Skip to main content

Guidelines for Evaluation of Oral Presentations

Grading on oral presentations will emphasize your ability to present your work clearly and efficiently so that listeners will come away understanding what you did and its importance. You will not be graded on the strengths or weaknesses of the investigation, surveillance evaluation, or project. These factors will be graded during evaluation of your field work, oral exams and written reports. However, weak investigations with poor data will be much more difficult to present. A good investigation will be much easier to present. If you are unfamiliar with your data or its interpretation and have not followed up on the problem since you left the field, 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 side trips? 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 your presentation will be evaluation, so that you can prepare your 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?

  • 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? 
  • 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?