Lori L. Bakken

Gender Differences Among Physician–scientists in Self-assessed Abilities to Perform Clinical Research

Purpose. To examine gender differences in physicians’ self-assessed abilities to apply knowledge and skills in six core competencies for success as a clinical investigator. Method. A written questionnaire containing 35 learning objectives was administered to physicians involved in a clinical-research training program at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Between 2000 and 2002, 57 postgraduate trainees (49% women) completed the questionnaire; 40 of the 57 completed the questionnaire a second time after a four-day intensive workshop in clinical research. The main outcome measure was gender differences in ratings for each question answered. Results. Before the workshop, women physicians rated their abilities lower than men rated their own abilities on 22 of 35 learning objectives and women were significantly lower in rating their ability to spend sufficient time developing and advancing their own area of scientific knowledge and research. After the workshop, women rated themselves lower than men rated themselves on 33 of 35 objectives, with significant differences in seven. Women did not rate themselves significantly higher than men rated themselves on any of the 35 objectives assessed. Conclusion. Women physicians consistently rated their abilities to perform or apply knowledge and skills related to clinical research lower than men rated themselves, and a traditional training venue exacerbated these gender differences. This previously unexplored gender difference in self-perceived competency may indicate an additional barrier women face in academic career development and suggests that educational programs incorporate learning activities that address gender differences when training physicians for careers in clinical research.

Coping efficacy and perceived family support: potential factors for reducing stress in premedical students.

Objective  This study investigated the relationship between perceived family support and coping efficacy in premedical (i.e. prior to entering medical school) students, an understudied subset of undergraduate students who are particularly at risk for academia‐ related stress. The relationships between students’ perceived academic coping abilities and their academic behaviours and experiences of stress have been considered within the vocational literature. However, an understanding of factors that inform coping efficacy beliefs is lacking.

Who are physician-scientists' role models? Gender makes a difference.

Purpose To determine for educational purposes whether differences exist in the role models physician–scientists-in-training or in their early years of career development envision when they self-assess their abilities to perform clinical research. Method A 35-item clinical research self-efficacy questionnaire was administered to 251 health care professionals who attended programs at the University of Wisconsin-Madison from 2002–2004. Three questions were included to determine the sex, role, and qualities of the expert that are envisioned by participants. Frequency distributions were computed for each response and variables were compared by gender using chi-square analysis and Fisher exact test. Results Ninety-five physicians-in-training and junior faculty physicians responded to the questionnaire. Seventy-one percent of female and 95% of male respondents reported their envisioned experts to be male. The most frequently reported role of the envisioned expert was that of a mentor who was a faculty member in the respondents own department (72% women, 60% men). The three most frequently reported qualities of the envisioned expert were “multiple publications,” “scientific knowledge,” and “supportiveness.” However, women more frequently reported “communication skills” and “problem-solving abilities” than did men. This difference was statistically significant and largely due to the frequency of qualities selected by women whose envisioned expert was female. Conclusions The results of this study emphasized the importance of a role models gender in the career development of physician–scientists.

Effects of an educational intervention on female biomedical scientists' research self-efficacy

Women and people of color continue to be underrepresented among biomedical researchers to an alarming degree. Research interest and subsequent productivity have been shown to be affected by the research training environment through the mediating effects of research self-efficacy. This article presents the findings of a study to determine whether a short-term research training program coupled with an efficacy enhancing intervention for novice female biomedical scientists of diverse racial backgrounds would increase their research self-efficacy beliefs. Forty-three female biomedical scientists were randomized into a control or intervention group and 15 men participated as a control group. Research self-efficacy significantly increased for women who participated in the self-efficacy intervention workshop. Research self-efficacy within each group also significantly increased following the short-term research training program, but cross-group comparisons were not significant. These findings suggest that educational interventions that target sources of self-efficacy and provide domain-specific learning experiences are effective at increasing research self-efficacy for women and men. Further studies are needed to determine the longitudinal outcomes of this effort.

