1. 2016 SCMR Scientific Sessions - Evaluation

We would appreciate your opinions on the 2016 SCMR Scientific Sessions. Please take a few minutes to complete this survey, with a rating of 1 being poor and 5 being excellent.

Thank you!

* 1. Overall Program Evaluation

  1 = Poor 2 = Fair 3 = Good 4 = Very Good 5 = Excellent
Program format
Amount of information presented
Scientific rigor
Level of instruction (caliber of faculty)
Time allotted for presentations
Time allotted for discussion

* 2. Program Quality Assessment

  1 = Poor 2 = Fair 3 = Good 4 = Very Good 5 = Excellent
Overall objectivity and balance
Usefulness of program materials
Clinical relevancy
Off-label product use identification

* 3. How well did this program fulfill the following learning objectives:

  1 = Poor 2 = Fair 3 = Good 4 = Very Good 5 = Excellent
-Plan, perform, and analyze CMR examinations
-Plan and conduct appropriately designed clinical trials
-Apply the principles of MR physics relevant to image quality, data reliability, and patient safety

* 4. Were the presentations free of commercial bias?

* 5. These Scientific Sessions:

  1 = Strongly disagree 2 = Disagree 3 = Neutral 4 = Agree 5 = Strongly agree
Are relevant to my practice
Met my expectations
Enhanced my ability to educate colleagues and patients
Reinforced existing knowledge

* 6. Which sessions stand out for you as having been most beneficial?

* 7. Are there any particular sessions which stand out as having fallen short of your expectations?

* 8. As a result of participating in this activity, will you make any significant changes in your role?

* 9. If contemplating changes, please identify additional tools, education, resources that would be helpful to you.

* 10. If no, what barriers may exist to prevent you from making changes? (check all that apply)

* 11. What suggestions or system changes would you recommend to overcome these barriers?

* 12. Do you feel there is an appropriate balance between invited lectures, oral abstracts, and case reviews?

* 13. Posters Evaluation

  1 = Poor 2 = Fair 3 = Good 4 = Very Good 5 = Excellent
Number of accepted posters
Scientific quality
Quality of poster presentations

* 14. Oral Abstracts Evaluation

  1 = Poor 2 = Fair 3 = Good 4 = Very Good 5 = Excellent
Scientific quality
Time for Discussion

* 15. Please rate the importance of the following in choosing to attend the Scientific Sessions:

  1 = Not at all 2 = Not very 3 = Somewhat 4 = Very 5 = Extremely
Topics
State-of-the-art lectures/abstracts
Speaker's reputations
CME credit
Program schedule
Meet with colleagues

* 16. Please rate the importance of the following in choosing to attend the Scientific Sessions:

  1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th
Topics
State-of-the-art lectures/abstracts
Speakers' reputations
CME Credit
Program Schedule
Meet with colleagues

* 17. Please indicate your level of interest in the following learning formats for CME:

  1 = Very low 2 = Low 3 = Average 4 = High 5 = Very High
Webinar
On-line
Case studies
Panel discussion
Small group discussions
Symposium
Live demonstrations

* 18. Please rate the following in terms of fulfilling your expectations?

  1 = Very low 2 = Low 3 = Average 4 = High 5 = Very High
General organization (registration, etc)
The quality of the meeting website
Clarity and usefulness of the Final Program
Quality of audio-visual systems
The meeting venue (e.g. ease of access, room size, general ambiance) 
Quality of food and coffee during breaks
The city chosen as a location
Quality of the preconference courses
Quality of the lecture sessions
Quality of the case review sessions
Quality of the poster sessions
Quality of oral abstracts
The exhibit area
Networking opportunities during the meeting
Meeting App

* 19. In terms of your practice/research, what topics would you like to see addressed or would be most helpful to you (in other words...what keeps you up at night).

* 20. Professional Specialty (select one only):

* 21. Are you a member of:

* 22. Would you recommend this conference to others:

* 23. What type of pattern would you prefer for the next Annual Meeting?

* 24. Additional comments:

T