Measuring collaboration and transdisciplinary integration in team science.

PURPOSE: As the science of team science evolves, the development of measures that assess important processes related to working in transdisciplinary teams is critical. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to present the psychometric properties of scales measuring collaborative processes and transdisciplinary integration. METHODS: Two hundred-sixteen researchers and research staff participating in the Transdisciplinary Tobacco Use Research Centers (TTURC) Initiative completed the TTURC researcher survey. Confirmatory-factor analyses were used to verify the hypothesized factor structures. Descriptive data pertinent to these scales and their associations with other constructs were included to further examine the properties of the scales. RESULTS: Overall, the hypothesized-factor structures, with some minor modifications, were validated. A total of four scales were developed, three to assess collaborative processes (satisfaction with the collaboration, impact of collaboration, trust and respect) and one to assess transdisciplinary integration. All scales were found to have adequate internal consistency (i.e., Cronbach alpha's were all >0.70); were correlated with intermediate markers of collaborations (e.g., the collaboration and transdisciplinary-integration scales were positively associated with the perception of a center's making good progress in creating new methods, new science and models, and new interventions); and showed some ability to detect group differences. CONCLUSIONS: This paper provides valid tools that can be utilized to examine the underlying processes of team science--an important step toward advancing the science of team science.

The collaboration readiness of transdisciplinary research teams and centers findings from the National Cancer Institute's TREC Year-One evaluation study.

Growing interest in promoting cross-disciplinary collaboration among health scientists has prompted several federal agencies, including the NIH, to establish large, multicenter initiatives intended to foster collaborative research and training. In order to assess whether these initiatives are effective in promoting scientific collaboration that ultimately results in public health improvements, it is necessary to develop new strategies for evaluating research processes and products as well as the longer-term societal outcomes associated with these programs. Ideally, evaluative measures should be administered over the entire course of large initiatives, including their near-term and later phases. The present study focuses on the development of new tools for assessing the readiness for collaboration among health scientists at the outset (during the first year) of their participation in the National Cancer Institute's Transdisciplinary Research on Energetics and Cancer (TREC) initiative. Indexes of collaborative readiness, along with additional measures of near-term collaborative processes, were administered as part of the TREC Year-One evaluation survey. Additionally, early progress toward scientific collaboration and integration was assessed, using a protocol for evaluating written research products. Results from the Year-One survey and the ratings of written products provide evidence of cross-disciplinary collaboration among participants during the first year of the initiative, and also reveal opportunities for enhancing collaborative processes and outcomes during subsequent phases of the project. The implications of these findings for future evaluations of team science initiatives are discussed.

Moving the science of team science forward: collaboration and creativity.

Teams of scientists representing diverse disciplines are often brought together for purposes of better understanding and, ultimately, resolving urgent public health and environmental problems. Likewise, the emerging field of the science of team science draws on diverse disciplinary perspectives to better understand and enhance the processes and outcomes of scientific collaboration. In this supplement to the American Journal of Preventive Medicine, leading scholars in the nascent field of team science have come together with a common goal of advancing the field with new models, methods, and measures. This summary article highlights key themes reflected in the supplement and identifies several promising directions for future research organized around the following broad challenges: (1) operationalizing cross-disciplinary team science and training more clearly; (2) conceptualizing the multiple dimensions of readiness for team science; (3) ensuring the sustainability of transdisciplinary team science; (4) developing more effective models and strategies for training transdisciplinary scientists; (5) creating and validating improved models, methods, and measures for evaluating team science; and (6) fostering transdisciplinary cross-sector partnerships. A call to action is made to leaders from the research, funding, and practice sectors to embrace strategies of creativity and innovation in a collective effort to move the field forward, which may not only advance the science of team science but, ultimately, public health science and practice.

The science of team science: overview of the field and introduction to the supplement.

