HOSA Research Poster Guidelines (August 2020) Page 1 of 14
R
R
e
e
s
s
e
e
a
a
r
r
c
c
h
h
P
P
o
o
s
s
t
t
e
e
r
r
Event Summary
Research Poster provides HOSA members with the opportunity to think critically about a
health-related issue in their community; pose a research question surrounding the chosen
topic; and conduct research on that topic. All competitors will develop a Research Poster
showcasing their findings. Postsecondary / Collegiate members have an added presentation in
which they must present their research to a panel of judges.
Dress Code Competitors must be in official HOSA uniform or in proper business attire. Bonus points will be
awarded for proper dress.
General Rules
1. Competitors in this event must be active members of HOSA and in good standing.
2. Secondary and Postsecondary / Collegiate Divisions are eligible to compete in this
event.
3. Competitors must be familiar with and adhere to the “General Rules and Regulations of
the HOSA Competitive Events Program (GRR)."
4. All competitors shall report to the site of the event at the time designated for each
round of competition. At ILC, competitor’s photo ID must be presented prior to ALL
competition rounds.
The Research Question (SS and PSC)
5. Competitors must pose a topic and research question that can be researched in their
community.
6. Topics must be health-related, but flexibility is given to competitors to select something
of interest and of local importance and relevance.
7. Examples of topics:
a. Community Based Strategies to Reduce Mental Health Stigma
b. Combating Post-Partum Depression in Teen Moms
c. Decreasing Juvenile Incarceration Rates by increasing the Presence of
Positive Male Role Models
The Research Process (SS and PSC)
8. Once the research question is identified, competitors will determine the best method(s)
for conducting their research. Research methods may include, but are not limited to:
a. survey(s)
b. interviews
c. scientific study
d. observational ethnography
New for 2020-2021
This is a new event for the Secondary Division (SS) and Postsecondary / Collegiate Division (PSC).
Note the different event requirements for the SS Division and PSC Division.
HOSA Research Poster Guidelines (August 2020) Page 2 of 14
9. It is the competitor’s responsibility to obtain informed consent for any human subjects
engaged in research. More information is available from HHS.gov and their FAQ
section.
10. The research must be conducted within the current HOSA membership year (July
2020 – June 2021).
The Research Poster Content (SS and PSC)
11. A Research Poster is developed summarizing the research question and research
findings.
12. The best posters are self-contained and self-explanatory. Observers should be able to
understand the content of your poster without you being present.
13. The research poster will contain the following eight (8) components:
1. TITLE
- The title should highlight the research to be conducted by the
competitor and gain attention of the viewers
- The competitor’s name, HOSA Division, HOSA Chapter #, School
Name, and State/Association should be located on the Research
Poster.
- 100 words maximum (suggested)
2. ABSTRACT
- An abstract is a brief summary of the research.
- Include the overall purpose of the study and the research problem(s)
investigated.
- Describe the basic design of the study and objectives.
- Explain the major findings found as a result of analysis.
- Provide a brief summary of interpretations and conclusions.
- 250 words maximum (suggested)
3. METHODS
- Describe the research methods that led to the results.
- Identify the target population.
- Explain how data was collected accurately.
- Explain how the data was analyzed.
- Explain possible errors and biases in the methods
- 200 words maximum (suggested)
4. RESULTS
- Describe qualitative and quantitative results.
- Present the data analysis employed.
- Explain why the results matter
- Use supportive charts and figures.
- 200 words maximum (suggested)
5. CONCLUSIONS
- Emphasize the major results and try to convince why the results are
interesting.
- Explain the relevance of your findings to your community and our
world.
- 200 words maximum (suggested)
HOSA Research Poster Guidelines (August 2020) Page 3 of 14
6. REFERENCES
- List the literature cited that gave guidance to the project.
- American Psychological Association (APA) is the preferred resource
in Health Sciences.
- 100 words maximum (suggested)
7. ACKNOWLEDEMENTS
- Acknowledgements is where the competitor thanks anyone who
helped make the project possible.
