How to Make an Effective, Professional
Research Presentation
Platform & Poster Presentations
John Stevenson, PT, PhD
Associate Dean, Graduate Studies
Sept 12th, 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
Example slide 1
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 2
“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 3
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

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
Example slide 5
Putting Analysis System
-+
Trajectory
Velocity
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
Pred_Trust
500
No
Yes
400
Count

300
200
100
0
No
Yes
Obs_Trust
Cases weighted by Count
Example slide 6
Self-Report Ratings & Outcome
Putt # Velocity Trajectory
(in/sec)
(deg)
1
Make Tempo Target?
?
(1-10)
Let it
go?
(Trust)
Time to
BS Start
(sec)
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)
◦ 3rd 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 nondistracting
◦ 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
Group Comparisons Following Training
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.
Control Group (23)
Training Group (25)
► No significant difference (p=0.521) between groups on outdoor putting performance
(5 putts)
Trust Education Phase for Both
► Logistic regression results revealed that, in the presence of tempo match and
18 holes on GL system – 9 with KR; 9 no KR
5 hole course on practice green; FSS measures
target match, assignment to the training group was a significant
predictor of trust (p=0.043)
Trust Training for TG only
► When golfers had a high match of their stroke tempo to their preshot routine
intention, and hit their
intended target, membership in the training group made a
significant difference in predicting whether they trusted their
putting stroke
Drills Practice Log (5x)
Recent research3 indicates that when skilled golfers trusted their shot execution:
18 holes on GL system – 9 with KR; 9 no KR
5 hole course on practice green; FSS measures
► gained 20 yards (“on target” distance)
► swing tempo
Figure 1. Study design
improved
to trust
► For both groups, on all trials, a positive report of trust was significantly (p=0.000)
Outcome Measures
►golfers rating tempo high were 2.5 times more likely
►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-
2- For pitch shot performance (30-yd shot):
► reduced distance from hole by 60%
training following testing)
►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
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)
Makeand outcome (p=1.00), indicating that
► No
relationship was found between KR
1,200
Miss
1,000
Pearson chi-square was used to determine homogeneity of
outcome success was not Make
dependent on seeing the impact or path of
the putt for visual KR
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
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.
► This logistic regression model, with group assignment, tempo
match, and
target match, correctly
predicted the putting outcome 81.1% of the time
Figure 2. Indoor putting testing
800
Count
1- For tee shot performance:
600
self-report; and 5)
correlation of outcomes and trust. Logistic regression was
400
One-way ANOVA was used on FSS measures, with correction
200
used to predict trust.
Characteristic
(p-value of 0.006)
Training Group
Avg yrs experience
Avg USGA handicap
.724
Control Group
P
for nine comparisons.
10.75
11.09
Results
5.408
4.565
.077
Table 1. Comparison of subject characteristics
0
Did not trust
Trusted
Trust
Figure 3. Relationship of trust to putting outcome
Figure 4. Outdoor putt test
The effectiveness of a trust training program designed to enhance trust in the
performance of golf skills has not been demonstrated previously.
Purpose
Conclusions
The purposes of this study were to:
► test the effects of a trust training program on skilled
golfers’ ability
performance
Group Comparisons at Baseline
to acquire the skill of trust and their putting
►compare measures of the Flow State Scale to trust
putting stroke or their putting outcome success
► No significant difference (p=0.318) between
groups on baseline outdoor
performance (5 putts)
self-report
putting
groups on frequency of trust
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
► Trust and flow are not the same performance concept
► Visual KR had no effect on skilled golfers’ ability to self-report whether they trusted
► No significant difference (p=0.578) between
►compare the accuracy of trust self-report under
conditions of visual
► Trust training did not have an overall effect on skilled golfers’ ability to trust their
their putting stroke
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
(p=0.53)
Training Group Compliance and FSS Measures
putting outcomes
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