Transition to Independence: Characteristics and Outcomes of Mentored Career Development (KL2) Scholars at Clinical and Translational Science Award Institutions.

PURPOSE: To describe the transition from mentored to independent research funding for clinical and translational scholars supported by institutional KL2 Mentored Career Development programs. METHOD: In 2013, faculty leaders at Clinical and Translational Science Award institutions completed an online survey, reporting characteristics of scholars in their KL2 programs from 2006 to 2013. The primary outcome variable was a report that the scholar had received independent funding as a principal investigator. Data analysis included descriptive summaries and mixed-effects regression models. RESULTS: Respondents from 48 institutions (of 62 eligible; 77%) provided information about 914 KL2 scholars. Of those, 620 (68%) were medical doctors, 114 (12%) had other clinical training, and 177 (19%) were nonclinician PhDs. Fifty-three percent (487) were female; 12% (108/865) were members of racial or ethnic groups underrepresented in medicine (URM). After completing KL2 training, 96% (558/582) remained engaged in research. Among scholars who completed KL2 training two or more years earlier, 39% (149/374) received independent funding. Independent funding was from non-National Institutes of Health (NIH) sources (120 scholars) more often than from NIH (101 scholars). The odds of a nonclinician attaining independent funding were twice those of a clinician (odds ratio 2.05; 95% confidence interval 1.11-3.78). Female and URM scholars were as likely as male and non-URM scholars to attain independent funding. CONCLUSIONS: KL2 programs supported the transition to independent funding for clinical and translational scientists. Female and URM scholars were well represented. Future studies should consider non-NIH funding sources when assessing the transition to research independence.

Individual motivation and threat indicators of collaboration readiness in scientific knowledge producing teams: a scoping review and domain analysis.

This paper identifies a gap in the team science literature that considers intrapersonal indicators of collaboration as motivations and threats to participating in collaborative knowledge producing teams (KPTs). Through a scoping review process, over 150 resources were consulted to organize 6 domains of motivation and threat to collaboration in KPTs: Resource Acquisition, Advancing Science, Building Relationships, Knowledge Transfer, Recognition and Reward, and Maintenance of Beliefs. Findings show how domains vary in their presentation of depth and diversity of motivation and threat indicators as well as their relationship with each other within and across domains. The findings of 51 indicators resulting from the review provide a psychosocial framework for which to establish a hierarchy of collaborative reasoning for individual engagement in KPTs thus allowing for further research into the mechanism of collaborative engagement. The indicators serve as a preliminary step in establishing a protocol for testing of the psychometric properties of intrapersonal measures of collaboration readiness.

Pilot analysis of the Motivation Assessment for Team Readiness, Integration, and Collaboration (MATRICx) using Rasch analysis.

Healthcare services and the production of healthcare knowledge are increasingly dependent on highly functioning, multidisciplinary teams, requiring greater awareness of individuals' readiness to collaborate in translational science teams. Yet, there is no comprehensive tool of individual motivations and threats to collaboration that can guide preparation of individuals for work on well-functioning teams. This prospective pilot study evaluated the preliminary psychometric properties of the Motivation Assessment for Team Readiness, Integration, and Collaboration (MATRICx). We examined 55 items of the MATRICx in a sample of 125 faculty, students and researchers, using contemporary psychometric methods (Rasch analysis). We found that the motivator and threat items formed separate constructs relative to collaboration readiness. Further, respondents who identified themselves as inexperienced at working on collaborative projects defined the motivation construct differently from experienced respondents. These results are consistent with differences in strategic alliances described in the literature-for example, inexperienced respondents reflected features of cooperation and coordination, such as concern with sharing information and compatibility of goals. In contrast, the more experienced respondents were concerned with issues that reflected a collective purpose, more typical of collaborative alliances. While these different types of alliances are usually described as representing varying aspects along a continuum, our findings suggest that collaboration might be better thought of as a qualitatively different state than cooperation or coordination. These results need to be replicated in larger samples, but the findings have implications for the development and design of educational interventions that aim to ready scientists and clinicians for greater interdisciplinary work.

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.

Clinical and translational scientist career success: metrics for evaluation.

Despite the increased emphasis on formal training in clinical and translational research and the growth in the number and scope of training programs over the past decade, the impact of training on research productivity and career success has yet to be fully evaluated at the institutional level. In this article, the Education Evaluation Working Group of the Clinical and Translational Science Award Consortium introduces selected metrics and methods associated with the assessment of key factors that affect research career success. The goals in providing this information are to encourage more consistent data collection across training sites, to foster more rigorous and systematic exploration of factors associated with career success, and to help address previously identified difficulties in program evaluation.