8. IMAGES
- Crunch the data into graphs, tables, statistics, and/or quotes that
illustrate the findings. Include photos and illustrations that reflect the
research. Use 2 to 5 images.
- Logos from community agencies involved in the research are
acceptable.
The Research Poster Template and Design (SS and PSC)
14. Competitors will create the poster template (the file sent out to have professionally
printed) in 48” x 36” landscape orientation.
15 Any computer program of your choosing is acceptable to use to create the poster
template, as long as the final digital product can be saved as .pdf and final printed
product is 48” x 36 “ landscape orientation.
16. The above eight (8) items listed in rule #13 must be included, but colors, fonts and
overall design are at the discretion of the competitor.
17. Numerous websites are available showcasing sample poster designs and templates to
show strengths and weaknesses of sample posters, as a reference for competitors.
18. Tips for successful poster design. These are suggestions only, and not requirements.
a) 3 Feet Rule
• Poster must be readable 3 feet away
• Title font size: Minimum 65 pt.
• Heading font size: Minimum 48 pt.
• All other text size: Minimum 24 pt., suggested 36-42 pt.
• Use bold to provide emphasis, but avoid underline and CAPITALS
b) Left to Right, Top to Bottom
• Most readers read top left to bottom, top right to bottom, in that order
• Strategically placing your content in order will help the reader to follow
along and understand the content
c) Use Bullet Points
• Focus on highlights
• Use brief statements, instead of full sentences
d) Context
• Write in Active language, avoid using passive language
• Use third person point of view to provide readers with an objective
perspective
• Use text boxes to write your text. This will make editing and layout
adjustments easier.
• Writing should be left justified
e) Images
• Make sure images are high quality to avoid grainy or distorted photos
• Photos typically print best at 300 dpi or greater and in TIFF format.
• Use italicized captions (in minimum 18-point font) to help your
readers distinguish your caption from the rest of your text. Adding
HOSA Research Poster Guidelines (August 2020) Page 4 of 14
captions will also help your readers to understand what your image
represents.
• Avoid long numeric tables
The Research Poster Printing (SS and PSC)
19. Once the poster template is finalized as a .pdf, competitors should determine the best
place and method for printing final size of 48” x 36” (landscape orientation). The poster
does NOT need to be mounted on foam board.
20. To help with printing costs, and also to be more visually appealing, avoid using dark
backgrounds and patterns. Use high contrast colors on muted backgrounds instead.
21. Posters can be printed on matte / economy style paper and do not need to be printed
on high gloss paper, to help save costs.
22. Competitors should check with their local advisors for assistance on where to print the
poster. Often schools, colleges, universities, etc. have printing departments that have
discounted printing rates. Additionally, there are many online sites available that
provide affordable printing options.
Required Digital Uploads (SS and PSC)
23. A pdf copy of the Research Poster must be uploaded as a single document:
a. to Tallo for Secondary & Postsecondary/Collegiate Divisions.
b. Uploads for ILC will be open from April 15
th
- May 15
th
for ILC qualified
competitors only.
Instructions for uploading materials to Tallo can be found HERE.
NOTE: States have the option to use hard copy submissions instead of digital
submissions. Please check with your State Advisor to determine what process is
used in your state. For ILC, only digital submissions will be used for judging if
uploaded by May 15th.
Judging of the Research Poster ((SS and PSC)
24. All competitors shall report to the site of the event at the designated time. At ILC,
photo ID must be presented prior to competing.
25. When instructed, the competitor will have five (5) minutes to attach their research
poster to the provided standing bulletin board. HOSA will provide four (4) push pins to
each competitor to be used to attach the poster to the bulletin board.
26. States and ILC event staff have the option of using different setup methods to
showcase the Research Posters. This could include attaching the posters to walls,
laying posters flat on tables, or other methods deemed appropriate.
27. Competitors will not be present while the Research Posters are judged.
Poster Presentation Session Display Time (SS and PSC)
28. All competitors in this event at the International Leadership Conference are required to
attend the HOSA Poster Session, as scheduled per the conference program.
