Peer Evaluation Rubric for All Submissions

Criteria	1 point	3 points	5 points
Theme	No strong indicators to show that the topic is relevant to the conference theme.	Some indicators of relevance to the conference theme.	Presentation topic is extremely relevant to the conference theme.
Topic	No indication that the topic is relevant to IDA’s audience.	Appeals to groups within IDA’s audience.	Strong appeal to IDA’s audience.
Presenter	No evidence the presenter is experienced and knowledgeable of the topic.	Indications that the presenter has adequate experience and knowledge of the topic.	Presenter clearly exceeds experience and knowledge qualifications for the topic.
Relevance	No evidence that is timely in terms of current issues of interest in the field of dyslexia and other reading differences.	Some evidence that may be relevant and appeal to IDA’s conference attendees.	Current issue of interest in the field of dyslexia and other reading differences
Submission Guidelines 1. Description written in present tense. 2. Session details completed accurately (type, track, strand, KPS, audience, learning outcomes) 3. Complete speaker(s) information submitted.	The information submitted was incomplete. An evaluation of this proposal cannot be completed.	Enough information submitted to complete an evaluation, but additional information may be needed.	All appropriate information was submitted.
Is the proposal written clearly?	Not clearly written or in a scholarly manner.	Adequately written and in a scholarly manner.	Extremely well-written and in a scholarly manner.
References/Rationale	No use of literature, existing sources of knowledge, and/or references to support ideas and concepts that are being presented.	Adequately used literature, existing sources of knowledge, and/or references and adequate rationale to support the ideas and concepts that are being presented.	There was extensive use of literature, existing sources of knowledge, and/or references and compelling rationale to support the ideas and concepts being presented.
Methodology *Research track only	The description for methodology was not evident or the methodology described was not appropriate.	The methodology described is evident and adequate.	The methodology described is compelling and appropriate.
Conclusions *Research track only	The conclusion was not supported by the findings.	The conclusion is adequately supported by the findings.	The findings are strong and justify the conclusion.