Heterogeneity at Work: Implications of the 2012 Clinical Translational Science Award Evaluators Survey

Evaluation and the Health Professions

Volumn 36, Issue 4, 2013, Pages 447-463

  Kane, Cathleen ^a   Alexander, Angela ^b   Hogle, Janice A ^c   Parsons, Helen M ^d   Phelps, Lauren ^e  

^a WEILL CORNELL MEDICAL COLLEGE   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MADISON   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS HEALTH SCIENCE CENTER AT SAN ANTONIO   (United States)

^e OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

clinical translational science awards; evaluation methods; peer led; translational science

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; AWARDS AND PRIZES; CLINICAL TRANSLATIONAL SCIENCE AWARDS; EVALUATION METHODS; HUMAN; NATIONAL HEALTH ORGANIZATION; PEER LED; PEER REVIEW; PROGRAM EVALUATION; QUESTIONNAIRE; STANDARD; TRANSLATIONAL RESEARCH; TRANSLATIONAL SCIENCE; UNITED STATES;

CLINICAL TRANSLATIONAL SCIENCE AWARDS; EVALUATION METHODS; PEER LED; TRANSLATIONAL SCIENCE;

AWARDS AND PRIZES; HUMANS; NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH (U.S.); PEER REVIEW, RESEARCH; PROGRAM EVALUATION; QUESTIONNAIRES; TRANSLATIONAL MEDICAL RESEARCH; UNITED STATES;

EID: 84887469151     PISSN: 01632787     EISSN: 15523918     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0163278713510378     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. American Evaluation Association (2004) Guiding principles for evaluators. Retrieved fromhttp://www.eval.org/publications/GuidingPrinciplesPrintable.asp.
2. AustinC. P. (2013). NCATS director statement: Institute of medicine report on the CTSA program at NIH. Retrieved fromhttp://www.ncats.nih.gov/research/cts/ctsa/about/iom/iom.html.
3. BambergerM.RughJ.MabryL. (2012). RealWorld evaluation: Working under budget, time, data, and political constraints (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Retrieved fromhttp://www.realworldevaluation.org/.
4. Collins F. S.Reengineering translational science: The time is right.Science Translational Medicine. 2011;3:1-6.
5. CreswellJ. W.KlassenA. C.Plano ClarkV. L.SmithK. C.; for the Office of Behavioral and Social Sciences Research. (2011). Best practices for mixed methods research in the health sciences. National Institutes of Health. Retrieved fromhttp://obssr.od.nih.gov/mixed_methods_research.
6. CTSA Evaluation Key Function Committee. (2012). Evaluation guidelines for the clinical and translational science awards (CTSAs). Retrieved fromhttps://www.ctsacentral.org/sites/default/files/documents/EvaluationWhitepaper.pdf.
7. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). (2005). Title: Institutional clinical and translational science award. Retrieved fromhttp://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/rfa-files/RFA-RM-07-002.html.
8. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). (2010). Office of Inspector General: NIH Administration if the Clinical and Translational Science Awards Program. Retrieved fromhttp://oig.hhs.gov/oei/reports/oei-07-09-00300.pdf.
9. Federal Register. (n.d). Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).Retrieved fromhttp://www.archives.gov/federal-register/laws/paperwork-reduction/.
10. FrechtlingJ.RaueK.MichieJ.MiyaokaA.SpiegelmanM. (2012). The CTSA national evaluation final report. Retrieved fromhttp://www.academia.edu/2466959/The_CTSA_National_Evaluation_Final_Report.
11. LeshnerA. I.TerryS. F.SchultzA. M.LivermanC. T. (2013). The CTSA program at NIH: Opportunities for advancing clinical and translational research. National Academy of Sciences, Institute of Medicine. Retrieved fromhttp://www.iom.edu/Reports/2013/The-CTSA-Program-at-NIH-Opportunities-for-Advancing-Clinical-and-Translational-Research.aspx.
12. National Institutes of Health. (2006). Fact sheet: NIH roadmap for clinical research. Retrieved fromhttp://opasi.nih.gov/documents/NIHRoadmap_FactSheet_Aug06.pdf.
13. Patton M. Q.Qualitative research and evaluation methods. 2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. (2nd ed.) Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2002:.
14. Patton M. Q.Utilization-focused evaluation. 2008). Utilization-focused evaluation (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2008:.
15. Patton M. Q.Developmental evaluation: Applying complexity concepts to enhance innovation and use. New York, NY: Guilford Press; 2011:.
16. TrochimW. M.RubioD. M.ThomasV. G., and the Evaluation Key Function Committee of the CTSA Consortium. (2013). Evaluation guidelines for the clinical and translational science awards (CTSAs). Clinical and Translational Science. doi:10.1111/cts.12036. Retrieved fromhttp://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cts.12036/full.
17. WadmanM. (2013). Translational research: Medicine man. Nature, 494, 24-26. doi:10.1038/494024a. Retrieved fromhttp://www.nature.com/news/translational-research-medicine-man-1.12380.
18. YarbroughD. B.ShulhaL. M.HopsonR. K.CaruthersF. A. (2011). The program evaluation standards: A guide for evaluators and evaluation users (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Retrieved fromhttp://www.eval.org/evaluationdocuments/progeval.html.