How to Make an Effective, Professional Research Presentation

 
How to Make an Effective, Professional Research Presentation 
 

Platform & Poster Presentations 

John Stevenson, PT, PhD

Associate Dean, Graduate Studies

Sept 12^th, 2015

Presentation Models for Professional Meetings 

• Platform presentation (15-min cycle; 20-min)
• 12 min for presentation followed by < 3 min Q & A
• SSD format
• Poster presentation (5’ x 7’ or 4’ x 6’ areas)
• SSD/MERC format
• Symposia
• Longer times (60-90 min)
• More lecture style
• Panel Discussions
• Introductions, followed by debatable premise or question
• Participants interact in discussion; take Q & A in last third or quarter
• Summary

Platform (oral) Presentation Elements 

• Introduction of title and author(s) by moderator
• Make sure moderator knows how to pronounce your name(s)!
• Body of talk, starting with title slide
• Audiovisuals (Powerpoint or video)
• Use of pointer (laser or light), if effective
• Author response to questions and/or comments from attendees

 

 

Outline of Presentation 

• Title slide with author name(s)
• Background – 1-2 slides
• Slide(s) that introduce the audience to the relevance or application of the project
• May use pictures to complement points
• Purpose – 1 slide
• The primary purpose of the study or case report, stated as research hypothesis or central question of the study or case

Outline of Presentation 

• Description of Methodology – 3-5 slides
• Subject description with inclusion/exclusion criteria
• Sampling technique with randomization method used, if applicable
• Description of instrumentation used to measure or assess variables of interest
• Equipment pictures really help here!
• Provide sense of validity and reliability
• Description of dependent variable(s) measured
• Research design used for study
• Statistical or data analysis techniques used

Examples & Ideas 
 

Research about use of trust in execution of golf skills

Measuring Trust in the Performance of Golf Skills 

Mike Brossman, SPT

Doug Elliott, SPT

Mark Liley, SPT 

Physical Therapy Program

College of Health Professions 

Example slide 1

 

“When I trusted my swing, I hit it perfect.  When I tried to steer it just a touch or bow it down and just try to get it in play, I didn’t hit the ball straight at all.  I’m hitting it well with my irons, hitting it well at the range, hitting it well when I just step up and trust it.  I’ve just got to do that more often.” 

• Tiger Woods, 2003 U.S. Open

 

Example slide 2

Methodology: Subjects 

• 28 golfers in the Professional Golf Management Program at Ferris State University, Big Rapids, MI
• Average age of 21 years, 11 years of golf experience, USGA handicap < 10.0
• Highly motivated to improve putting performance, received a 3-hr Trust training and drills program, used their own equipment for testing

 

Example slide 3

Fundamental Skill Components that lead to Trust 

Concentration –

Focusing on the process 

Confidence –

Belief that if you execute

your routine, success

will follow 

Composure –

Conviction that your skills

will not erode under

pressure or stress 

Example slide 4

Putting Analysis System 

  -- 

+ 

Velocity 

Trajectory 

Example slide 5

Outline of Presentation 

• Results – 3-4 slides
• Use graphed results to compare or contrast numerical results
• Minimize use of numerical tables; avoid plentiful use – boring!
• Consider summary findings slide
• Discussion – 1-2 slides
• Relate how findings impact literature, theory, practice
• Impact of your study results
• Conclusion – 1 slide
• What you conclude from results, with inference suggestions/applications, if any
• “Free” slides
• Acknowledgments slide (free, not counted)
• Closing slide – “Questions or comments?”

 

Logistic Regression of  
Predicted vs. Observed Trust 
 

• For subjects who did not trust their putts, the model predicted correctly 69.5% of the time
• For subjects who did trust their putts, the model predicted correctly 74.5% of the time

 

Example slide 6

Self-Report Ratings & Outcome 

Putt # 

Velocity

(in/sec) 

Trajectory

(deg) 

Make? 

Tempo

(1-10) 

Target? 

Let it go?

