Development of a Set of Indicators to Evaluate Injury Control Research Centers

Background: Few methods have been defined for evaluating the individual and collective impacts of academic research centers. In this project, with input from injury center directors, we systematically defined indicators to assess the progress and contributions of individual Injury Control Research C...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Evaluation review 2014-04, Vol.38 (2), p.133-159
Hauptverfasser: Runyan, Carol, Garrettson, Mariana, Yee, Sue Lin
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 159
container_issue 2
container_start_page 133
container_title Evaluation review
container_volume 38
creator Runyan, Carol
Garrettson, Mariana
Yee, Sue Lin
description Background: Few methods have been defined for evaluating the individual and collective impacts of academic research centers. In this project, with input from injury center directors, we systematically defined indicators to assess the progress and contributions of individual Injury Control Research Centers (ICRCs) and, ultimately, to monitor progress of the overall injury center program. Method: We used several methods of deriving a list of recommended priority and supplemental indicators. This included published literature review, telephone interviews with selected federal agency staff, an e-mail survey of injury center directors, an e-mail survey of staff at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, a two-stage Delphi process (e-mailed), and an in-person focus group with injury center directors. We derived the final indicators from an analysis of ratings of potential indicators by center directors and CDC staff. We also examined qualitative responses to open-ended items that address conceptual and implementation issues. Results: All currently funded ICRCs participated in at least one part of the process, resulting in a list of 27 primary indicators (some with subcomponents), 31 supplemental indicators, and multiple suggestions for using the indicators. Conclusion: Our results support an approach that combines standardized definitions and quantifiable indicators with qualitative reporting, which allows consideration of center distinctions and priorities. The center directors urged caution in using the indicators, given funding constraints and recognition of unique institutional environments. While focused on injury research centers, we suggest these indicators also may be useful to academic research centers of other types.
doi_str_mv 10.1177/0193841X14529287
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1826600800</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sage_id>10.1177_0193841X14529287</sage_id><sourcerecordid>3406621151</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c398t-dfba68f1660a9f1207a2d1a773e936835c40fe73c3be8745b16adbb4602d8ab13</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkc1r20AQxZfQkLhJ7jkVQS-9qJnZbx2L4zYBk0DSQG5iJY1aG1nr7koB__dZ10kohtDTDDO_94bhMXaO8BXRmAvAQliJjygVL7g1B2yCSvFcFFx_YJPtOt_uj9nHGJcAgCDNETvm0kihpZqwm0t6os6vV9QPmW8zl93T3-a6bxa1G3yI2eCz2ZPrRjdQGi_HsMmmvh-C77I7iuRC_TubJj2FeMoOW9dFOnupJ-zh--zn9Cqf3_64nn6b57Uo7JA3beW0bVFrcEWLHIzjDTpjBBVCW6FqCS0ZUYuKrJGqQu2aqpIaeGNdheKEfdn5roP_M1IcytUi1tR1ric_xhItT95gAf6PKg0W0Sqb0M976NKPoU-PJEpJbgoOIlGwo-rgYwzUluuwWLmwKRHKbSzlfixJ8unFeKxW1LwJXnNIQL4DovtF_1x9z_AZbX6Sxw</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1554279203</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Development of a Set of Indicators to Evaluate Injury Control Research Centers</title><source>SAGE Complete A-Z List</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Runyan, Carol ; Garrettson, Mariana ; Yee, Sue Lin</creator><creatorcontrib>Runyan, Carol ; Garrettson, Mariana ; Yee, Sue Lin</creatorcontrib><description>Background: Few methods have been defined for evaluating the individual and collective impacts of academic research centers. In this project, with input from injury center directors, we systematically defined indicators to assess the progress and contributions of individual Injury Control Research Centers (ICRCs) and, ultimately, to monitor progress of the overall injury center program. Method: We used several methods of deriving a list of recommended priority and supplemental indicators. This included published literature review, telephone interviews with selected federal agency staff, an e-mail survey of injury center directors, an e-mail survey of staff at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, a two-stage Delphi process (e-mailed), and an in-person focus group with injury center directors. We derived the final indicators from an analysis of ratings of potential indicators by center directors and CDC staff. We also examined qualitative responses to open-ended items that address conceptual and implementation issues. Results: All currently funded ICRCs participated in at least one part of the process, resulting in a list of 27 primary indicators (some with subcomponents), 31 supplemental indicators, and multiple suggestions for using the indicators. Conclusion: Our results support an approach that combines standardized definitions and quantifiable indicators with qualitative reporting, which allows consideration of center distinctions and priorities. The center directors urged caution in using the indicators, given funding constraints and recognition of unique institutional environments. While focused on injury research centers, we suggest these indicators also may be useful to academic research centers of other types.