Competitors will stand with their posters and share their research with conference
delegates. Failure to attend the Poster Session (Display Time) will result in a 15 point
deduction, assessed in Tabulations.
HOSA Research Poster Guidelines (August 2020) Page 5 of 14
Judging of the Presentation (Postsecondary / Collegiate Division ONLY)
29. The Postsecondary / Collegiate Division (PSC) competitors have an ADDITIONAL
required presentation component to this event.
30. PSC competitors will report back to the research poster event room at their assigned
appointment time to present a 3 minute prepared oral presentation to the judges.
31. Competitors will stand next to their research poster for the presentation.
32. During the three (3) minute prepared presentation, a time card will be shown with one
(1) minute remaining and the presentation will be stopped at the end of the 3 minutes.
33. Judges will then have three (3) minutes to ask the competitor questions about the
research. Competitors should be prepared to answer judge questions. Competitors
may be asked to expand upon a point raised in the presentation, explain an aspect of
the research in more detail, or consider an alternative point of view. Questions
asked by judges could include:
- Why did you choose this particular research question?
- What did you learn that you did not expect?
- What is the most interesting aspect that you learned?
- What would your next steps be if you could continue this research further?
34. After the judge questions are complete, the competitor will be excused and the
judges will have two (2) minutes to complete the rating sheets.
Presentation Content (Postsecondary / Collegiate Division ONLY)
35. Begin the presentation with an “elevator pitch” – a short introduction to the research
that is enthusiastic, draws the judges in, and sets the stage for why the research is
important.
36. The presentation should be clearly connected to the poster content, but should not
simply duplicate it. It should complement the information on the poster and engage
the interest of the audience.
37. Highlight the salient points of the research - focus on key findings and implications.
38. The use of index card notes during the presentation are permitted. Electronic
notecards (on a tablet, smart phone, laptop, etc. are permitted) but will not be shown
to judges. While notes are allowed, the most successful competitors will know the
information on the poster well enough that they do not need to look at notes or the
poster except to point out a feature of interest.
Final Scoring
39. For the Postsecondary / Collegiate Division, scores from the Research Poster will be
added to scores from the Presentation to determine final results.
40. For the Secondary Division, scores from the Research Poster determine final results.
41. In the event of a tie, a tie breaker will be determined by the areas on the rating sheet
section(s) with the highest point value in descending order
HOSA Research Poster Guidelines (August 2020) Page 6 of 14
HOSA Research Poster Guidelines (August 2020) Page 7 of 14
Research Poster
Judge’s Rating Sheet – Secondary Division
Poster Only
Section # _____________________ Competitor Name & # _____________________
Division: SS ____ Judge’s Name ___________________________
A. Overview
Excellent
10 points
Good
8 points
Average
6 points
Fair
4 points
Poor
0 points
JUDGE
SCORE
1.Research
Question
The Research
Question posed is
health-related,
specific, and reflects
a deep
understanding of an
issue that needs
addressing in the
competitor’s local
community. It is
evident the
competitor was
thorough in
developing the
question.
The Research
Question is health-
related but could
benefit from being
more specific and
more action-
oriented. There is
some detail lacking
to make it stand
out.
The Research
Question sufficiently
addresses a health
topic, but leaves the
judges wanting more
clarification or
information to fully
understand the
question posed.
The Research
Question is
confusing, not fully
thought out, and/or
not a good
representation of a
health issue.
The Research
Question is
drastically lacking
substance or is not
included at all.
B. Poster
Content
Excellent
5 points
Good
4 points
Average
3 points
Fair
2 points
Poor
0 points
JUDGE
SCORE
1.Title
A title is included
and the poster
contains:
competitor’s name,
Division, Chapter #,
School Name, and
State/Association.
N/A
N/A
N/A
Poster not
submitted OR
Title is missing or
all requirements are
not met
2.References
At least one
reference is included
on the poster.
