Presentation Evaluation Form
Presenter Name ___________________________________________ Date ___________________________
Evaluator _____________________________________ Start Time _______________ End Time_____________
CONTENT – Organization
1. Presentation flowed logically and was clear. Title matches
presentation. Discussion precise and confined to topic.
Generally well organized; occasionally skipped around; occasionally
Hard to follow; more logical flow needed. Discussion not relevant to
2. Presenter was knowledgeable about subject matter.
Presenter somewhat knowledgeable about subject matter. Occasionally
unable to clearly explain some concepts.
Presenter was not knowledgeable about subject matter.
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
Some objectives were not clearly stated; the discussion did not reflect the
objectives. Minimal discussion with no extrapolation to relevant
Objectives were not stated and appeared to be not considered given
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, complications, appropriateness). Other therapeutic options
Good critique to drug therapy; some aspects of drug therapy reviewed.
Several options discussed.
Drug therapy presented, but not critiqued; no options discussed. Poor
2. Disease state discussion relevant to presentation; good balance
between 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.
Appropriate literature reviewed.
Primary literature somewhat reviewed and relevant to presentation.
Incomplete review of data.
Primary literature reviewed but not relevant to presentation and/or too
2. Accurate and thorough interpretation of primary literature(comments
on design, limitations, statistics, and applicability to patient population).
Discussed strengths and weaknesses of studies and provided own
Partial assessment/interpretation of primary literature. Only presented
investigator's conclusions. .
Did not interpret primary literature. No discussion of strengths and
weaknesses of studies. Did not provide rational conclusions.