测量研究的综合影响:建立编码转化科学效益模型数据的标准。

IF 2.1 Q3 MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL
Journal of Clinical and Translational Science Pub Date : 2025-05-16 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.1017/cts.2025.76
Nicole Miovsky, Amanda Woodworth, Stephanie Andersen, Rosalina Das, Julie Heidbreder, Rechelle Paranal, Clara M Pelfrey, Jessica Sperling, Beth Tigges, Boris B Volkov, Margaret Schneider
{"title":"测量研究的综合影响:建立编码转化科学效益模型数据的标准。","authors":"Nicole Miovsky, Amanda Woodworth, Stephanie Andersen, Rosalina Das, Julie Heidbreder, Rechelle Paranal, Clara M Pelfrey, Jessica Sperling, Beth Tigges, Boris B Volkov, Margaret Schneider","doi":"10.1017/cts.2025.76","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>A promising approach to assessing research impact draws on the Translational Science Benefits Model (TSBM), an evaluation model that tracks the applied benefits of research in four domains: Clinical and Medical; Community and Public Health; Economic; and Policy and Legislative. However, standardized methods to verify TSBM benefit data, to aid in aggregating impact data within quantitative summaries, do not currently exist.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A panel of 11 topic experts participated in a modified Delphi process for establishing content and face validity of a set of criteria for verifying qualitative TSBM data. Two survey rounds were completed by panelists, with a moderated discussion in between rounds to discuss criteria not reaching consensus. Criteria with panel consensus at or above 70% in the survey rounds were confirmed as validated.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Criteria fell into 9 categories: Content Relevant, Project Related, Who, Reach, What, How, Novel, Documented Evidence, and When. The Delphi process yielded 197 total criteria across the 30 benefits characterized by the TSBM (range = 5-8 criteria per benefit).</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>The results of this Delphi process lay the foundation for developing a TSBM coding tool for evaluating and quantifying TSBM data. Standardizing this process will enable data aggregation, group analysis, and the comparison of research impact across contexts.</p>","PeriodicalId":15529,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical and Translational Science","volume":"9 1","pages":"e129"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12209970/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Measuring the aggregated impact of research: Establishing criteria for coding Translational Science Benefits Model data.\",\"authors\":\"Nicole Miovsky, Amanda Woodworth, Stephanie Andersen, Rosalina Das, Julie Heidbreder, Rechelle Paranal, Clara M Pelfrey, Jessica Sperling, Beth Tigges, Boris B Volkov, Margaret Schneider\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/cts.2025.76\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>A promising approach to assessing research impact draws on the Translational Science Benefits Model (TSBM), an evaluation model that tracks the applied benefits of research in four domains: Clinical and Medical; Community and Public Health; Economic; and Policy and Legislative. However, standardized methods to verify TSBM benefit data, to aid in aggregating impact data within quantitative summaries, do not currently exist.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A panel of 11 topic experts participated in a modified Delphi process for establishing content and face validity of a set of criteria for verifying qualitative TSBM data. Two survey rounds were completed by panelists, with a moderated discussion in between rounds to discuss criteria not reaching consensus. Criteria with panel consensus at or above 70% in the survey rounds were confirmed as validated.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Criteria fell into 9 categories: Content Relevant, Project Related, Who, Reach, What, How, Novel, Documented Evidence, and When. The Delphi process yielded 197 total criteria across the 30 benefits characterized by the TSBM (range = 5-8 criteria per benefit).</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>The results of this Delphi process lay the foundation for developing a TSBM coding tool for evaluating and quantifying TSBM data. Standardizing this process will enable data aggregation, group analysis, and the comparison of research impact across contexts.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15529,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Clinical and Translational Science\",\"volume\":\"9 1\",\"pages\":\"e129\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12209970/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Clinical and Translational Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/cts.2025.76\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Clinical and Translational Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/cts.2025.76","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

导论:一种有前途的评估研究影响的方法借鉴了转化科学效益模型(TSBM),该模型跟踪了四个领域研究的应用效益:临床和医学;社区和公共卫生;经济;政策和立法。然而,目前还没有标准化的方法来验证TSBM效益数据,以帮助在定量摘要中汇总影响数据。方法:一个由11名专家组成的小组参与了一个改进的德尔菲过程,以建立一套用于验证定性TSBM数据的标准的内容和面效度。小组成员完成了两轮调查,在两轮之间进行了适度的讨论,以讨论未达成共识的标准。在各轮调查中,小组一致意见达到或超过70%的标准被确认为有效。结果:标准分为9类:内容相关、项目相关、谁、范围、什么、如何、新颖、记录证据和何时。德尔菲过程在TSBM所描述的30个效益中产生了197个总标准(范围=每个效益5-8个标准)。讨论:该德尔菲过程的结果为开发用于评估和量化TSBM数据的TSBM编码工具奠定了基础。这一过程的标准化将使数据聚合、分组分析和跨环境研究影响的比较成为可能。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Measuring the aggregated impact of research: Establishing criteria for coding Translational Science Benefits Model data.

Introduction: A promising approach to assessing research impact draws on the Translational Science Benefits Model (TSBM), an evaluation model that tracks the applied benefits of research in four domains: Clinical and Medical; Community and Public Health; Economic; and Policy and Legislative. However, standardized methods to verify TSBM benefit data, to aid in aggregating impact data within quantitative summaries, do not currently exist.

Methods: A panel of 11 topic experts participated in a modified Delphi process for establishing content and face validity of a set of criteria for verifying qualitative TSBM data. Two survey rounds were completed by panelists, with a moderated discussion in between rounds to discuss criteria not reaching consensus. Criteria with panel consensus at or above 70% in the survey rounds were confirmed as validated.

Results: Criteria fell into 9 categories: Content Relevant, Project Related, Who, Reach, What, How, Novel, Documented Evidence, and When. The Delphi process yielded 197 total criteria across the 30 benefits characterized by the TSBM (range = 5-8 criteria per benefit).

Discussion: The results of this Delphi process lay the foundation for developing a TSBM coding tool for evaluating and quantifying TSBM data. Standardizing this process will enable data aggregation, group analysis, and the comparison of research impact across contexts.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Clinical and Translational Science
Journal of Clinical and Translational Science MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL-
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
26.90%
发文量
437
审稿时长
18 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信