Presentation Evaluation Form
Presenter Name ___________________________________________ Date ___________________________
Evaluator _____________________________________ Start Time _______________ End Time_____________
CONTENT – Organization
Evaluation
Comments
1. Presentation flowed logically and was clear. Title matches
presentation. Discussion precise and confined to topic.
Excellent
Generally well organized; occasionally skipped around; occasionally
wordy.
Good
Hard to follow; more logical flow needed. Discussion not relevant to
subject matter.
Poor
2. Presenter was knowledgeable about subject matter.
Excellent
Presenter somewhat knowledgeable about subject matter. Occasionally
unable to clearly explain some concepts.
Good
Presenter was not knowledgeable about subject matter.
Unable to clearly explain most concepts.
Poor
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
recommendations.
Excellent
Some objectives were not clearly stated; the discussion did not reflect the
objectives. Minimal discussion with no extrapolation to relevant
information.
Good
Objectives were not stated and appeared to be not considered given
design of discussion.
Poor
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
discussed.
Excellent
Good critique to drug therapy; some aspects of drug therapy reviewed.
Several options discussed.
Good
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.
Excellent
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.
Excellent
Primary literature somewhat reviewed and relevant to presentation.
Incomplete review of data.
Good
Primary literature reviewed but not relevant to presentation and/or too
many/few studies.
Poor
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
opinion.
Excellent
Partial assessment/interpretation of primary literature. Only presented
investigator's conclusions. .
Good
Did not interpret primary literature. No discussion of strengths and
weaknesses of studies. Did not provide rational conclusions.
Poor
Resume Templates 1210 Document(s)
