SSIB 2009 Post-Conference Survey
SSIB 2009 Post-Conference Survey
| 1. Please rate the conference overall | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| best possible | worst possible | Rating Average | Response Count | ||||
| Overall Rating | 18.2% (28) | 64.9% (100) | 15.6% (24) | 0.6% (1) | 0.6% (1) | 2.01 | 154 |
| 2. Did you like the how talks from the two tracks (Integrative Physiology and Behavioral/Social/Clinical were integrated in the programming avoiding as much as possible separate competing sessions? | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Response Percent | Response Count | ||
| Yes |  | 83.3% | 125 |
| No | | 16.7% | 25 |
| 3. Would you prefer to segregate the two tracks more (have more sessions devoted only to track 1 or track 2 topics, running simultaneously) or keep the organization more as it was in Portland (mixing of track 1 and track 2 papers within sessions)? | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Response Percent | Response Count | ||
| more homogeneous tracks | | 34.2% | 52 |
| keep it as it is | | 65.8% | 100 |
| 4. Quality and content of Mars Lectures | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| best possible | worst possible | Rating Average | Response Count | ||||
| Overall Rating | 23.5% (35) | 56.4% (84) | 16.8% (25) | 2.7% (4) | 0.7% (1) | 2.01 | 149 |
| 5. Quality and content of the symposia | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| best possible | worst possible | Rating Average | Response Count | ||||
| Overall Rating | 26.0% (39) | 58.0% (87) | 12.7% (19) | 2.7% (4) | 0.7% (1) | 1.94 | 150 |
| 6. Quality and content of the oral sessions | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| best possible | worst possible | Rating Average | Response Count | ||||
| Overall Rating | 26.8% (40) | 55.0% (82) | 14.1% (21) | 3.4% (5) | 0.7% (1) | 1.96 | 149 |
| 7. Number of symposia and plenary lectures, session structure and schedule, topics that you missed or you think were underrepresented, topics that were over-represented, etc.) | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| best possible | worst possible | Rating Average | Response Count | ||||
| Overall Rating | 18.1% (25) | 55.1% (76) | 18.8% (26) | 6.5% (9) | 1.4% (2) | 2.18 | 138 |
| 8. Poster sessions (e.g. time available for poster viewing, facility, lighting, availability of food/wine, presence of authors, quality of posters, etc). Obviously the Benson Hotel layout was challenging with the poster sessions split between between 3 floors, but please let us know any other comments. | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| best possible | worst possible | Rating Average | Response Count | ||||
| Overall Rating | 10.8% (16) | 40.5% (60) | 23.0% (34) | 20.9% (31) | 4.7% (7) | 2.68 | 148 |
| 9. MEETING ROOMS (e.g. size, lighting conditions, technical features, comfort, accessibility and distance between the meeting rooms, etc. | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| best possible | worst possible | Rating Average | Response Count | ||||
| Overall Rating | 14.3% (21) | 45.6% (67) | 29.3% (43) | 10.2% (15) | 0.7% (1) | 2.37 | 147 |
| 10. ACCOMMODATIONS AND MEALS (e.g. quality, value for money, opening reception, banquet, availability of other food sources, etc.) | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| best possible | worst possible | Rating Average | Response Count | ||||
| Overall Rating | 19.9% (29) | 52.1% (76) | 23.3% (34) | 3.4% (5) | 1.4% (2) | 2.14 | 146 |
| 11. OTHER ITEMS (e.g. importance of social program, quality of transportation, recreation, importance of free afternoons, proximity to restaurants, etc.) | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| best possible | worst possible | Rating Average | Response Count | ||||
| Overall Rating | 24.1% (35) | 46.2% (67) | 24.8% (36) | 3.4% (5) | 1.4% (2) | 2.12 | 145 |
| 12. The Program Committee is considering having a plenary session on translational research in ingestive behavior at our next meeting. This plenary would address ways of shrinking the gaps between animal integrative physiological research and human biobehavioral and applied research, an endeavor that appears to be increasingly valued by NIH. Two or three SSIB (and non-SSIB) speaker from track 1 and track 2 areas would give brief perspectives on how to bridge these areas and a translational expert from NIH would be invited to comment on these talks before opening up discussion to the audience. Please rate your degree of interest in having such a plenary and add in suggestions you might have for shaping it. | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| very interested | not at all interested | Rating Average | Response Count | ||||
| Your Rating | 60.5% (89) | 25.2% (37) | 9.5% (14) | 2.7% (4) | 2.0% (3) | 1.61 | 147 |