Presentation Evaluation Form
ADVERTISEMENT
1
2Presentation 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.
ADVERTISEMENT
0 votes
Related Articles
Related forms
Related Categories
Parent category: Business