Guidelines for Evaluating Clinical Research Training using Competency Assessments

Elias Samuels; Phillip Anton Ianni; Haejung Chung; Brenda Eakin; Camille Martina; Susan Lynn Murphy; Carolynn Jones

doi:10.15694/mep.2019.000202.2

Guidelines for Evaluating Clinical Research Training using Competency Assessments

MedEdPublish (2016). 2020 Sep 22:8:202. doi: 10.15694/mep.2019.000202.2. eCollection 2019.

Authors

Elias Samuels^{1

1}, Phillip Anton Ianni^{1

1}, Haejung Chung^{2

2}, Brenda Eakin^{1

1}, Camille Martina^{3

3}, Susan Lynn Murphy^{1

1}, Carolynn Jones^{4

4}

Affiliations

¹ Michigan Institute for Clinical and Health Research.
² Tufts Clinical and Translational Science Institute.
³ Clinical Translational Science Institute.
⁴ Center for Clinical and Translational Science.

Abstract

This article was migrated. The article was marked as recommended. Effective training programs in clinical and translational research (CTR) are critical to the development of the research workforce. The evolution of global CTR competencies frameworks motivates many CTR institutions to align their training offerings with these professional standards. Guidelines for integrating competency-based frameworks and assessments into rigorous program evaluations are needed in order to promote the quality and impact of these training programs. These guidelines provide practical suggestions for how to ensure that subjective and objective assessments of CTR knowledge and skill can be effectively integrated in the evaluations used to improve these essential training programs. The approach presented here necessarily involves the systematic and deliberate incorporation of these particular types of assessments into comprehensive evaluation plans. While these guidelines are broadly applicable to the work of those charged with developing, administering and evaluating CTR training programs, they have been specifically designed for use by program directors.

Keywords: clinical and translational research; competency framework; competency-based assessment; logic model; program evaluation; program improvement; workforce development.