NA
NA
NA
Poster not
submitted OR
No references are
included on the
poster.
3.Acknowledgements
At least one person
or community
organization is
acknowledged on
the poster.
N/A
N/A
N/A
Poster not
submitted OR
No
acknowledgements
are made on the
poster
B. Poster
Content
Excellent
15 points
Good
12 points
Average
8 points
Fair
4 points
Poor
0 points
JUDGE
SCORE
4.Abstract
The Abstract does
an excellent job
summarizing the
research. It clearly
describes the
purpose of the
research, the overall
methods, major
findings, and a
succinct summary of
the conclusions. The
abstract leaves the
judges excited about
learning more!
The Abstract
included sufficient
details to the
purpose of the
research, some of
the methods, some
findings, and is a
good summary of
the conclusions.
The judges are
curious about
learning more.
The information
provided in the
Abstract to
summarize the
purpose, methods,
findings, and
conclusions is limited
and/or some of these
components are
missing.
Some information
was provided in the
Abstract but was
mostly surface-level
and key points were
missing.
Poster not
submitted OR
The Abstract is
missing or did not
describe all key
items.
HOSA Research Poster Guidelines (August 2020) Page 8 of 14
B. Poster
Content
Excellent
15 points
Good
12 points
Average
8 points
Fair
4 points
Poor
0 points
JUDGE
SCORE
5. Methods
The research
methods are
explicitly explained,
including:
1) target population
2) how data was
collected
3) how data was
analyzed
4) how data was
shared
5) A review of
possible errors and
biases is also
included.
The research
methods were
explained. Some
supporting points
needed more detail,
but all 5 items were
covered.
Some of the
research methods
were explained but
included only 4 of the
5 requirements.
The research
methods explanation
was limited and only
included 2 or 3 of the
5 requirements.
Poster not
submitted OR
The research
methods were not
explained or
included and/or left
the judges with
more questions
than answers.
6. Results
The results of the
research are
presented and
explained in a way
that makes sense
and can be easily
understood. It is
clear what was
discovered and an
additional
explanation about
why the results
matter is included.
The results of the
research are
presented and
explained but some
questions remain. It
is clear what was
discovered but
additional
explanation about
why the results
matter is needed.
The results of the
research are
presented but the
explanation is not
clear. There seems
to be important
information that
should have been
included. Minimal
explanation about
why results matter.
The results of the
research are limited
and significant gaps
are evident. No
explanation of why
the results matter.
Poster not
submitted OR
The results of the
research are not
included and no
description given of
why they matter.
7. Conclusions
The conclusion
provides a short and
solid justification of
the research
question, explains
the relevance of
findings to the
community and/or
world, and explains
why the results are
conclusive.
The conclusion is
mostly concise and
does a good job of
summarizing the
justification of the
research question,
the relevance of the
results, and why
they are conclusive.
More information is
needed.
The conclusion
provides minimal
justification of the
research question.
Questions remain as
to how the results
can be used or why
the results are
conclusive.
There is not a solid
justification of the
research question
nor how results are
relevant nor if they
are conclusive.
Poster not
submitted OR
The competitor
failed to include
conclusions or the
conclusions drawn
were out of scope.
8. Images
2-5 images (graphs,
tables, illustrations,
photos, logos, etc.)
are included.
Images used add
excellent value to
the overall poster,
complimenting the
text, illustrating the
findings, and
reflecting key
research. They
stand out above
others.
2-5 images are
included and they
do a good job of
adding overall value
to the poster and
accurately
representing the
details of the
research and
process. They
however, lack the
special ‘wow factor”
2-5 images are
included that
adequately connect
to the research. They
do not enhance nor
distract from the
poster.
2-5 images are
included but their
connection to the
research and
process is only fair.
They distract from
the overall appeal of
the poster and/or do
not accurately reflect
the research project.