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0193-841X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1552-3926</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1177/0193841X14529287</identifier><identifier>PMID: 24743645</identifier><identifier>CODEN: EVREDL</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications</publisher><subject>Delphi Technique ; Educational research ; Focus Groups ; Injuries ; Literature Reviews ; Mail Surveys ; Measurement ; Medical research ; Methodology ; Qualitative research ; Research centers ; Research centres</subject><ispartof>Evaluation review, 2014-04, Vol.38 (2), p.133-159</ispartof><rights>The Author(s) 2014</rights><rights>Copyright SAGE PUBLICATIONS, INC. Apr 2014</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c398t-dfba68f1660a9f1207a2d1a773e936835c40fe73c3be8745b16adbb4602d8ab13</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c398t-dfba68f1660a9f1207a2d1a773e936835c40fe73c3be8745b16adbb4602d8ab13</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0193841X14529287$$EPDF$$P50$$Gsage$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0193841X14529287$$EHTML$$P50$$Gsage$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,21798,27901,27902,43597,43598</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24743645$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Runyan, Carol</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Garrettson, Mariana</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yee, Sue Lin</creatorcontrib><title>Development of a Set of Indicators to Evaluate Injury Control Research Centers</title><title>Evaluation review</title><addtitle>Eval Rev</addtitle><description>Background: Few methods have been defined for evaluating the individual and collective impacts of academic research centers. In this project, with input from injury center directors, we systematically defined indicators to assess the progress and contributions of individual Injury Control Research Centers (ICRCs) and, ultimately, to monitor progress of the overall injury center program. Method: We used several methods of deriving a list of recommended priority and supplemental indicators. This included published literature review, telephone interviews with selected federal agency staff, an e-mail survey of injury center directors, an e-mail survey of staff at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, a two-stage Delphi process (e-mailed), and an in-person focus group with injury center directors. We derived the final indicators from an analysis of ratings of potential indicators by center directors and CDC staff. We also examined qualitative responses to open-ended items that address conceptual and implementation issues. Results: All currently funded ICRCs participated in at least one part of the process, resulting in a list of 27 primary indicators (some with subcomponents), 31 supplemental indicators, and multiple suggestions for using the indicators. Conclusion: Our results support an approach that combines standardized definitions and quantifiable indicators with qualitative reporting, which allows consideration of center distinctions and priorities. The center directors urged caution in using the indicators, given funding constraints and recognition of unique institutional environments. While focused on injury research centers, we suggest these indicators also may be useful to academic research centers of other types.</description><subject>Delphi Technique</subject><subject>Educational research</subject><subject>Focus Groups</subject><subject>Injuries</subject><subject>Literature Reviews</subject><subject>Mail Surveys</subject><subject>Measurement</subject><subject>Medical research</subject><subject>Methodology</subject><subject>Qualitative research</subject><subject>Research centers</subject><subject>Research centres</subject><issn>0193-841X</issn><issn>1552-3926</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2014</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNqFkc1r20AQxZfQkLhJ7jkVQS-9qJnZbx2L4zYBk0DSQG5iJY1aG1nr7koB__dZ10kohtDTDDO_94bhMXaO8BXRmAvAQliJjygVL7g1B2yCSvFcFFx_YJPtOt_uj9nHGJcAgCDNETvm0kihpZqwm0t6os6vV9QPmW8zl93T3-a6bxa1G3yI2eCz2ZPrRjdQGi_HsMmmvh-C77I7iuRC_TubJj2FeMoOW9dFOnupJ-zh--zn9Cqf3_64nn6b57Uo7JA3beW0bVFrcEWLHIzjDTpjBBVCW6FqCS0ZUYuKrJGqQu2aqpIaeGNdheKEfdn5roP_M1IcytUi1tR1ric_xhItT95gAf6PKg0W0Sqb0M976NKPoU-PJEpJbgoOIlGwo-rgYwzUluuwWLmwKRHKbSzlfixJ8unFeKxW1LwJXnNIQL4DovtF_1x9z_AZbX6Sxw</recordid><startdate>20140401</startdate><enddate>20140401</enddate><creator>Runyan, Carol</creator><creator>Garrettson, Mariana</creator><creator>Yee, Sue