the 5^th "Three Section" Conference in Stockholm
4–6 July 2003

EVALUATION OF THE FIFTH EFPP THREE-SECTION CONFERENCE IN STOCKHOLM 4-6 JULY 2003

A little more than 400 participants from 27 countries took part in the conference. In total 175 persons gave feedback using the Evaluation Form, which was distributed the day before the ending of the conference, as we knew many participants would leave before the ending on Sunday.

Eight questions were formulated and for most of the questions the answer could be given on a 5-degree scale. Some space was open for comments. The most important questions, according to the conference co-ordinator concerned the information about the conference and the administration for the conference including the catering. The content of the programme including the discussion groups had less space in this evaluation, as we wanted to limit the questions to one page.

With regard to the first question, the majority (78 persons) answered that they had learnt about the conference through Colleagues and many through combinations of Colleagues and other alternatives.

The main Other sources mentioned by a number of persons (59 persons) were

1. different local publications, local professional organisations and local arrangements,
2. the EFPP Sections, their national networks and newsletters in some countries, and earlier EFPP conferences.
3. Some had had no earlier experiences of EFPP conferences and had received The First Announcement by mail, through their training programmes etc.

A somewhat smaller group (38 persons) gave the Web site as their main alternative, sometimes as the only source, but mostly in combination with Colleagues.

The main impression is that information through Colleagues was the most important source of information, often in combination with the web site in order to get updated. Important were also the EFPP network and the national network organisations with publications and various sorts of local arrangements including earlier EFPP conferences. The web site had been the main source of information for some, but the general impression is that it served as a support for the other sources,

2. How has the information about the programme been?

The answers to the second question indicate that on the whole most participants thought the information had been quite good (4,5 on a 5 degree scale). Those who used the web site judged this information as better than the First and Second Announcement. The few critical viewpoints concerned the amount of precise information, i.e. a few persons thought that the Second Announcement had not been precise enough. One the whole a conclusion is that the majority found the information about the programme quite good, but it is also clear that many participants had forgotten what they thought about the programme, when they got it. Therefore the web site is to be considered as a very important tool for keeping potential participants updated and to give as precise information as possible, in a way that is easy to read.

3. Has the content been relevant to your work?

Most participants found the content very relevant to their work (most participants rated 4 or 5, and a few gave the rating of 2). Many have appreciated the variety of topics and had made good choices, based on the Abstracts. The critical comments concern the variability in quality. Most of the presentations were judged to be good, but there were also some, which were not. One person suggests that the checking of Abstracts could be tougher and that the chairpersons should be more careful about the timing, so there is enough time for discussion with the audience.

Among the Main Speakers most of answers give the highest score to Maria Rhode and her paper. The presentation on the first day got many high scores, but also some low. Some comments indicate that they have understood the difficulties in taking this presentation and have appreciated it. The presentation the third day was more varied with some persons very appreciative and others less so.

Many participants point out that they missed the written papers for day one and three. Some also comment on that they would have wanted the papers to have a proper list of references. This was especially important for participants, whose first language is not English.

Some write that they wish the presenters would read less from their papers and have more contact with the audience. This applies both to main speakers and other presenters.

About one third of the titles or names of the presenters were mentioned by several participants, and many by at least one person. All Main paper presentations, as well as all Workshop sessions were mentioned by several persons. There were also many comments of a more general nature indicating that the programme as a whole was interesting. This is supported by the number of different presentations mentioned by individual persons.

All four workshops are mentioned, and it seems as if most of those who have answered this question have been to one or at most two of the workshops. The workshops were: Couple and Family Psychotherapy, Infant Observation, Training and Research and Trauma and State Violence. Some participants mention that they would like more about psychosomatic cases. Others point out that their special field of work does not include any of the topics in the workshops.

The Discussion groups were mentioned by many as a very important part of the conference. They helped to integrate the content of the main presentations, and they gave opportunities to explore other things as well. Several participants pointed out the need for the convenors to have enough group experience to enable a good balance in the discussion. And some that had worked as convenors said that they wanted more time for meetings within the time boundaries of the conference. Some participants also wrote extra comments on the discussion groups at the end of the conference, stressing the need for experienced group leaders. Some said that at least one of the group leaders should be from the group section.

The administration before and during the conference was perceived as good or adequate. The hostesses were mentioned by some as very helpful.

The main complaint concerned the catering both at the Conference Centre and at the Gala dinner. At the Conference Centre nearly everybody points out that the lunch was not enough and some found the coffee too weak. At Hasselbacken the arrangements for food with long queues also got critical comments. The price was considered too high for what was served.

The space for free comments was used by many to express gratitude for an well-organised and interesting conference. The introduction about Stockholm and the music in the beginning was appreciated as well as the Gala dinner with the choice of place, the entertainment and the music.

Individual comments concerned i.e. avoid too many lectures, allow for more feedback and group discussions, videos etc. The need for copies of the main papers was mentioned by several. Some wanted to have the papers before the presentation, as it is disturbing to have everybody turning the pages at the same time.

A point raised by several persons was that they had been chair persons in more than one session, and that this had prevented them from exploring areas of specific interest to themselves. This was also mentioned in the last session of the conference as an important issue to be aware of in future conferences.

Stockholm 20^th of July 2003

For The Scientific Committee

Siv Boalt Boëthius

Welcome greetings »»
Summary (with photo's) »»
Report from Discussion Group convenors meetings »»
Evaluation »»

back

last updated: 2018-12-18