Poster not
submitted OR
0-1, or more than 5
images are
included
C. Poster Design
Excellent
5 points
Good
4 points
Average
3 points
Fair
2 points
Poor
0 points
JUDGE
SCORE
1. Poster Size
Poster is 48” x 36”
landscape
orientation
N/A
N/A
N/A
Poster not
submitted OR
Poster is not 48” x
36” and/or
landscape
orientation
HOSA Research Poster Guidelines (August 2020) Page 9 of 14
C. Poster Design
Excellent
10 points
Good
8 points
Average
6 points
Fair
4 points
Poor
0 points
JUDGE
SCORE
2. Artistic Design
The artistic quality is
exceptional. The
design is vibrant,
balanced, visually
pleasing and pushes
the boundaries of
artistic expression.
The design choices
take the poster to
the next level and
has that “wow factor”
The artistic quality
is good; the design
stands out. The
design elements
seem to be well-
thought out and
comprehensive.
The poster
incorporates
balanced design
choices, showcasing
some artistic
features. Some of
the poster lacks
artistic details that
took away from the
overall visual of the
poster.
Basic levels of
artistic design are
incorporated into the
poster. Better
design/color choices
should be
incorporated to
assure the design of
the poster is pleasing
to the eye.
Poster not
submitted OR
The design is
simplistic and not
visually appealing.
C. Poster Design
Excellent
15 points
Good
12 points
Average
8 points
Fair
4 points
Poor
0 points
JUDGE
SCORE
3. Appearance /
Organization
The poster is
exceptionally neat,
organized, and
error-free.
Information is clearly
displayed and easy
to understand and
follow. Content is
strategically placed
to enhance the
research and the
poster can easily be
seen from 3 feet
away.
Poster is neat and
organized. The
content has a
logical flow with
only minimal errors
and does a good
job enhancing the
research process.
The poster was basic
and could use more
organization and
thought to be
understood.
The poster lacked
organization and/or
contained several
spelling errors. The
flow of information
seemed to be out of
order and it was
difficult to read the
poster from 3 feet
away.
Poster not
submitted OR
The poster is either
too busy or lacks
enough detail to
support the content.
TOTAL POINTS (130)
HOSA Research Poster Guidelines (August 2020) Page 10 of 14
Research Poster
Judge’s Rating Sheet – Postsecondary / Collegiate Division
Poster and Presentation
Section # _____________________ Competitor Name & # _____________________
Division: PSC ____ Judge’s Name ___________________________
A. Overview
Excellent
10 points
Good
8 points
Average
6 points
Fair
4 points
Poor
0 points
JUDGE
SCORE
1.Research
Question
The Research
Question posed is
health-related,
specific, and reflects
a deep
understanding of an
issue that needs
addressing in the
competitor’s local
community. It is
evident the
competitor was
thorough in
developing the
question.
The Research
Question is health-
related but could
benefit from being
more specific and
more action-
oriented. There is
some detail lacking
to make it stand
out.
The Research
Question sufficiently
addresses a health
topic, but leaves the
judges wanting more
clarification or
information to fully
understand the
question posed.
The Research
Question is
confusing, not fully
thought out, and/or
not a good
representation of a
health issue.
The Research
Question is
drastically lacking
substance or is not
included at all.
B. Poster
Content
Excellent
5 points
Good
4 points
Average
3 points
Fair
2 points
Poor
0 points
JUDGE
SCORE
1.Title
A title is included
and the poster
contains:
competitor’s name,
Division, Chapter #,
School Name, and
State/Association.
N/A
N/A
N/A
Poster not
submitted OR
Title is missing or
all requirements are
not met
2.References
At least one
reference is included
on the poster.
NA
NA
NA
Poster not
submitted OR
No references are
included on the
poster.
3.Acknowledgements
At least one person
or community
organization is
acknowledged on
the poster.
N/A
N/A
N/A
Poster not
submitted OR
No
acknowledgements
are made on the
poster
B. Poster
Content
Excellent
15 points
Good
12 points
Average
8 points
Fair
4 points
Poor
0 points
JUDGE
SCORE
4.Abstract
The Abstract does
an excellent job
summarizing the
research. It clearly
describes the
purpose of the
research, the overall
methods, major
findings, and a
succinct summary of
the conclusions. The
abstract leaves the
judges excited about
learning more!
