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

BACKGROUND: 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. METHODS: We conducted semistructured individual interviews with 16 graduates of the University of Pittsburgh's Multidisciplinary Clinical Research Scholars Program (KL2) in 2012. RESULTS: Our research revealed three characteristic models. The first model we called "linear" and represented the traditional approach. The second we called "holistic"; these investigators began with central research questions and sought to explore them in every direction of translation, not necessarily taking linear steps. The third model we called "technical"; in this model, investigators focused on a unique technology or methodology and applied it across multiple research contexts. CONCLUSION: This study found that there are multiple ways that translational investigators approach their research program. Better understanding of these models can help educators and mentors guide investigators so that they can be more productive in their clinical or translational research career.

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 Pittsburgh's 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. Cronbach's 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.

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 (ß = 0.35, p < 0.001), higher extrinsic motivation (ß = 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.

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 to 0.96 (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.

A comprehensive career-success model for physician-scientists.

With today's focus on the translation of basic science discoveries into clinical practice, the demand for physician-scientists is growing. Yet, physicians have always found it challenging to juggle the demands of clinical care with the time required to perform research. The Research on Careers Workgroup of the Institute for Clinical Research Education at the University of Pittsburgh developed a comprehensive model for career success that would address, and allow for the evaluation of, the personal factors, organizational factors, and their interplay that contribute to career success. With this model, leaders of training programs could identify early opportunities for intervening with potential physician-scientists to ensure career success. Through an iterative process described in this article, the authors identified and examined potential models for career success from the literature, added other elements determined to be significant, and developed a comprehensive model to assess factors associated with career success for physician-scientists. The authors also present examples of ways in which this model can be adapted and applied to specific situations to assess the effects of different factors on career success.

Burnout among early career clinical investigators.

Burnout is a pervasive problem among clinicians. However, little is known about burnout among early career clinical investigators, who must balance clinical responsibilities with challenges related to research. We aimed to determine the prevalence of and demographic associations with burnout in a cohort of early career clinical investigators. A cross-sectional questionnaire was administered to 179 trainees at the University of Pittsburgh Institute for Clinical Research Education in 2007-2008. We used chi-square analyses and Fisher's exact test to determine whether associations between demographic characteristics and burnout were significant. Of the participants, 29 (16%) reported feeling burned out. Burnout was more prevalent among those over 35 years of age relative to their younger counterparts (29% vs. 13%, p= 0.01) and among females relative to males (22% vs. 10%, p= 0.03). With regard to race and ethnicity, burnout was most common among underrepresented minorities (30%) followed by Caucasians (18%) and Asians (3%); these differences were significant (p= 0.02). Considering the early career status of these research trainees, rates of burnout were concerning. Certain demographic subgroups-including older trainees, females, and underrepresented minorities-had particularly high rates of burnout and may benefit from interventions that provide them with skills needed to sustain successful clinical research careers. Clin Trans Sci 2010; Volume 3: 186-188.