Criteria for Evaluation of European Congress of Psychology

                                  

EFPA CSA Liaison member together with two other members of the CSA form a committee to assess and evaluate the ECP congresses and prepare reports documenting the success/quality of the congress in domains listed below.

For this purpose, two members can be selected and/or assigned from among the members of the CSA one year before the given congress, and by collaborating with liaison member these selected members form the evaluation board. The evaluation board obtains information about the congress using all means and ways.

The evaluation board members should consider the extent to which the specific ECP congress has met the standards and aims of EFPA and objectives specified in the guidelines for ECP congress following three months after the congress. The evaluation board members can obtain information from the representatives of the country organizing the congress and from the other members of the congress organizing and/or scientific committees.  

The board members prepare a report of evaluation for the CSA and can also propose suggestions considering the limitations/weaknesses of the congress to help the advancement of the ECP congresses in future. The board should specifically address the success/adequacy in the domains listed below in the report to the CSA. In its first meeting following the given congress, the CSA should then evaluate and submit the final report to the EFPA EC. The EFPA EC is recommended to make the report available to the organizers of the next ECP.

 Areas of evaluations (Report on)

  1. Overall adequacy/quality of the congress site and facilities
  2. Balance of presentation categories, such as keynotes, symposia, round table discussions, paper and poster sessions, etc.
  3. Number of submissions and the ratio of acceptance compared to previous congresses
  4. Representation of different European countries in submissions/acceptance
  5. Diversity of the fields in topics in the accepted submissions.
  6. Number of attendees with and without presentations.
  7. Ratio of attendees from EFPA member countries as compared to previous congresses
  8. Existence of blind review process for submissions and quality of feedback given to submitters.
  9. Participants’ attendance in sessions. Conveners can be asked to submit attendance report.
  10. Number of participants returning congress evaluation forms (at least 60% return rate should be targeted)
  11. Participant evaluations of the congress in specific areas including the degree of satisfactions from presentations, facilities, accommodations, and other dimensions used in the evaluation form.
  12. Number and variety of awards granted (e.g., poster prizes, student paper awards).
  13. Number of specific programs aiming to encourage young scientists and graduate students.[young scientists initiation]
  14. Amount of support (budget) and/or grant and sponsorship successfully secured for participants from disadvantaged countries and graduate students.
  15. Variety of media used in communication, timing of web postings.(e.g., timing of posting of full scientific program)