The Abstract
included sufficient
details to the
purpose of the
research, some of
the methods, some
findings, and is a
good summary of
the conclusions.
The judges are
curious about
learning more.
The information
provided in the
Abstract to
summarize the
purpose, methods,
findings, and
conclusions is limited
and/or some of these
components are
missing.
Some information
was provided in the
Abstract but was
mostly surface-level
and key points were
missing.
Poster not
submitted OR
The Abstract is
missing or did not
describe all key
items.
HOSA Research Poster Guidelines (August 2020) Page 11 of 14
B. Poster
Content
Excellent
15 points
Good
12 points
Average
8 points
Fair
4 points
Poor
0 points
JUDGE
SCORE
5. Methods
The research
methods are
explicitly explained,
including:
1) target population
2) how data was
collected
3) how data was
analyzed
4) how data was
shared
5) A review of
possible errors and
biases is also
included.
The research
methods were
explained. Some
supporting points
needed more detail,
but all 5 items were
covered.
Some of the
research methods
were explained but
included only 4 of the
5 requirements.
The research
methods explanation
was limited and only
included 2 or 3 of the
5 requirements.
Poster not
submitted OR
The research
methods were not
explained or
included and/or left
the judges with
more questions
than answers.
6. Results
The results of the
research are
presented and
explained in a way
that makes sense
and can be easily
understood. It is
clear what was
discovered and an
additional
explanation about
why the results
matter is included.
The results of the
research are
presented and
explained but some
questions remain. It
is clear what was
discovered but
additional
explanation about
why the results
matter is needed.
The results of the
research are
presented but the
explanation is not
clear. There seems
to be important
information that
should have been
included. Minimal
explanation about
why results matter.
The results of the
research are limited
and significant gaps
are evident. No
explanation of why
the results matter.
Poster not
submitted OR
The results of the
research are not
included and no
description given of
why they matter.
7. Conclusions
The conclusion
provides a short and
solid justification of
the research
question, explains
the relevance of
findings to the
community and/or
world, and explains
why the results are
conclusive.
The conclusion is
mostly concise and
does a good job of
summarizing the
justification of the
research question,
the relevance of the
results, and why
they are conclusive.
More information is
needed.
The conclusion
provides minimal
justification of the
research question.
Questions remain as
to how the results
can be used or why
the results are
conclusive.
There is not a solid
justification of the
research question
nor how results are
relevant nor if they
are conclusive.
Poster not
submitted OR
The competitor
failed to include
conclusions or the
conclusions drawn
were out of scope.
8. Images
2-5 images (graphs,
tables, illustrations,
photos, logos, etc.)
are included.
Images used add
excellent value to
the overall poster,
complimenting the
text, illustrating the
findings, and
reflecting key
research. They
stand out above
others.
2-5 images are
included and they
do a good job of
adding overall value
to the poster and
accurately
representing the
details of the
research and
process. They
however, lack the
special ‘wow factor”
2-5 images are
included that
adequately connect
to the research. They
do not enhance nor
distract from the
poster.
2-5 images are
included but their
connection to the
research and
process is only fair.
They distract from
the overall appeal of
the poster and/or do
not accurately reflect
the research project.
Poster not
submitted OR
0-1, or more than 5
images are
included
C. Poster Design
Excellent
5 points
Good
4 points
Average
3 points
Fair
2 points
Poor
0 points
JUDGE
SCORE
1. Poster Size
Poster is 48” x 36”
landscape
orientation
N/A
N/A
N/A
Poster not
submitted OR
Poster is not 48” x
36” and/or
landscape
orientation
HOSA Research Poster Guidelines (August 2020) Page 12 of 14
C. Poster Design
Excellent
10 points
Good
8 points
Average
6 points
Fair
4 points
Poor
0 points
JUDGE
SCORE
2. Artistic Design
The artistic quality is
exceptional. The
design is vibrant,
balanced, visually
pleasing and pushes
the boundaries of
artistic expression.