(Trust) 
 

Time to

BS Start (sec) 

1 

56.73 

1.487 

Y 

8 

Y 

Y 

   1.14 

2-9 

10 

56.60 

4.453 

Y  

7 

Y  

N 

   1.08 

Example slide 7

Acknowledgements 

• This project was made possible by a grant from the Harrah College of Hotel Management, UNLV to Drs. Stevenson & Moore
• This project was also supported by the Professional Golf Management Program of FSU which permitted use of their facilities for training & testing as well as providing PGM students for subjects

 
 

Example slide 8

Prescriptions for Success 

• MAXIMUM total slides < 15 !!!!
• “less is more” when used wisely, judiciously
• “pictures say a 1,000 words” – avoid using text when an appropriate picture can talk
• Graphs and figures are more powerful than tables; images speak so you don’t have to
• Use a pointer device to direct audience to what they need to see to comprehend the story
• Avoid ‘pointer palsy’; use two hands
• Avoid laser light show effects – distracting
• Practice your technique to become smooooth…

Prescriptions for Success 

• Not every contributor has to present
• Give serious thought to who might be the best oral presenters (1-2 shared); avoid “3 Musketeers” effect
• Someone should run the A-Vs without interruption (practiced with technology)
• 3^rd person could field the majority of questions/comments
• Don’t use notecards or look at slides unless pointing – speak to the audience

 

Prescriptions for Success 

• Don’t read anything – commit to memory
• Deliver presentation in conversational style, not lecture style
• Rehearse, rehearse, then rehearse some more!
• Present in front of peers for suggestions
• Present in front of folks unfamiliar with project
• Present with stop watch to time out slides/presentation
• Do final rehearsal(s) with faculty mentor for accuracy checks, polishing and finesse tips

Prescriptions for Success: 
Use of Powerpoint 

• Pick an appropriate slide format
• Dark or white backgrounds with contrasting lettering are simple, elegant, and non-distracting
• Optimize color/background combos
• Avoid fancy or ‘cutesy’ designs
• Avoid clipart, use real pictures instead
• Make sure every slide is visible from the back of a large room – scale is important!

 

Prescriptions for Success: 
Use of Powerpoint 
 
 

• Avoid putting too much information on any one slide…avoid ‘dictionary’ or legal disclaimer appearance

Prescriptions for Success: 
Use of Powerpoint 

• Use brief phrases or key words
• Don’t write out complete sentences
• Use bulleting effectively
• Ditto
• Ditto, ditto
• Yada, yada, yada

 

 

Poster presentations 

• Can be professionally plotted at several places on campus (Allendale, DeVos)
• $25 fee, paid at Student Services
• Access to the plotter
• Put content into Powerpoint template
• Use good contrast, colors
• Use key words, phrases; avoid sentences
• Use all the space but avoid congestion

Examples to view/critique

Effect of Training for Trust in Putting Performance of

Skilled Golfers: A Randomized Controlled Trial

John Stevenson, Paul Stephenson, Matt Hoffman, Travis Jager, and Erika VanEngen

College of Health Professions, Cook-DeVos Center for Health Sciences,

Grand Valley State University, Grand Rapids, Michigan 
 

Background

Trust is defined as a psychological performance skill that allows the performer to release conscious control of motor skill execution^1,2, a skill that can enhance the performance of discrete motor tasks such as those found in golf.  The performance skill of trust and the construct of flow in sport may share similarities among the dimensions of automaticity, concentration, and composure.  However, unlike flow, trust is a moment-to-moment skill, is skill-specific, is ‘all or none’, and can be trained.  Use of trust in golf skills performance has obvious value as a performance enhancement intervention.

Recent research³ indicates that when skilled golfers trusted their shot execution:

   1- For tee shot performance:     

          ► gained 20 yards (“on target” distance)    ► swing tempo improved

        ►golfers rating tempo high were 2.5 times more likely to trust

   2- For pitch shot performance (30-yd shot): 

   ► reduced distance from hole by 60%

        ►self-report of tempo and target, time to backswing start were significant         predictors of trust

        ► golfers rating tempo high were 3 times more likely to trust

In 1994, Moore and Stevenson outlined a 3-phase training program (Education, Skills Training, and Simulation) designed to optimize the acquisition and use of trust as a performance skill for discrete, automatized sport skills.²  The purpose of the education phase is to provide the rationale for trust, explain its characteristics, identify breakdowns in trust, and to gain commitment from the performer to train for trust. The skills training phase aids performers in acquiring trust under a variety of supervised conditions.  Finally, the simulation phase puts the performer in a state that is most conducive to trusting performance at that moment, and is done by structuring the routine to take the performer from analysis, to feel, to trust.

The effectiveness of a trust training program designed to enhance trust in the performance of golf skills has not been demonstrated previously.

Purpose

The purposes of this study were to:

        ► test the effects of a trust training program on skilled golfers’ ability                        to acquire the skill of trust and their putting performance

        ►compare measures of the Flow State Scale to trust self-report

        ►compare the accuracy of trust self-report under conditions of visual                and no visual knowledge of results (KR)

Subjects

Participants consisted of 48 skilled golfers from the Professional Golf Management (PGM) Program at Ferris State University, Big Rapids, MI.

