Excellent
eye contact with audience; used notes infrequently
Mildly (1-4) distracting mannerisms or gestures; usually polished and
poised. Read some of the presentation with some eye contact. Minimum
Good
use of stall words.
Many distracting mannerisms, detracted from the presentation. Did not
Poor
speak with confidence. Read most of presentation with no eye contact.
COMMUNICATION - AV Materials/Handouts
1. Discussion of graphs/diagrams included; NO spelling errors; familiar w/AV
Excellent
equipment; appropriate number of slides used.
Some disorganization of slides, busy slide(s), too many/too few slides; few
Good
spelling errors.
Slides are very unorganized with multiple spelling/grammar errors;
Poor
unfamiliar with AV equipment.
2. Well organized handout that coincided with slides. Referenced summary
includes comprehensive overview of discussion. NO spelling/grammatical
Excellent
errors.
Some disorganization of handout. Handout difficult to follow and/or was
Good
not an overview of the presentation. Few spelling/grammatical errors.
No handout provided OR handout provided is disorganized with multiple
Poor
spelling/grammatical errors.
COMMUNICATION - Ability to Answer Questions
Presenter able to respond to questions with confidence and knowledge.
Appropriately anticipated audience questions. Demonstrates integration
Excellent
of material.
Presenter somewhat able to respond to questions; was not able to
respond without referring to notes. Provides pertinent information missed
Good
during presentation.
Presenter not able to appropriately respond to questions; did not anticipate
Poor
audience questions; did not appear prepared.
Additional Comments:
Page of 2