The design choices
take the poster to
the next level and
has that “wow factor”
The artistic quality
is good; the design
stands out. The
design elements
seem to be well-
thought out and
comprehensive.
The poster
incorporates
balanced design
choices, showcasing
some artistic
features. Some of
the poster lacks
artistic details that
took away from the
overall visual of the
poster.
Basic levels of
artistic design are
incorporated into the
poster. Better
design/color choices
should be
incorporated to
assure the design of
the poster is pleasing
to the eye.
Poster not
submitted OR
The design is
simplistic and not
visually appealing.
C. Poster Design
Excellent
15 points
Good
12 points
Average
8 points
Fair
4 points
Poor
0 points
JUDGE
SCORE
3. Appearance /
Organization
The poster is
exceptionally neat,
organized, and
error-free.
Information is clearly
displayed and easy
to understand and
follow. Content is
strategically placed
to enhance the
research and the
poster can easily be
seen from 3 feet
away.
Poster is neat and
organized. The
content has a
logical flow with
only minimal errors
and does a good
job enhancing the
research process.
The poster was basic
and could use more
organization and
thought to be
understood.
The poster lacked
organization and/or
contained several
spelling errors. The
flow of information
seemed to be out of
order and it was
difficult to read the
poster from 3 feet
away.
Poster not
submitted OR
The poster is either
too busy or lacks
enough detail to
support the content.
D. Presentation
Content
Excellent
15 points
Good
12 points
Average
8 points
Fair
4 points
Poor
0 points
JUDGE
SCORE
1. Opening “Elevator
Pitch”
The presentation
starts with an
excellent and
enthusiastic elevator
pitch that introduces
the research, draws
the judge in, and
sets the stage for
why the research is
important.
The elevator pitch
does a good job
setting the stage for
the rest of the
presentation, but
does not “wow” the
judges.
The presentation
starts with an
elevator pitch but it is
lacking enthusiasm,
and an overall draw
for the judges.
There is an attempt
made to begin with
an elevator pitch, but
the overall execution
is lacking.
No elevator pitch
was shared during
the presentation
2. Presentation of the
Research
The presentation of
the research
information was
exceptionally
organized, clear,
and highlighted
relevant details of
the research
question, methods,
results, and
implications of the
research. The
competitor could
speak freely without
using his/her notes
and clearly had a
mastery of the
subject matter.
The content and
messaging of the
research was
presented in a clear
and concise
manner. Most of the
appropriate
connections were
drawn between the
methods, results,
and implications.
The competitor was
confident in the
subject matter.
Information shared
by competitors was
mostly organized
and included basic
information about the
research process.
The judges were left
with unanswered
questions though.
Presenters shared
little knowledge of
the overall research
process, and the
information that was
shared was not
delivered in a clear
and concise manner.
The competitor
seemed dependent
on his/her notes in
order to speak on the
subject matter.
Little to no
information was
presented to the
judges on the
research process.
HOSA Research Poster Guidelines (August 2020) Page 13 of 14
D. Presentation
Content
Excellent
15 points
Good
12 points
Average
8 points
Fair
4 points
Poor
0 points
JUDGE
SCORE
3. Connection to
Poster
The presentation is
clearly connected to
the research poster,
but does not
duplicate it. The
presentation does
an excellent job
complementing the
information on the
poster and engages
the interest of the
audience in a fresh
way than what is
seen on the poster.
The competitor
appropriately points
to images, graphs,
and sections of the
poster during the
presentation.
The presentation
connects to the
research poster and
the majority of
information is not
duplicative. The
presentation is
somewhat unique
from the poster.
The competitor
mostly does a good
job of referencing
the poster during
the presentation.
The competitor did
an adequate job of
connecting the
presentation to the
poster.
The competitor
seems to read from
the poster at times
word for word, and
has a hard time
making the
presentation unique.