        ► 20-24 yrs of age (45 men, 3 women)     

        ► USGA handicap index between + 2.0 to 8.0

        ► Provided informed consent; randomly assigned to control or training group

Instrumentation

       ► GL Technologies Ultimate edition putting system

        ► Custom-built putting analysis system with visual occlusion goggles

        ► Outdoor practice green (5-hole course)

        ► Flow State Scale⁴ 

Figure 1.  Study design 

Outcome Measures

       ►Self-report measures of tempo match (1-10), target (Y/N), and trust (Y/N)

        ►Putt outcome (made or missed)

        ►36-item Flow State Scale- 2 (pre- and post-training following testing) 

      Pearson chi-square was used to determine homogeneity of groups at baseline for:

      1) putting outcome and trust; 2) change in putting outcome and trust between groups;

      3) effect of course level on trust; 4) effect of visual KR on trust self-report; and 5)

      correlation of outcomes and trust.  Logistic regression was used to predict trust. 

      One-way ANOVA was used on FSS measures, with correction (p-value of 0.006)

      for nine comparisons.

Results 

      Table 1.  Comparison of subject characteristics 
 
 
 

Group Comparisons at Baseline  

      ► No significant difference (p=0.318) between groups on baseline outdoor          putting performance (5 putts)

      ► No significant difference (p=0.578) between groups on frequency of trust        self-report

      ► Indoor putting course level difficulty (Amateur vs. Professional) did not       have a significant effect on trust self-report in either the control (p=0.818)       or the training group (p=0.037)

      ► Indoor putting course level difficulty did not have a significant effect on        putting outcomes (p=0.53)

Training Group Compliance and FSS Measures

      ► Compliance = practicing trust training drills 4/5 days within 1 week

      ► 84% of training group subjects returned practice cards

             ►66.7% of these subjects practiced on all five days

             ► 71% of these subjects practiced at least 4 of 6 specified drills

             ► rhythm and circle drills were most frequently practiced

      ►None of the similar dimensions of flow (D2 - automaticity, D5 – attentional      focus, D7 - composure) showed significant changes between groups        following training 
 
 
 
 
 

Group Comparisons Following Training

► No significant difference (p=0.521) between groups on outdoor putting performance (5 putts)

► Logistic regression results revealed that, in the presence of tempo match and   target match, assignment to the training group was a significant predictor of trust (p=0.043)

          ► When golfers had a high match of their stroke tempo to their pre-shot routine        intention, and hit their intended target, membership in the training group made a       significant difference in predicting whether they trusted their putting stroke

         ► This logistic regression model, with group assignment, tempo match, and       target match, correctly predicted the putting outcome 81.1% of the time

► For both groups, on all trials, a positive report of trust was significantly (p=0.000) related to a positive putting outcome (Figure 3 below)

► For trials with vision permitted, neither group was more likely to report trust in their putting stroke than in trials with vision occluded (p=0.789)

► No relationship was found between KR and outcome (p=1.00), indicating that outcome success was not dependent on seeing the impact or path of the putt for visual KR

  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Conclusions

► Trust training did not have an overall effect on skilled golfers’ ability to trust their putting stroke or their putting outcome success

► Trust and flow are not the same performance concept

► Visual KR had no effect on skilled golfers’ ability to self-report whether they trusted their putting stroke

References

1. Moore and Stevenson. The Sport Psychologist.1991; 5:281-289.
2. Moore and Stevenson. The Sport Psychologist.1994; 8:1-12.
3. Stevenson et al. Annual Review of Golf Coaching. 2007; 1: 47-66.
4. Jackson and Marsh.  J of Sport and Exer Psych. 1996; 18:17-35.

 

Acknowledgements

   The authors would like to thank the PGM Program, Ferris State University, and University of Nevada Las Vegas for their support of this project.  Thanks also to Joel Oostdyk and Adam Miller at GVSU for design and construction of the putting analysis system and occlusion goggles used in this study. 

22^nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Applied Sport Psychology

Louisville, KY, October, 2007 
 

Figure 3.  Relationship of trust to putting outcome 

Control Group (23) 

Training Group (25) 

Trust Education Phase for Both 

Trust Training for TG only 

Drills Practice Log (5x) 

18 holes on GL system – 9 with KR; 9 no KR

5 hole course on practice green; FSS measures 

18 holes on GL system – 9 with KR; 9 no KR

5 hole course on practice green; FSS measures 

Figure 2.  Indoor putting testing 
 

Characteristic   Training Group      Control Group         P 
 
 

Avg yrs experience      10.75     11.09        .724 
 

Avg USGA handicap        5.408       4.565             .077 

Figure 4.  Outdoor putt test