4.1 Article

THE IMPACT OF GRANTSMANSHIP SELF-EFFICACY ON EARLY STAGE INVESTIGATORS OF THE NATIONAL RESEARCH MENTORING NETWORK STEPS TOWARD ACADEMIC RESEARCH (NRMN STAR)

期刊

ETHNICITY & DISEASE
卷 30, 期 1, 页码 75-82

出版社

INT SOC HYPERTENSION BLACKS-ISHIB
DOI: 10.18865/ed.30.1.75

关键词

Grantsmanship; Grant Writing; Self-Efficacy; Research Training and Mentoring; NRMN STAR; Biomedical Workforce Diversity; Career Coaching

资金

  1. National Research Mentoring Network Professional Development Core [5U54GM119023-05]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The NRMN STAR program was created to address the persistent underrepresentation in grant submissions and receipt of National Institutes of Health (NIH) awards by racial/ethnic minority groups. In our current study, we assessed program impact on trainees' self-efficacy related to grant writing. The program was conducted with two cohorts: one in June 2014 and one in June 2015. We used a 19-item grant writing self-efficacy scale drawn from the 88-item Clinical Research Assessment Inventory of three domains (conceptualizing, designing, and funding a study) to predict whether self-efficacy influences researchers' grant submissions. Trainees were assessed prior to and following program completion with subsequent assessments at 6 and 12 months beyond participation. The majority of trainees were Black (62%), female (62%), and had obtained a PhD (90%). More than half (52%) were assistant professors and 57% had none or <1 year of research experience beyond postdoctoral training. However, 24% of trainees reported no postdoctoral research training. NRMN STAR trainees' self-efficacy significantly improved on all three domains exhibiting a 2.0-Point mean change score on two domains (conceptualizing and design) and 3.7 point mean change score on the domain, finding a study. Findings suggest that NRMN's STAR provides impactful, confidence-building training for diverse, early stage investigators with little-to-no skills, experiences, or low self-efficacy in writing research grants.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据