Measuring quality and outcomes of research collaborations: An integrative review
Authors
Tigges, Beth B.Miller, Doriane
Dudding, Katherine M.
Balls-Berry, Joyce E.
Borawski, Elaine A.
Dave, Gaurav
Hafer, Nathaniel
Kimminau, Kim S.
Kost, Rhonda G.
Littlefield, Kimberly
Shannon, Jackilen
Menon, Usha
UMass Chan Affiliations
Center for Clinical and Translational ScienceDocument Type
Journal ArticlePublication Date
2019-10-11Keywords
UMCCTS fundingTeam science
instrument development
measures
outcome measure
psychometrics
research collaboration
research evaluation
research process measure
scientific collaboration
teamwork
Translational Medical Research
Metadata
Show full item recordAbstract
Introduction: Although the science of team science is no longer a new field, the measurement of team science and its standardization remain in relatively early stages of development. To describe the current state of team science assessment, we conducted an integrative review of measures of research collaboration quality and outcomes. Methods: Collaboration measures were identified using both a literature review based on specific keywords and an environmental scan. Raters abstracted details about the measures using a standard tool. Measures related to collaborations with clinical care, education, and program delivery were excluded from this review. Results: We identified 44 measures of research collaboration quality, which included 35 measures with reliability and some form of statistical validity reported. Most scales focused on group dynamics. We identified 89 measures of research collaboration outcomes; 16 had reliability and 15 had a validity statistic. Outcome measures often only included simple counts of products; publications rarely defined how counts were delimited, obtained, or assessed for reliability. Most measures were tested in only one venue. Conclusions: Although models of collaboration have been developed, in general, strong, reliable, and valid measurements of such collaborations have not been conducted or accepted into practice. This limitation makes it difficult to compare the characteristics and impacts of research teams across studies or to identify the most important areas for intervention. To advance the science of team science, we provide recommendations regarding the development and psychometric testing of measures of collaboration quality and outcomes that can be replicated and broadly applied across studies.Source
J Clin Transl Sci. 2019 Oct 11;3(5):261-289. doi: 10.1017/cts.2019.402. eCollection 2019 Oct. Link to article on publisher's site
DOI
10.1017/cts.2019.402Permanent Link to this Item
http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14038/41231PubMed ID
31660251Related Resources
Rights
© The Association for Clinical and Translational Science 2019. This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.Distribution License
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ae974a485f413a2113503eed53cd6c53
10.1017/cts.2019.402
Scopus Count
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as © The Association for Clinical and Translational Science 2019. This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Related items
Showing items related by title, author, creator and subject.
-
"Our lab is the community": Defining essential supporting infrastructure in engagement researchNease, Donald E. Jr.; Burton, Dee; Cutrona, Sarah L.; Edmundson, Lauren; Krist, Alex H.; Laws, Michael Barton; Tamez, Montelle (2018-08-01)Introduction: Effective patient engagement is central to patient-centered outcomes research. A well-designed infrastructure supports and facilitates patient engagement, enabling study development and implementation. We sought to understand infrastructure needs from recipients of Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) pilot grant awards. Methods: We surveyed recipients of PCORI pilot project awards on self-perceived strengths in engagement infrastructure through PCORI's Ways of Engaging-Engagement Activity Tool survey, and interviewed leaders of 8 projects who volunteered as exemplars. Descriptive statistics summarized the survey findings. We conducted a thematic analysis of the interview transcripts. Results: Of the 50 surveyed pilots, 22 answered the engagement infrastructure questions (44% response rate). Survey and interview findings emphasized the importance of committed institutional leadership, ongoing relationships with stakeholder organizations, and infrastructure funding through Clinical and Translational Science Awards, PCORI, and institutional discretionary funds. Conclusions: These findings highlight the importance of and how to improve upon existing institutional infrastructure.
-
Training in the Conduct of Population-Based Multi-Site and Multi-Disciplinary Studies: the Cancer Research Network's Scholars ProgramBuist, Diana S. M.; Field, Terry S.; Banegas, Matthew P.; Clancy, Heather A.; Doria-Rose, V. Paul; Epstein, Mara M; Greenlee, Robert T.; McDonald, Sarah; Nichols, Hazel B.; Pawloski, Pamala A.; et al. (2015-10-22)Expanding research capacity of large research networks within health care delivery systems requires strategically training both embedded and external investigators in necessary skills for this purpose. Researchers new to these settings frequently lack the skills and specialized knowledge conducive to multi-site and multi-disciplinary research set in delivery systems. This report describes the goals and components of the Cancer Research Network (CRN) Scholars Program, a 26-month training program developed to increase the capacity for cancer research conducted within the network's participating sites, its progression from training embedded investigators to a mix of internal and external investigators, and the content evolution of the training program. The CRN Scholars program was launched in 2007 to assist junior investigators from member sites develop independent and sustainable research programs within the CRN. Resulting from CRN's increased emphasis on promoting external collaborations, the 2013 Scholars program began recruiting junior investigators from external institutions committed to conducting delivery system science. Based on involvement of this broader population and feedback from prior Scholar cohorts, the program has honed its focus on specific opportunities and issues encountered in conducting cancer research within health care delivery systems. Efficiency and effectiveness of working within networks is accelerated by strategic and mentored navigation of these networks. Investing in training programs specific to these settings provides the opportunity to improve multi-disciplinary and multi-institutional collaboration, particularly for early-stage investigators. Aspects of the CRN Scholars Program may help inform others considering developing similar programs to expand delivery system research or within large, multi-disciplinary research networks.
-
Commonly used data-collection approaches in clinical researchSaczynski, Jane S.; McManus, David D.; Goldberg, Robert J. (2013-11-01)We provide an overview of the different data-collection approaches that are commonly used in carrying out clinical, public health, and translational research. We discuss several of the factors that researchers need to consider in using data collected in questionnaire surveys, from proxy informants, through the review of medical records, and in the collection of biologic samples. We hope that the points raised in this overview will lead to the collection of rich and high-quality data in observational studies and randomized controlled trials.