The science of team science encompasses an amalgam of conceptual and methodologic strategies aimed at understanding and enhancing the outcomes of large-scale collaborative research and training programs. This field has emerged rapidly in recent years, largely in response to growing concerns about the cost effectiveness of public- and private-sector investments in team-based science and training initiatives. The distinctive boundaries and substantive concerns of this field, however, have remained difficult to discern. An important challenge for the field is to characterize the science of team science more clearly in terms of its major theoretical, methodologic, and translational concerns. The articles in this supplement address this challenge, especially in the context of designing, implementing, and evaluating cross-disciplinary research initiatives. This introductory article summarizes the major goals and organizing themes of the supplement, draws links between the constituent articles, and identifies new areas of study within the science of team science.

The ecology of team science: understanding contextual influences on transdisciplinary collaboration.

Increased public and private investments in large-scale team science initiatives over the past two decades have underscored the need to better understand how contextual factors influence the effectiveness of transdisciplinary scientific collaboration. Toward that goal, the findings from four distinct areas of research on team performance and collaboration are reviewed: (1) social psychological and management research on the effectiveness of teams in organizational and institutional settings; (2) studies of cyber-infrastructures (i.e., computer-based infrastructures) designed to support transdisciplinary collaboration across remote research sites; (3) investigations of community-based coalitions for health promotion; and (4) studies focusing directly on the antecedents, processes, and outcomes of scientific collaboration within transdisciplinary research centers and training programs. The empirical literature within these four domains reveals several contextual circumstances that either facilitate or hinder team performance and collaboration. A typology of contextual influences on transdisciplinary collaboration is proposed as a basis for deriving practical guidelines for designing, managing, and evaluating successful team science initiatives.

Child and caregiver psychosocial functioning in pediatric immunodeficiency disorders.

BACKGROUND: Children with chronic illness have been found to be at an increased risk of behavioral and emotional difficulties. To date, children with pediatric immunodeficiency disorders (PIDDs) and their families have not been the focus of extensive published psychosocial research. OBJECTIVE: To determine if children with PIDDs and their caregivers have altered psychosocial function and whether the severity of the PIDD was associated with such difficulties. METHODS: Twenty children with PIDDs and 20 children with asthma were recruited for this study. Children and their caregivers completed various psychosocial questionnaire forms. Responses were compared with normative data for the appropriate measure and with other variables. RESULTS: Higher frequencies of children with PIDDs were found to have a number of elevated psychosocial concerns when contrasted with normative data, particularly from parent report. These concerns included depression, anxiety, somatization, social withdrawal, and social skills. The severity of the PIDDs was significantly associated with a number of behavioral adjustment issues, including receiving psychiatric diagnoses and special education services. Although children with PIDDs had significantly more psychiatric diagnoses than did asthmatic children, these groups did not differ significantly on questionnaire scores regarding child or caregiver psychosocial adjustment. CONCLUSIONS: Children with PIDDs have significant behavioral problems. Children receiving intravenous immunoglobulin or immunomodulatory treatments were reported to have more problems than children not receiving them. This study highlights the need for further research in psychosocial functioning of children with PIDDs in an effort to develop interventions to promote their overall adjustment.

Stress management for dental students performing their first pediatric restorative procedure.

Research has demonstrated that dental students experience considerable stress during their training. Students' anxiety is likely to be especially high when they perform their first pediatric restorative procedure. The aims of this study were to provide a description of dental students' level of anxiety and typical coping strategies and to evaluate the use of a distress management intervention for reducing anxiety around their first pediatric restorative procedure. Dental students were randomly assigned to either an Anxiety Management or an Attention Control group. The management group received training on relaxation strategies (i.e., deep breathing, progressive muscle relaxation). The control group attended a lecture on the relation among stress, anxiety, and health. No significant differences were found between group levels of anxiety related to their first pediatric restorative procedure. Information is provided on students' reported level of anxiety and general coping strategies. Limitations of the current study and suggestions for future research are provided.