Cargando…

Measuring quality and outcomes of research collaborations: An integrative review

INTRODUCTION: Although the science of team science is no longer a new field, the measurement of team science and its standardization remain in relatively early stages of development. To describe the current state of team science assessment, we conducted an integrative review of measures of research...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Tigges, Beth B., Miller, Doriane, Dudding, Katherine M., Balls-Berry, Joyce E., Borawski, Elaine A., Dave, Gaurav, Hafer, Nathaniel S., Kimminau, Kim S., Kost, Rhonda G., Littlefield, Kimberly, Shannon, Jackilen, Menon, Usha
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Cambridge University Press 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6813516/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31660251
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/cts.2019.402
_version_ 1783462857328820224
author Tigges, Beth B.
Miller, Doriane
Dudding, Katherine M.
Balls-Berry, Joyce E.
Borawski, Elaine A.
Dave, Gaurav
Hafer, Nathaniel S.
Kimminau, Kim S.
Kost, Rhonda G.
Littlefield, Kimberly
Shannon, Jackilen
Menon, Usha
author_facet Tigges, Beth B.
Miller, Doriane
Dudding, Katherine M.
Balls-Berry, Joyce E.
Borawski, Elaine A.
Dave, Gaurav
Hafer, Nathaniel S.
Kimminau, Kim S.
Kost, Rhonda G.
Littlefield, Kimberly
Shannon, Jackilen
Menon, Usha
author_sort Tigges, Beth B.
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: Although the science of team science is no longer a new field, the measurement of team science and its standardization remain in relatively early stages of development. To describe the current state of team science assessment, we conducted an integrative review of measures of research collaboration quality and outcomes. METHODS: Collaboration measures were identified using both a literature review based on specific keywords and an environmental scan. Raters abstracted details about the measures using a standard tool. Measures related to collaborations with clinical care, education, and program delivery were excluded from this review. RESULTS: We identified 44 measures of research collaboration quality, which included 35 measures with reliability and some form of statistical validity reported. Most scales focused on group dynamics. We identified 89 measures of research collaboration outcomes; 16 had reliability and 15 had a validity statistic. Outcome measures often only included simple counts of products; publications rarely defined how counts were delimited, obtained, or assessed for reliability. Most measures were tested in only one venue. CONCLUSIONS: Although models of collaboration have been developed, in general, strong, reliable, and valid measurements of such collaborations have not been conducted or accepted into practice. This limitation makes it difficult to compare the characteristics and impacts of research teams across studies or to identify the most important areas for intervention. To advance the science of team science, we provide recommendations regarding the development and psychometric testing of measures of collaboration quality and outcomes that can be replicated and broadly applied across studies.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6813516
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher Cambridge University Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-68135162019-10-28 Measuring quality and outcomes of research collaborations: An integrative review Tigges, Beth B. Miller, Doriane Dudding, Katherine M. Balls-Berry, Joyce E. Borawski, Elaine A. Dave, Gaurav Hafer, Nathaniel S. Kimminau, Kim S. Kost, Rhonda G. Littlefield, Kimberly Shannon, Jackilen Menon, Usha J Clin Transl Sci Research Article INTRODUCTION: Although the science of team science is no longer a new field, the measurement of team science and its standardization remain in relatively early stages of development. To describe the current state of team science assessment, we conducted an integrative review of measures of research collaboration quality and outcomes. METHODS: Collaboration measures were identified using both a literature review based on specific keywords and an environmental scan. Raters abstracted details about the measures using a standard tool. Measures related to collaborations with clinical care, education, and program delivery were excluded from this review. RESULTS: We identified 44 measures of research collaboration quality, which included 35 measures with reliability and some form of statistical validity reported. Most scales focused on group dynamics. We identified 89 measures of research collaboration outcomes; 16 had reliability and 15 had a validity statistic. Outcome measures often only included simple counts of products; publications rarely defined how counts were delimited, obtained, or assessed for reliability. Most measures were tested in only one venue. CONCLUSIONS: Although models of collaboration have been developed, in general, strong, reliable, and valid measurements of such collaborations have not been conducted or accepted into practice. This limitation makes it difficult to compare the characteristics and impacts of research teams across studies or to identify the most important areas for intervention. To advance the science of team science, we provide recommendations regarding the development and psychometric testing of measures of collaboration quality and outcomes that can be replicated and broadly applied across studies. Cambridge University Press 2019-10-11 /pmc/articles/PMC6813516/ /pubmed/31660251 http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/cts.2019.402 Text en © The Association for Clinical and Translational Science 2019 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Tigges, Beth B.
Miller, Doriane
Dudding, Katherine M.
Balls-Berry, Joyce E.
Borawski, Elaine A.
Dave, Gaurav
Hafer, Nathaniel S.
Kimminau, Kim S.
Kost, Rhonda G.
Littlefield, Kimberly
Shannon, Jackilen
Menon, Usha
Measuring quality and outcomes of research collaborations: An integrative review
title Measuring quality and outcomes of research collaborations: An integrative review
title_full Measuring quality and outcomes of research collaborations: An integrative review
title_fullStr Measuring quality and outcomes of research collaborations: An integrative review
title_full_unstemmed Measuring quality and outcomes of research collaborations: An integrative review
title_short Measuring quality and outcomes of research collaborations: An integrative review
title_sort measuring quality and outcomes of research collaborations: an integrative review
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6813516/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31660251
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/cts.2019.402
work_keys_str_mv AT tiggesbethb measuringqualityandoutcomesofresearchcollaborationsanintegrativereview
AT millerdoriane measuringqualityandoutcomesofresearchcollaborationsanintegrativereview
AT duddingkatherinem measuringqualityandoutcomesofresearchcollaborationsanintegrativereview
AT ballsberryjoycee measuringqualityandoutcomesofresearchcollaborationsanintegrativereview
AT borawskielainea measuringqualityandoutcomesofresearchcollaborationsanintegrativereview
AT davegaurav measuringqualityandoutcomesofresearchcollaborationsanintegrativereview
AT hafernathaniels measuringqualityandoutcomesofresearchcollaborationsanintegrativereview
AT kimminaukims measuringqualityandoutcomesofresearchcollaborationsanintegrativereview
AT kostrhondag measuringqualityandoutcomesofresearchcollaborationsanintegrativereview
AT littlefieldkimberly measuringqualityandoutcomesofresearchcollaborationsanintegrativereview
AT shannonjackilen measuringqualityandoutcomesofresearchcollaborationsanintegrativereview
AT menonusha measuringqualityandoutcomesofresearchcollaborationsanintegrativereview
AT measuringqualityandoutcomesofresearchcollaborationsanintegrativereview