Review Process and Scoring
Please make your abstract as complete and descriptive as possible. Click here to see examples of well-written abstracts. To be considered for full review, all specified information must be included in your online submission. All accepted abstracts will be available on the conference app.
Abstracts will be double-blind reviewed and scored in each of the following four areas (31 maximum points):
1. Quality of writing
Writing quality will be evaluated on a 1 (poor) to 7 (excellent) scale. As part of the writing evaluation, grammar, clarity of expression, and appropriate use of APA citations will be considered.
2. Innovation and contribution to the field
Reviewers will evaluate their perception of the innovative nature of the topic and how it adds to the field on a 1 (not at all innovative) to 7 (extremely innovative) scale. Innovation/contribution to the field may be determined by the interest of members, the professional development of members, the importance of this topic to the profession, or the uniqueness of the project (is this something that provides a new perspective versus something that has been presented in the past on numerous occasions).
3. Use of the scientist-practitioner model
Reviewers will evaluate the use of the scientist-practitioner model on a 1 (lacking support or application) to 7 (excellent support and application) scale. A scientific-practitioner focus involves an identification of the reciprocal relationships among theory, research, and interventions/practice. The science-practice relationship can be emphasized through the use of session moderators, symposia discussants, and workshop facilitators that can highlight these themes and connections.
4. Overall quality of submission
Reviewers will evaluate the overall quality of the submission on a 1 (extremely poor) to 10 (excellent) scale. High scores on the quality of submission are reflective of submissions that have a positive impact on the conference program.