Scoring posters at scientific meetings: first impressions count.
Many specialist societies present "best poster" prizes, yet without generally agreed assessment methods. 31 posters at a neurology meeting were divided randomly into two sets; 14 neurologists, randomized into two groups, were each assigned one poster set. They "quick scored" the first half, viewing posters for 10-15 seconds, and "detailed scored" the others. 11 administrators and pharmaceutical representatives quick scored all posters. Neurologists' quick score ranking correlated highly (r=0.75) with other neurologists' detailed score ranking, and identified four of their six top-ranked posters. Correlations were strongest for presentation (r=0.65), message (r=0.65) and star-quality (r=0.64), but weak for facts (r=0.09), originality (r=0.15) or science (r=0.02). Non-neurologists could not identify the posters ranked highest by neurologists. We conclude that quick ranking by specialists can efficiently identify the best posters for more detailed assessment. On this basis we offer poster-scoring guidelines for use at scientific meetings.
Smith
Philip E M
PE
Department of Neurology, University Hospital of Wales, College of Medicine, Cardiff CF14 4XW, Wales, UK. SmithPE@cardiff.ac.uk
Fuller
Geraint
G
Dunstan
Frank
F
D001291:Attitude of Health Personnel; D001296:Audiovisual Aids / Q000592:standards*; D035843:Biomedical Research; D003226:Congresses as Topic; D004739:England; D017408:Guidelines as Topic; D006801:Humans; D009462:Neurology