Guidelines for Evaluation of Oral Presentations
Grading on oral presentations will emphasize ability of the residents to present his/her work clearly and efficiently so that
listeners are able to understanding what has been done and its importance. Residents are not be graded on the strengths or
weaknesses of the investigation, surveillance evaluation, or project. These factors will be graded during evaluation of field
work, oral exams and written reports. However, weak investigations with poor data will be much more difficult to present as
compared to a good investigation. If the residents are unfamiliar with his/her data it will be evident during the presentation.
During the question and answer period consultants will take notes on the quantity and quality of the questions from the other
residents. These will also be used to compute the final grade for the seminar series.
There are several general items that will be given strong consideration in evaluating presentations. Does the presenter show
full command of the subject and the data? Is the presenter to the point and does not lead the viewers on needless sidetrips?
Is the presentation clear and too the point? How well does the presenter use the question and answer period? How good is the
housekeeping (slides in order, starts and finishes on time)?
The following grading sheet is given to help you in understanding how the presentation will be evaluation, so that resident
can prepare presentation optimally.
CLARITY AND ORGANIZATION (WEIGHT = 35%)
Here the presenter needs to cover efficiently and clearly what was done and what was found in the study. The grading will be on clarity, completeness of thought, and logical order.
Does the background information lead the listener directly into the study?
Does the background information lead the listener directly into the study?
•
Is, the case definition clearly stated?
•
Are key methods clear and easily understood?
•
Do the results logically follow the methods?
•
Are the analyses of the results logical and appropriate?
•
Are the findings put in perspective of supporting and contrary scientific literature?
•
Are the control measures or recommendations logical and practical, and derived directly from the presented data?
DELIVERY (WEIGHT = 30%)
•
Can all members of the audience hear and understand the speaker?
•
Is eye contact established and maintained with the audience?
•
Does the speaker vary his voice and rhythm to avoid monotony?
•
Is the presentation read entirely either from paper or slides, read partially, or delivered directly without reading?
•
Are the findings put in perspective of supporting and contrary scientific literature?
•
Does the speaker finish on time?
•
Are key data pointed out?
•
Is the audience given enough time to understand the data on each visual aid?
•
Is each and every slide or visual aid pertinent to point and to the presentation?
•
Are the slide/visuals legible and visible to the entire audience?
•
Are all slides, visual aids correct in material, order, and position?
DISCUSSION (WEIGHT = 35%)
•
Does the speaker respond (with more than yes/no answers) to each (even most inappropriate) question asked?
•
Do the responses indicate knowledge of the subject?
•
Do the responses indicate understanding of the epidemiologic principles applicable to the presented material?
•
Does the speaker use the questions to highlight additional data and facts that could not be presented in the time limited presentation?
•
Does the speaker use the question and answer period to initiate discussion of public health policy and further study?
