Williams, Nancy G.
Gerontology Research Center
Sharma, Harish A.
Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology
Soller, Eric C.
Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology
Anderson, Jeffrey R.
University of Wyoming
Wang, Tzu-Wei
National Taiwan University
Huang, Yi-Chau
National Taiwan University
Haapala, Stephenie A.
University of Connecticut
Ware, Mark H.
Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology
Woodcox, Bradley A.
Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology
Conflitti, Joseph
University of Mississippi Medical Center
Anderson, Jeffrey R.
University of Wyoming
Tardy, Felicia Magee
University of Mississippi Medical Center
Ivy, Randee K.
University of Mississippi Medical Center
Hansen, Jeffrey T.
University of Mississippi Medical Center
Hafez, Naiel A.
University of Mississippi Medical Center
Butler, Kenneth R. Jr
University of Mississippi Medical Center
Bitner, Marc
University of Mississippi
Sabesan, Shivkumar
Arizona State University
Barnes, Jennifer R.
University of Wyoming
59 students participated in the contest with 61 papers (two students submitted two papers each).
Following the guidelines approved in the 2002 RMBS board fall meeting, they were divided into two categories: B.S./M.S. (38 papers) and Doctoral (23 papers). Each paper was review by 4 judges. Each judge reviewed at least 5 papers. For each judge the scores were normalized. The total score for the paper was the sum of the four normalized scores.
Unfortunately due to various reasons, not all the students were able to make it to the conference, therefore only 35 presentations and 12 posters were judged.
23 presentations were in the B.S./M.S. category and 12 in the Doctoral category. 11 judges expressed their preferences in the presentation competition. Due to the parallel sessions, not all students were judged by the same judges, and not all of them received the same number of votes, but each presentation was judged by at least three judges. The scores were again normalized for each judge and the total score for each presentation was the average of the single scores.
Since according to the guidelines not enough posters were in the doctoral category (only 3), the posters were combined in one unified category. Eight judges expressed their preferences in the poster competition. With the exception of one that received only one score, each poster was reviewed by at least five judges. As for the presentations, the scores were normalized for each judge and the total score for each poster was the average of the single scores.
For the special awards, four judges were involved: the president, the conference program chairman, the student paper contest committee chairman and the judge in charge of selecting the winner of the Anthony Sances Jr. Award of Merit. Each one of the judges subjectively selected and ranked up to 5 students as the possible winners of the respective award. Following the guidelines, each special award was given to the higher-ranking student that did not yet win any other award.