Lin</creator><general>SAGE Publications</general><general>SAGE PUBLICATIONS, INC</general><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>8BJ</scope><scope>FQK</scope><scope>JBE</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20140401</creationdate><title>Development of a Set of Indicators to Evaluate Injury Control Research Centers</title><author>Runyan, Carol ; Garrettson, Mariana ; Yee, Sue Lin</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c398t-dfba68f1660a9f1207a2d1a773e936835c40fe73c3be8745b16adbb4602d8ab13</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2014</creationdate><topic>Delphi Technique</topic><topic>Educational research</topic><topic>Focus Groups</topic><topic>Injuries</topic><topic>Literature Reviews</topic><topic>Mail Surveys</topic><topic>Measurement</topic><topic>Medical research</topic><topic>Methodology</topic><topic>Qualitative research</topic><topic>Research centers</topic><topic>Research centres</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Runyan, Carol</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Garrettson, Mariana</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yee, Sue Lin</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Evaluation review</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Runyan, Carol</au><au>Garrettson, Mariana</au><au>Yee, Sue Lin</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Development of a Set of Indicators to Evaluate Injury Control Research Centers</atitle><jtitle>Evaluation review</jtitle><addtitle>Eval Rev</addtitle><date>2014-04-01</date><risdate>2014</risdate><volume>38</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>133</spage><epage>159</epage><pages>133-159</pages><issn>0193-841X</issn><eissn>1552-3926</eissn><coden>EVREDL</coden><abstract>Background: Few methods have been defined for evaluating the individual and collective impacts of academic research centers. In this project, with input from injury center directors, we systematically defined indicators to assess the progress and contributions of individual Injury Control Research Centers (ICRCs) and, ultimately, to monitor progress of the overall injury center program. Method: We used several methods of deriving a list of recommended priority and supplemental indicators. This included published literature review, telephone interviews with selected federal agency staff, an e-mail survey of injury center directors, an e-mail survey of staff at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, a two-stage Delphi process (e-mailed), and an in-person focus group with injury center directors. We derived the final indicators from an analysis of ratings of potential indicators by center directors and CDC staff. We also examined qualitative responses to open-ended items that address conceptual and implementation issues. Results: All currently funded ICRCs participated in at least one part of the process, resulting in a list of 27 primary indicators (some with subcomponents), 31 supplemental indicators, and multiple suggestions for using the indicators. Conclusion: Our results support an approach that combines standardized definitions and quantifiable indicators with qualitative reporting, which allows consideration of center distinctions and priorities. The center directors urged caution in using the indicators, given funding constraints and recognition of unique institutional environments. While focused on injury research centers, we suggest these indicators also may be useful to academic research centers of other types.</abstract><cop>Los Angeles, CA</cop><pub>SAGE Publications</pub><pmid>24743645</pmid><doi>10.1177/0193841X14529287</doi><tpages>27</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0193-841X
ispartof Evaluation review, 2014-04, Vol.38 (2), p.133-159
issn 0193-841X
1552-3926
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1826600800
source SAGE Complete A-Z List; Alma/SFX Local Collection
subjects Delphi Technique
Educational research
Focus Groups
Injuries
Literature Reviews
Mail Surveys
Measurement
Medical research
Methodology
Qualitative research
Research centers
Research centres
title Development of a Set of Indicators to Evaluate Injury Control Research Centers
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-31T14%3A23%3A58IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Development%20of%20a%20Set%20of%20Indicators%20to%20Evaluate%20Injury%20Control%20Research%20Centers&rft.jtitle=Evaluation%20review&rft.au=Runyan,%20Carol&rft.date=2014-04-01&rft.volume=38&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=133&rft.epage=159&rft.pages=133-159&rft.issn=0193-841X&rft.eissn=1552-3926&rft.coden=EVREDL&rft_id=info:doi/10.1177/0193841X14529287&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E3406621151%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1554279203&rft_id=info:pmid/24743645&rft_sage_id=10.1177_0193841X14529287&rfr_iscdi=true