The burroughs wellcome career award in the biomedical sciences: Challenges to and prospects for estimating the causal effects of career development programs

Evaluation and the Health Professions

Volumn 31, Issue 4, 2008, Pages 335-369

  Pion, Georgine M ^a   Cordray, David S ^a  

^a VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Career development awards; Causal assessment; Experiments; Propensity score analysis

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; AWARDS AND PRIZES; CAREER MOBILITY; DECISION MAKING; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; MEDICAL RESEARCH; STANDARD;

ADULT; AWARDS AND PRIZES; BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; CAREER CHOICE; CAREER MOBILITY; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE;

EID: 57049169297     PISSN: 01632787     EISSN: 15523918     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0163278708324434     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Armstrong, P.W., Caverson, M.M., Adams, L., Taylor, M., & Olley, P.M. (1997). Evaluation of the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada Research Scholarship Program: Research productivity and impact. Canadian Journal of Cardiology, 13, 507-516.
2. Boruch, R.F. (2003). Randomized experiments for planning and evaluation: A practical guide. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
3. Boruch, R. F., & Mosteller, F. (Eds.). (2001). Evidence matters. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
4. Burroughs Wellcome Fund (BWF). (2005). Annual report of the Burroughs Wellcome Fund. Chapel Hill, NC: Author.
5. Chin, S. (2000). A simple method for converting an odds ratio to effect size for use in meta-analysis. Statistical Medicine, 19, 3127-3131.
6. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2 nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
7. Cordray, D.S., & Morphy, P. (in press). Meta-analysis and public policy. In H. Cooper, L. V. Hedges, & J. Valentine (Eds.), Handbook of research synthesis (2 nd ed.). New York: Russell Sage.
8. Cottingham, P., Maynard, R., & Stagner, M. (2005). Generating and using evidence to guide public policy and practice: Lessons form the Campbell test-bed project. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 1, 279-294.
9. Dehejia, R.H., & Wahba, S. (2002). Propensity score-matching methods for nonexperimental causal studies. Review of Economics and Statistics, 84, 151-161.
10. Dirk, L. (1999). A measure of originality: The elements of science. Social Studies of Science, 29, 765-776.
11. Fanzo, J.C., & Gallin, E.K. (2006). The Doris Duke Clinical Scientist Development Award: A seven-year retrospective and summary. In G. Reinhart (Ed.), Enhancing philanthropy's support of biomedical sciences: Proceedings of a workshop on evaluation (pp. 11-20). Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
12. Fishman, N. (2006). Research program evaluation at the American Heart Association. In G. Reinhart (Ed.), Enhancing philanthropy's support of biomedical sciences: Proceedings of a workshop on evaluation (pp. 52-65). Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
13. Glowinski, I., Julian, C., Onken, J., Zimmerman, C., & Pion, G. (1998). The careers and professional activities of the NIGMS Medical Scientist Training Program (NIH Publication 98-4363). Bethesda, MD: National Institutes of Health.
14. Grant, J., & Allen, L. (1999). Evaluating high-risk research: An assessment of the Wellcome Trust's Sir Henry Wellcome Commemorative Awards for Innovative Research. Research Evaluation, 8, 201-204.
15. Heinze, T., Shapira, P., Senker, J., & Kuhlmann, S. (2007). Identifying creative research accomplishments: Methodology and results for nanotechnology and human genetics. Scientometrics, 70, 125-152.
16. Hooper, C. (1994). Chutes and ladders: NIH scientists discuss the art and strategy of biomedical publishing. NIH Catalyst, 2 (1). 8-10.
17. Kuncel, N.R., & Hezlett, S.A. (2007). Standardized tests predict graduate students' success. Science, 315, 1080-1081.
18. Lichtman, M.A., & Oakes, D. (2001). The productivity and impact of the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society Scholar Program: The apparent positive effect of peer review. Blood Cells and Molecular Diseases, 27, 1020-1027.
19. Malik, K., & Pion, G. (2003). Reorganization of peer review in the neurosciences: A retrospective evaluation. Bethesda, MD: National Institutes of Health.
20. Mavis, B., & Katz, M. (2003). Evaluation of a program supporting scholarly productivity for new investigators. Academic Medicine, 78, 757-765.
21. National Institutes of Health (NIH). (2006). NIH announces program to foster the independence of new investigators. Retrieved from http://grants.nih.gov/grants/new-investigators/index.htm
22. National Research Council. (1998). Trends in the early careers of life scientists. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
23. National Research Council. (2005 a). Biomedical and behavioral research personnel needs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
24. National Research Council. (2005 b). Bridges to independence: Fostering the independence of new investigators in biomedical research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
25. National Research Council. (2006). Evaluation of the Markey Scholars Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
26. Pion, G., & Ionescu-Pioggia, M. (2003). Bridging postdoctoral training and a faculty position: Initial outcomes of the Burroughs Wellcome Fund Career Awards in the biomedical sciences. Academic Medicine, 78, 177-186.
27. Pion, G., Schaffer, W., & Seder, P. (1999). Customer satisfaction among applicants for R01 and R29 grants. Bethesda, MD: NIH.
28. Rosenbaum, P.R., & Rubin, D.B. (1984). Reducing bias in observational studies subclassification on the propensity score. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 387, 516-524.
29. Rubin, D.B. (2001). Using propensity scores to help design observational studies: Application to the tobacco litigation. Health Services Outcomes Research and Methods, 2, 169-188.
30. Rubin, D.B., & Thomas, N. (1996). Matching using estimated propensity scores: Relating theory to practice. Biometrics, 52, 249-264.
31. Sanchez-Meca, J., Marin-Martinez, F., & Chacon-Moscoso, S. (2003). Effect-size indices for dichotomized outcomes in meta-analysis. Psychological Methods, 8, 448-467.
32. Stephan, P., & Levin, S. (1992). Striking the mother lode in science: The importance of age, place, and time. New York: Oxford University Press.
33. U.S. Department of Education. (2007.) Report of the Academic Competitiveness Council. Washington, DC: Author.
34. Whitehurst, G. (2003, April 21-25). The Institute of Education Sciences: New wine, new bottles. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Education Research Association, Chicago.
35. Willard, R., & O' Neil, E. (1998). Trends among biomedical investigators at top-tier research institutions: A study of the Pew scholars. Academic Medicine, 73, 783-789.