Abstract marking criteria

Scientific abstracts

Quality of presentation content
Intro	Must provide clear background and be reinforced in the conclusion
Objective	Must outline content or expectations or specific research aims
Method	Is the research qualitative or quantitative? Do I understand the methodology used and is it appropriate for the research question? Do I understand the statistical terms used and are they appropriate to the research question? What is the level of evidence?
Results	Must clearly indicate the findings of the project and be consistent with methodology and objectives. Application of findings
Conclusion	To be consistent with intro and objectives. Future research implications
Educational value
Interest and appeal	Needs to be heard, describes historical perspective, current trends or new ideas? Is it of interest to the audience? Is it occupation-based? Does the abstract provide new information?
Contribution	Will the content change practice? Is the information based on a theoretical approach? Will it add to the current body of work in this area?
Novel, innovative, relevant to theme	Does the abstract approach the topic in a new or different way? Does it reflect the theme of the conference? Does it support a new approach or change an accepted approach? Are the ideas presented provocative?
Quality of written abstract
Self contained	Should not include abbreviations, acronyms, quotes, or extensive reference citations. Concise and specific, where each sentence is maximally informative, especially the lead sentence.
Coherent and readable	Written in logical sequence. Use of active not passive voice. Avoids use of personal pronouns. Use of clear vigorous prose. Should be clear and easily readable.

Clinical abstracts

Quality of presentation content
Intro	Must provide clear background/setting and include previous research if applicable
Objective	Clearly outline the clinical problem/content/expectations
Intervention	Describe clearly the intervention used to address the clinical problem. Evidence of depth of clinical reasoning
Evaluation	Explain how effectiveness of the intervention was assessed. Describe findings and application
Conclusion	To be consistent with intro and objectives. Future research implications
Educational value
Interest and appeal	Needs to be heard, describes historical perspective, current trends or new ideas? Is it of interest to the audience? Is it occupation-based? Does the abstract provide new information?
Contribution	Will the content change practice? Is the information based on a theoretical approach? Will it add to the current body of work in this area?
Novel, innovative, relevant to theme	Does the abstract approach the topic in a new or different way? Does it reflect the theme of the conference? Does it support a new approach or change an accepted approach? Are the ideas presented provocative?
Quality of written abstract
Self contained	Should not include abbreviations, acronyms, quotes, or extensive reference citations. Concise and specific, where each sentence is maximally informative, especially the lead sentence.
Coherent and readable	Written in logical sequence. Use of active not passive voice. Avoids use of personal pronouns. Use of clear vigorous prose. Should be clear and easily readable.