Georgeanna F.W.B. Robinson

Understanding career success and its contributing factors for clinical and translational investigators

Purpose To understand the factors that facilitate career success for career development awardees in clinical and translational science and reconceptualize understand ing of career success for this population. Method In 2013–2014, the authors conducted semistructured interviews with former NIH KL2 or K12 scholars from nine Clinical and Translational Science Award–funded institutions. Participants either had or had not secured independent funding at least two years after the end of their last K award. Questions covered the factors that facilitate or hinder junior investigators’ transition to independent funding. Interviews were recorded and transcribed, and the transcripts were analyzed thematically. Results Forty individuals participated, with equal representation by men and women and by independently and not independently funded investigators. Personal factors that facilitated success included networks, persistence and resilience, initiative, autonomy, and personal and professional balance. Organizational factors included appropriate mentorship, protected research time, and institutional resources and support. Even independently funded participants described challenges regarding career direction. Five participants without independent funding modeled a broad spectrum of successful career paths, having assumed leadership positions not reliant on grant funding. Alternative definitions of career success included improving public health, enjoying work, seeing mentees succeed, and receiving external acknowledgment of successes. Conclusions Awareness of the factors that facilitate or hinder career success can help junior faculty, mentors, and institutional leaders support career development in clinical and translational science. New definitions of career success are needed, as are career paths for faculty who want to engage in research in roles other than principal investigator.

Development, implementation, and evaluation of an interprofessional course in translational research.

The advancement of research from basic science discovery to clinical application requires the extensive collaboration of individuals from multiple disciplines, therefore the ability to work as an effective interprofessional team is essential for researchers in clinical and translational science (CTS). Courses that build interprofessional skills are a key component in CTS education, but the development of these courses poses numerous administrative and educational challenges. This paper describes the processes of designing, implementing, and evaluating an innovative graduate‐level course that combines online lectures and in‐class facilitated group discussions to promote interprofessional interactions. The course offers students the opportunity to interact with and learn from individuals in a variety of disciplines, and it requires students to engage in interprofessional group work to meet the course objectives. During the past 4 years, 96 students from the schools of medicine, pharmacy, nursing, public health, and health and rehabilitation sciences at a large urban university have completed the course. The course has been well‐received, with 87% of students rating its overall quality as excellent, good, or satisfactory. The course offers educators a model to teach graduate students the skills that are essential for becoming effective CTS researchers. Clin Trans Sci 2012; Volume #: 1–7

A Shortened Version of the Clinical Research Appraisal Inventory: CRAI-12

Purpose The original Clinical Research Appraisal Inventory (CRAI), which assesses the self-confidence of trainees in performing different aspects of clinical research, comprises 92 items. Completing the lengthy CRAI is time-consuming and represents a considerable burden to respondents, yet the CRAI provides useful data for evaluating research training programs. The purpose of this study is to develop a shortened version of the CRAI and to test its validity and reliability. Method Trainees in clinical research degree and career development programs at the University of Pittsburgh’s Institute for Clinical Research Education completed the 92-item CRAI between 2007 and 2012, inclusive. The authors conducted, first, exploratory factor analysis on a training dataset (2007–2010) to reduce the number of items and, then, confirmatory factor analyses on a testing dataset (2011–2012) to test the psychometric properties of the shortened version. Results Of 546 trainees, 394 (72%) provided study data. Exploratory factor analysis revealed six distinct factors, and confirmatory factor analysis identified the two items with the highest loadings per factor, for a total of 12 items. Cronbach alpha for the six new factors ranged from 0.80 to 0.94. Factors in the 12-item CRAI were strongly and significantly associated with factors in the 92-item CRAI; correlations ranged from 0.82 to0.96 (P < .001 for each). Conclusions The 12-item CRAI is faster and less burdensome to complete but retains the strong psychometric properties of the original CRAI.

Doctoral programs to train future leaders in clinical and translational science.

Purpose Although the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has made extensive investments in educational programs related to clinical and translational science (CTS), there has been no systematic investigation of the number and characteristics of PhD programs providing training to future leaders in CTS. The authors undertook to determine the number of institutions that, having had received NIH-funded Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSAs), currently had or were developing PhD programs in CTS; to examine differences between programs developed before and after CTSA funding; and to provide detailed characteristics of new programs. Method In 2012, CTS program leaders at the 60 CTSA-funded institutions completed a cross-sectional survey focusing on four key domains related to PhD programs in CTS: program development and oversight; students; curriculum and research; and milestones. Results Twenty-two institutions had fully developed PhD programs in CTS, and 268 students were earning PhDs in this new field; 13 institutions were planning PhD programs. New programs were more likely to have fully developed PhD competencies and more likely to include students in medical school, students working only on their PhD, students working on a first doctoral degree, and students working in T1 translational research. They were less likely to include physicians and students working in clinical or T2 research. Conclusions Although CTS PhD programs have similarities, they also vary in their characteristics and management of students. This may be due to diversity in translational science itself or to the relative infancy of CTS as a discipline.

Advancing knowledge and research: developing a doctoral program in clinical and translational science.