The presentation
seemed to be an
afterthought. There
was a disconnect
between what was
presented and the
content of the
poster.
4. Answered judge
questions
effectively
The competitor
provided excellent
answers to judge’s
questions, shared
important details
and maintained a
high level of
professionalism and
poise throughout the
presentation.
The competitor
answered the
judge’s questions
accurately and
provided some
important details
about the research
that took place.
The competitor was
able to answer most
of the questions
effectively, but could
have provided more
details regarding the
research
The competitor
answered some of
the questions but
failed to expound on
the details of the
research
The competitor had
trouble answering
the judge’s
questions. More
evidence is needed
to demonstrate a
basic
understanding of
the research.
E. Presentation
Delivery
Excellent
10 points
Good
8 points
Average
6 points
Fair
4 points
Poor
0 points
JUDGE
SCORE
1. Voice
Pitch, tempo, volume,
quality
The competitor’s
voice was loud
enough to hear. The
competitor varied
rate & volume to
enhance the
speech. Appropriate
pausing was
employed.
The competitor
spoke loudly and
clearly enough to
be understood. The
competitor varied
rate OR volume to
enhance the
speech. Pauses
were attempted.
The competitor could
be heard most of the
time. The competitor
attempted to use
some variety in vocal
quality, but not
always successfully.
The competitor’s
voice was low.
Judges have
difficulty hearing the
presentation.
Judge had difficulty
hearing and/or
understanding
much of the speech
due to low volume.
Little variety in rate
or volume.
E. Presentation
Delivery
Excellent
10 points
Good
8 points
Average
6 points
Fair
4 points
Poor
0 points
JUDGE
SCORE
2. Stage Presence
Poise, posture, eye
contact, and
enthusiasm
Movements &
gestures were
purposeful and
enhanced the
delivery of the
speech and did not
distract. Body
language reflects
comfort interacting
with audience.
Facial expressions
and body language
consistently
generated a strong
interest and
enthusiasm for the
topic.
The competitor
maintained
adequate posture
and non-distracting
movement during
the speech. Some
gestures were
used. Facial
expressions and
body language
sometimes
generated an
interest and
enthusiasm for the
topic.
Stiff or unnatural use
of nonverbal
behaviors. Body
language reflects
some discomfort
interacting with
audience. Limited
use of gestures to
reinforce verbal
message. Facial
expressions and
body language are
used to try to
generate enthusiasm
but seem somewhat
forced.
Most of the
competitor's posture,
body language, and
facial expressions
indicated a lack of
enthusiasm for the
topic. Movements
were distracting.
No attempt was
made to use body
movement or
gestures to
enhance the
message. No
interest or
enthusiasm for the
topic came through
in presentation.
HOSA Research Poster Guidelines (August 2020) Page 14 of 14
E. Presentation
Delivery
Excellent
10 points
Good
8 points
Average
6 points
Fair
4 points
Poor
0 points
JUDGE
SCORE
3. Diction*, Grammar
and Pronunciation**
Delivery emphasizes
and enhances
message. Clear
enunciation and
pronunciation. No
vocal fillers (ex:
"ahs," "uh/ums," or
"you-knows”). Tone
heightened interest
and complemented
the verbal message.
Delivery helps to
enhance message.
Clear enunciation
and pronunciation.
Minimal vocal fillers
(ex: "ahs,"
"uh/ums," or "you-
knows”). Tone
complemented the
verbal message
Delivery adequate.
Enunciation and
pronunciation
suitable. Noticeable
verbal fillers (ex:
"ahs," "uh/ums," or
"you-knows”)
present. Tone
seemed inconsistent
at times.
Delivery quality
minimal. Regular
verbal fillers (ex:
"ahs," "uh/ums," or
"you-knows”)
present. Delivery
problems cause
disruption to
message.
Many distracting
errors in
pronunciation
and/or articulation.
Monotone or
inappropriate
variation of vocal
characteristics.
Inconsistent with
verbal message
Total Points (220):