Dores Graça M, Chang Shine, Berger Vance W, Perkins Susan N, Hursting Stephen D, Weed Douglas L
Office of Preventive Oncology, Division of Cancer Prevention, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services, Bethesda, Maryland 20892-7361, USA.
Acad Med. 2006 Jun;81(6):535-41. doi: 10.1097/01.ACM.0000225216.07584.b0.
The authors describe an evaluation approach to assess research training that is easy to implement, takes into account individual experience and diversity in research disciplines, and can be adapted to measure various outcomes, depending upon program goals.
Using publications as the outcome measure, the authors analyzed data from 66 trainees in the National Cancer Institute's Cancer Prevention Fellowship Program (CPFP) to illustrate this evaluation strategy. For postdoctoral fellows entering the CPFP between 1987 and 1997, the authors considered the three-year period prior to entry in the CPFP (pre-CPFP), the period during training, and the three-year period after completion of the CPFP (post-CPFP). Summary measures for individuals' publications during each of the three time periods were calculated, and the probability of change in total, peer-reviewed, and first-authored publications post-CPFP compared to pre-CPFP was assessed.
Compared to pre-CPFP, the CPFP fellows published significantly more total, peer-reviewed, and first-authored publications post-CPFP. Post-CPFP younger individuals published more than older fellows. MDs had a greater increase in publications over time than did PhDs, but both groups had similar overall numbers of publications post-CPFP. Individuals pursuing a master of public health degree during training published more post-CPFP than did those who did not pursue this training in the program.
Training programs facing the challenge of evaluating research outcomes will require new evaluation methods that take into account program goals. This easily adaptable, longitudinal evaluation strategy allows for diversity in research disciplines and research experience and can inform programmatic needs and individual progress.
作者描述了一种评估研究培训的方法，该方法易于实施，考虑到个人经验和研究学科的多样性，并且可以根据项目目标进行调整以衡量各种结果。
以出版物作为结果指标，作者分析了美国国立癌症研究所癌症预防奖学金项目（CPFP）中66名学员的数据，以说明这种评估策略。对于1987年至1997年进入CPFP的博士后学员，作者考虑了进入CPFP之前的三年期（CPFP前）、培训期间以及CPFP完成后的三年期（CPFP后）。计算了三个时间段内个人出版物的汇总指标，并评估了CPFP后与CPFP前相比，总出版物、同行评审出版物和第一作者出版物变化的概率。
与CPFP前相比，CPFP学员在CPFP后发表的总出版物、同行评审出版物和第一作者出版物显著更多。CPFP后较年轻的个体发表的文章比年长的学员更多。医学博士随着时间的推移出版物增加幅度比哲学博士更大，但两组在CPFP后的总体出版物数量相似。在培训期间攻读公共卫生硕士学位的个体在CPFP后发表的文章比未在该项目中接受此培训的个体更多。
面临评估研究成果挑战的培训项目将需要考虑项目目标的新评估方法。这种易于调整的纵向评估策略允许研究学科和研究经验的多样性，并可为项目需求和个人进展提供信息。