In an emerging field, such as clinical and translational science, questions of purpose and educational philosophy are crucial to consider as programs, competencies, and milestones are developed and become generally accepted as broad national standards. This article outlines issues to be taken into account as curricula are planned, implemented, and evaluated. It also discusses how philosophy, competencies, and assessments, including milestones, must be intertwined purposefully, with careful attention paid to the integration of knowledge, skills, and attitudes. Clin Trans Sci 2011; Volume 4: 359–362

Assessing Competencies in a Master of Science in Clinical Research Program: The Comprehensive Competency Review

Competencies in Master of Science Clinical Research programs are becoming increasingly common. However, students and programs can only benefit fully from competency‐based education if students’ competence is formally assessed. Prior to a summative assessment, students must have at least one formative, formal assessment to be sure they are developing competence appropriate for their stage of training. This paper describes the comprehensive competency review (CCR), a milestone for MS students in Clinical Research at the University of Pittsburghs Institute for Clinical Research Education. The CCR involves metacognitive reflection of the students learning as a whole, written evidence of each competency, a narrative explaining the choice of evidence for demonstrating competencies, and a meeting in which two faculty members review the evidence and solicit further oral evidence of competence. CCRs allow for individualized feedback at the midpoint in degree programs, providing students with confidence that they will have the means and strategies to develop competence in all areas by the summative assessment of competence at their thesis defense. CCRs have also provided programmatic insight on the need for curricular revisions and additions. These benefits outweigh the time cost on the part of students and faculty in the CCR process.

Measurement of Social Capital among Clinical Research Trainees

While physical and human capital are established as important predictors of success among early‐career clinical investigators, less is known about the role of social capital. The authors aimed to develop a brief scale to assess social capital in this population and test its reliability and validity. A three‐item assessment was developed based on a conceptual framework and measures of social capital from other fields and was administered to 414 clinical research trainees at the University of Pittsburgh in 2007–2012. The measure exhibited good internal consistency reliability (α = 0.71) and a normal distribution. On a 10‐point scale, mean social capital was 6.4 (SD = 1.7). Social capital was significantly associated with 7 of the 9 expected constructs: sex, age, confidence in research skills, work‐related motivation, burnout, and social support. Exploratory multivariable regression analysis demonstrated that social capital was most strongly associated with higher research confidence (β = 0.35, p < 0.001), higher extrinsic motivation (β = 0.50, p = 0.003), and lower burnout (ptrend = 0.02). This three‐item scale measures social capital in this population with adequate internal consistency reliability, face validity, and construct validity. This brief assessment provides a tool that may be valuable to benchmark social capital of clinical research trainees and to better contextualize programmatic and trainee outcomes.

Shortening the Work Preference Inventory for Use with Physician Scientists: WPI-10

The Work Preference Inventory (WPI) is a four‐factor, 30‐item measure that assesses work motivation. Used to help individuals choose appropriate career paths, its length contributes to response burden, especially when combined with other measures. We aimed to develop a shortened, valid, and reliable version of the WPI. Trainees at the University of Pittsburghs Institute for Clinical Research Education completed the 30‐item WPI between 2007 and 2012. We conducted exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses to reduce the number of items. Of the 402 eligible trainees, 371 (92%) provided data for the exploratory factor analysis (EFA), and 134 of the eligible 144 trainees (93%) provided data for the confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). EFA revealed four factors that were roughly equivalent to those of the original. CFA used the three items with the highest loadings on each factor, with two items removed due to low loadings and R‐squareds, resulting in a 10‐item scale. Cronbachs alpha for each of the four factors ranged from 0.68 to 0.76. Factors in the WPI‐10 were strongly and significantly associated with factors in the original WPI, indicating strong validity of the shortened measure. The WPI‐10 shows evidence for similar validity and reliability to the original instrument while reducing respondent burden.

Characterization of investigators' approach to translational research: a qualitative study.

Little is known about how investigators approach their research programs along the translational research continuum. Many consider the translational continuum to be linear, with research beginning at the bench and concluding with research at the bedside or in the community. We aimed to understand if translational investigators approach and view their research in this fashion.

Creating effective career development programs

Abstract This paper is the fourth in a 5-part series that focuses on educating and training the clinical and translational science workforce. The goal of this paper is to delineate components of effective career development programs that go beyond didactic training. All academic health centers with a Clinical and Translational Science Award have a KL2 career development award for junior faculty, and many also have a TL1 training program for predoctoral and postdoctoral fellows. The training across these programs varies, however junior investigators across the United States experience similar challenges. Junior investigators can get overwhelmed with the demands of building their own research program, particularly in academia. 1Often, they are sidetracked by competing demands that can derail their progress. In these situations, junior investigators experience frustration and may search for alternative career paths. By providing them with additional professional skills in the 5 domains of: (1) self-awareness; (2) selecting the right topic and securing funding; (3) getting adequate support; (4) working with others; and (5) managing yourself, your career, and your demands. We will give junior investigators additional tools to manage these demands and facilitate their own career success.