Menu
Open Search

Poster Guidelines

Specifications:  Posters should be no larger than 4 feet wide and 4 feet tall.

To be considered for a poster award, submit a PDF of the poster to HDS@dph.sc.gov by Friday, January 18, 2019 at 11:59PM. Awards will include monetary prizes, and the poster rubric and guidelines are included on the symposium’s website. The poster scoring rubric can be found here.

Resources

How to design
How to print 

Tentative Poster Rubric - Poster Review Scoring

CriteriaExpert (4)Proficient (3)Apprentice (2)Novice (1)
Presentation of research
  • Prominent positions title/authors of paper
  • Thoroughly but concisely presents main points of introduction, hypotheses/ research questions, methods, results, and conclusions in a well-organized manner
  • Results are based on modeling with adjustment, are statistically significant, and have high impact
  • Contains title/authors of paper
  • Adequately presents main points of introduction, hypotheses/ research questions, methods, results, and conclusions in a fairly well-organized manner
  • Results are statistically significant, include crude models, have modest impact
  • Contains title/authors of paper
  • Presents main points of introduction, hypotheses/ research questions, methods, results, and conclusions but not as sufficiently and not as well-organized
  • Results are presented with basic descriptive statistics, but are not novel or of modest impact
  • Title/ authors absent
  • Does not sufficiently present main points of introduction, hypotheses/ research questions, methods, results, and conclusions
  • Results are simple numbers and percents, with no tests of statistical significance
Visual presentation
  • Graphics (e.g., tables, figures, etc.) are engaging and enhance the text
  • Content is clearly arranged so that the viewer can understand order without narration
  • Graphs and tables include legends to denote statistical significance
  • There is a conceptual model or a DAG
  • Results are listed in a brief summary table or bulleted list
  • Discussion is concise and puts findings in perspective of known literature
  • Overall visually appealing; not cluttered; colors and patterns support readability
  • Adequate use of font sizes/variations to facilitate the organization, presentation, and readability of the research
  • Graphics (e.g. tables, figures, etc.) enhance the text
  • Content is arranged so that the viewer can understand order without narration
  • Visual appeal is adequate; somewhat cluttered; colors and patterns detract from readability
  • Use of font sizes/variations to facilitate the organization, presentation, and readability of the  research is somewhat inconsistent/distracting
  • Graphics (e.g., tables, figures, etc.) adequately enhance the text
  • Content arrangement is somewhat confusing and does not adequately assist the viewer in understanding order without narration
  • Not very visually appealing; cluttered; colors and patterns hinder readability
  • Use of font sizes/variations to facilitate the organization, presentation, and readability of the research is inconsistent/distracting
  • Graphics (e.g., tables, figures, etc.) do not enhance the text
  • Content arrangement is somewhat confusing and does not adequately assist the viewer in understanding order without narration
Documentation of Sources
Quality of Sources		Cites all data obtained from other sources. Citation style consistent.Cites most data obtained from other sources. Citations style overall consistent.Cites some data obtained from other sources. Citation style is problematic.Does not cite sources. Consistent citation style not used.
Spelling & GrammarNo spelling and grammar mistakesMinimal spelling and grammar mistakesNoticeable spelling and grammar mistakesExcessive spelling and/or grammar mistakes

University of South Carolina Arnold School of Public Health and DHEC logos

Health Data Symposium 2019

Registration

Agenda

Speakers

Abstracts

Posters

Archives

Tags
Data and Reports