A Revised Mixed-Approach Rubric for the Quality of Academic Posters.

IF 1.8 Q3 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY
Pharmacy Pub Date : 2025-09-17 DOI:10.3390/pharmacy13050134
Michael J Peeters, Megan A Kaun, Kimberly A Schmude
{"title":"A Revised Mixed-Approach Rubric for the Quality of Academic Posters.","authors":"Michael J Peeters, Megan A Kaun, Kimberly A Schmude","doi":"10.3390/pharmacy13050134","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The quality of posters at pharmacy conferences can vary. We created a mixed-approach rubric (MAR) for poster quality. Evidence from multiple sources (systematic review, further analysis of rater scores, verbal feedback from raters) showed the need to slightly modify that MAR, which we accomplished. Our objectives here were to re-evaluate scoring using this revised MAR (rMAR) and to further examine the attributes of lower-quality versus higher-quality posters. Two faculty raters independently scored each poster using the rMAR for recent posters presented at a pharmacy education conference. The Rasch Measurement Model provided psychometric evidence and poster-quality measures. These measures were then linear-regressed with attributes of logical sequencing, QR-code presence/use, submission abstract presence, and wordiness. Moreover, Traditional vs. Contemporary poster formats were compared. Raters scored 642 posters (267 from 2023, 375 from 2024). The Rasch Measurement Model showed a distinct separation of posters into lower quality versus higher quality. The rMAR's rating scale continued to function well (like the original MAR had) among multiple raters. Poster-quality measures were significantly positive when linearly regressed with logical sequencing, QR-code presence/use, absence of submission abstract, and decreased wordiness. Moreover, Contemporary poster formats (either Persky-style or Billboard-style) were higher quality on average than Traditional poster formats. This evidence-based rMAR showed a helpful validation of poster-quality scores. Regression confirmed findings from the initial MAR (before revision), and choice of poster format proved a notable decision affecting poster quality.</p>","PeriodicalId":30544,"journal":{"name":"Pharmacy","volume":"13 5","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12452652/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pharmacy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/pharmacy13050134","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The quality of posters at pharmacy conferences can vary. We created a mixed-approach rubric (MAR) for poster quality. Evidence from multiple sources (systematic review, further analysis of rater scores, verbal feedback from raters) showed the need to slightly modify that MAR, which we accomplished. Our objectives here were to re-evaluate scoring using this revised MAR (rMAR) and to further examine the attributes of lower-quality versus higher-quality posters. Two faculty raters independently scored each poster using the rMAR for recent posters presented at a pharmacy education conference. The Rasch Measurement Model provided psychometric evidence and poster-quality measures. These measures were then linear-regressed with attributes of logical sequencing, QR-code presence/use, submission abstract presence, and wordiness. Moreover, Traditional vs. Contemporary poster formats were compared. Raters scored 642 posters (267 from 2023, 375 from 2024). The Rasch Measurement Model showed a distinct separation of posters into lower quality versus higher quality. The rMAR's rating scale continued to function well (like the original MAR had) among multiple raters. Poster-quality measures were significantly positive when linearly regressed with logical sequencing, QR-code presence/use, absence of submission abstract, and decreased wordiness. Moreover, Contemporary poster formats (either Persky-style or Billboard-style) were higher quality on average than Traditional poster formats. This evidence-based rMAR showed a helpful validation of poster-quality scores. Regression confirmed findings from the initial MAR (before revision), and choice of poster format proved a notable decision affecting poster quality.

修订的学术海报质量混合方法标准。
药学会议海报的质量参差不齐。我们为海报质量创建了一个混合方法标准(MAR)。来自多个来源的证据(系统回顾,对评分者分数的进一步分析,评分者的口头反馈)表明需要稍微修改MAR,我们做到了。我们在此的目的是使用修订后的MAR (rMAR)重新评估评分,并进一步检查低质量与高质量海报的属性。两名教师评分员使用rMAR对最近在药学教育会议上展示的海报进行独立评分。Rasch测量模型提供了心理测量证据和海报质量测量。然后将这些度量与逻辑排序、qr代码存在/使用、提交抽象存在和冗长的属性进行线性回归。此外,还比较了传统与当代海报的格式。评分者给642张海报打分(2023年的267张,2024年的375张)。Rasch测量模型显示,海报明显分为低质量和高质量两类。在多个评分者中,rMAR的评分量表继续发挥良好的作用(就像最初的MAR一样)。当与逻辑排序、qr码的存在/使用、提交摘要的缺失和减少的冗长进行线性回归时,海报质量测量显着为正。此外,当代海报格式(无论是珀斯基风格还是广告牌风格)的平均质量都高于传统海报格式。基于证据的rMAR显示了海报质量评分的有效验证。回归证实了最初的MAR(修订前)的发现,海报格式的选择证明了影响海报质量的显着决定。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Pharmacy
Pharmacy PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY-
自引率
9.10%
发文量
141
审稿时长
11 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信