2009 Student Research Forum Scoring Criteria

There are 6 items that will be scored.

Whole number scores range from 1 = POOR to 10 = EXCELLENT, with 5-6 considered an “average” starting score. The student’s performance can be evaluated below, at, or above “average” for each item.

As the session unfolds, judges have the flexibility to adjust or “edit” their scoring for each presentation based on how well a student performs in reference to peers presenting in the same session. This is important to allow all students to be judge according to the same scoring reference, regardless if they present first, last or in the middle. Judges need to use this feature to make the judging a fair and equal process.

ABSTRACT – Item #1:
Was the abstract a clear, concise statement of the problem, results, and conclusion?

Having received the abstract in the judges’ packet, judges are asked to review and score the abstract before attending the presentation on the day of the Forum. Abstracts should be judged based on how well the presenter writes a concise summation of the research and adheres to the abstract guidelines stated below:

State the problem and its relevance. Include sufficient background information for presentation to a general audience.
Give a brief description of the methods and experiments. The statement(s) should be very brief without a lot of details.
State the results of the data, including statistical significance.
State the conclusion(s) interpreted from the results. Indicate if the conclusion addressed the stated problem.

PROBLEM – Item #2:
Was the problem and its relevance clearly defined, including sufficient background information?

How effectively did the student define the research problem, and provide enough background information so that a general audience could comprehend the rationale and goal of the research.

EXPERIMENTS – Item #3:
Were the experiments appropriately designed to address the problem?

This item assesses the experimental design for the research, including appropriate control and treatment groups, and the clarity and accuracy of describing the results, including statistical analyses.

It is assumed that all the details of experimental procedures need not be given in this very short oral presentation and that commonly used research methods need not be fully detailed during the presentation. Significant variations from established common procedures should be included for clarity in the presentation.

CONCLUSION – Item #4:
Were logical conclusions interpreted from the results, and did the conclusions address the stated problem?

This item assesses the ability of the presenter to: 1) draw appropriate conclusions from the results obtained and 2) make conclusions that address the original problem.

PRESENTATION – Item #5:
Was the presentation organized clearly?

This item assesses the presenter’s ability to organize the presentation so that a general audience can follow the research presentation.

OVERALL – Item #6:
Overall, rate the student's presentation.

Rate the student’s oral presentation skills and overall style to clearly present the research. Judges should also consider how well the student handles questions from judges. Judges are encouraged to ask questions.

2009 Winners

First Place Overall Medal in Each School - 2009 SRF

AWARD	STUDENT	DEPARTMENT	FACULTY MENTOR
Medal School Of Allied Health	Floyd (Han-Hung) Huang	Physical Therapy & Rehabilitation Sciences	Lisa Stehno-Bittel
Medal Graduate Student School Of Medicine	George Thomas	Neurology & Molec & Integ. Physiology	Jeffrey Burns
Haden Medal Medical Student School Of Medicine	Jeffrey Robinson	Internal Medicine	Steven Simpson
Roma Lee Taunton Medal School Of Nursing	Carol Kemper	School of Nursing	Diane K. Boyle

First Place in Specific Research Topics During the 4 Presentation Sessions

AWARD	STUDENT	DEPARTMENT	FACULTY MENTOR
SESSION-I 8:10 AM – 9:45 AM
Neuroscience I	Megan Dunn-G	Anatomy and Cell Biology	Douglas Wright
Microbiology	Autumn Ruiz-G	Anatomy and Cell Biology	Edward Stephens
Reproductive Biology	Tamara Jimenez-G	Molecular and Integrative Physiology	Gustavo Blanco
Molecular & Cell Biology I	Felcy Pavithra Selwyn Samraj-G	Pharmacology, Toxicology and Therapeutics	Curtis Klaassen
SESSION-II 10:00 AM – 11:45 AM
AWARD	STUDENT	DEPARTMENT	FACULTY MENTOR
Oncology	Shane Stecklein-G	Pathology & Laboratory Medicine	Roy Jensen
Clinical Studies I	Jeffrey Robinson-M	Internal Medicine	Steven Simpson
Molecular & Cell Biology II	Katryn Allen-G	Pharmacology, Toxicology & Therapeutics	Bryan Copple
Cardiovascular Biology	Jie Chao-G	Molecular and Integrative Physiology	Norberto Gonzalez
SESSION-III 1:30 PM – 3:15 PM
AWARD	STUDENT	DEPARTMENT	FACULTY MENTOR
Neuroscience II	Hope Karnes-G	Anatomy & Cell Biology	Dianne Durham
Clinical Studies II	Kendra Gagnon-G	Physical Therapy & Rehabilitation Sciences	Lisa Stehno-Bittel
Molecular & Cell Biology III	Ming Xu-G	Physical Therapy & Rehabilitation Sciences	Wenfang Wang
SESSION-IV 3:30 PM – 5:15 PM
AWARD	STUDENT	DEPARTMENT	FACULTY MENTOR
Clinical Studies III	Floyd (Han-Hung) Huang	Physical Therapy & Rehabilitation Sciences	Lisa Stehno-Bittel
Molecular Cell Biology IV	Brittany Gorres-G	Molecular & Integrative Physiology	Paige Geiger
Neuroscience III	George Thomas-G	Neurology & Molec & Integ. Physiology	Jeffrey Burns
POSTER SESSION 5:00 PM – 7:00 PM
AWARD	STUDENT	DEPARTMENT	FACULTY MENTOR
Poster Session	Brian Earl-G	Hearing & Speech	Mark Chertoff

Award from Anatomy & Cell Biology Department

AWARD	STUDENT	DEPARTMENT	FACULTY MENTOR
Paul B. Freeburg Cell Biology Award	Megan Dunn-G	Anatomy and Cell Biology	Douglas Wright

Awards from Biochemistry & Molecular Biology Department

AWARD	STUDENT	DEPARTMENT	FACULTY MENTOR
Joe R. Kimmel Award	Troy Johnson -G	Biochemistry and Molecular Biology	Todd Holyoak

Awards from Physical Therapy and Rehabilitation Sciences Department

AWARD	STUDENT	DEPARTMENT	FACULTY MENTOR
Outstanding Research Presentation in Rehabilitation Science	Floyd (Han-Hung) Huang	Physical Therapy & Rehabilitation Sciences	Lisa Stehno-Bittel

M = Medical Student, G = Graduate Student, M/G = MD/PhD Student