Evaluations of Educational Interventions: Getting Them Published and Increasing Their Impact

Advancing the evidence base that informs educational research and practice must include studies with both randomized and nonrandomized designs.1–3 Although experimental designs produce results with a high level of internal validity, randomization and strict controls are not always feasible when evaluating the impact of an educational intervention, and experimental study designs are not suited for answering all evaluation questions, especially when the aim is to produce practical knowledge for immediate use.4 Many reports of evaluations of educational interventions—especially those employing nonrandomized designs, which have methods and reporting conventions that are less standardized—are submitted to JCEHP with significant shortcomings and, as a result, go unpublished or require extensive revisions. In some cases, this reflects shortcomings in the study design; in others, the problem lies more with how the study was initially written up. This is unfortunate for several reasons, not the least of which is the investment in time and effort authors invest in preparing manuscripts for submission. There is currently little guidance specifically for reporting evaluations of continuing education interventions. There are guidelines on reporting innovations in medical school curricula,5 quality improvement projects in health care organizations,6 nonrandomized evaluations of public health interventions,1 and evaluation studies of health promotion

A Course Model for Building Evaluation Capacity Through a University–Community Partnership

Program evaluation is recognized as an essential skill set for practitioners in service-related fields, such as education, nonprofit management, social work, and public health. Recently, the need for a public workforce trained in evaluation has increased and is driven primarily by our nation’s emphasis on accountability during a time when financial resources are limited. However, many of these professionals lack the necessary skills to conduct evaluations of their programs and often rely on a much smaller number of evaluation consultants to perform this task. How then can we educate students and professionals in ways that build evaluation capacity among service organizations and meet these growing needs? A novel course design that integrates principles of adult learning, participatory evaluation approaches, and experiential forms of learning to build evaluation capacity among students and a nonprofit organization is presented. Evidence is provided to demonstrate student learning and the impact of the course on the nonprofit service organization’s evaluation capacity.

Increasing Sex and Ethnic/Racial Diversity of Researchers in Aging: Some Promising Strategies at the Postdoctoral Level

To increase recruitment of a diverse pool of women into research careers in aging, a postdoctoral training program was designed based on the premise that women would be attracted to a research training program that focused on older women’s health; offered an individualized, competency-based career development plan; could commit multiple years of financial support; and provided career mentorship by senior women faculty and that ethnic/racial minority women would be attracted to a research training program that, in addition to these other aspects, focused on the study of health differences and disparities between populations of older women. All 15 trainees have been women, and since focusing on health disparities, recruitment of underrepresented minority trainees increased from 10% to 80%. Of the nine former trainees, five continue researchbased academic careers in aging with demonstrable success in achieving academic benchmarks. Focusing on areas of research with personal relevance to applicants and individualizing the program can be used to recruit diverse postdoctoral fellows in aging research. Short-term career outcomes indicate that career persistence of trainees compares favorably with that in other National Institutes of Health (NIH) postdoctoral training programs.

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.

Development and testing of the Clinical Research Appraisal Inventory-Short Form.

Background and Purpose: The National Academy of Sciences stressed the need for a doctorally prepared workforce and earlier entry into doctoral study in nursing and the behavioral, social, and basic sciences. Social Cognitive Career Theory (SCCT) suggests that self-efficacy for career related skills informs career choices. Thus, increasing clinical research self-efficacy early in students’ studies could increase their choice of a research career. To test interventions, a psychometrically sound measure of clinical research self-efficacy is needed. Methods: We examined the psychometrics of the Clinical Research Appraisal Inventory-Short Form (CRAI-SF) in undergraduate and first-year graduate students (N = 268). This scale is a modification of the Clinical Research Appraisal Inventory, which measures physician–scientists’ clinical research self-efficacy. Results: Content validity was supported by external review. Factor analysis revealed six factors explaining 75% of scale variance. Internal consistency of subscales and total scale ranged from .84 to .98. Differences in scores by gender (p = .016) and discipline of study (p = .000) supported construct validity. Conclusions: The CRAI-SF is a useful measure of undergraduate and first-year graduate students’ perceived clinical research self-efficacy.