Measuring Research Capacity: Development of the PACER Tool.

IF 2.4 3区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine Pub Date : 2024-11-15 DOI:10.3122/jabfm.2024.240085R1
Stephen K Stacey, Melanie Steiner-Sherwood, Paul Crawford, Joseph W LeMaster, Catherine McCarty, Tanvir Turin Chowdhury, Amanda Weidner, Peter H Seidenberg
{"title":"Measuring Research Capacity: Development of the PACER Tool.","authors":"Stephen K Stacey, Melanie Steiner-Sherwood, Paul Crawford, Joseph W LeMaster, Catherine McCarty, Tanvir Turin Chowdhury, Amanda Weidner, Peter H Seidenberg","doi":"10.3122/jabfm.2024.240085R1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Evaluating research activity in research departments and education programs is conventionally accomplished through measurement of research funding or bibliometrics. This limited perspective of research activity restricts a more comprehensive evaluation of a program's actual research capacity, ultimately hindering efforts to enhance and expand it. The objective of this study was to conduct a scoping review of the existing literature pertaining to the measurement of research productivity in research institutions. Using these findings, the study aimed to create a standardized research measurement tool, the Productivity And Capacity Evaluation in Research (PACER) Tool. The evidence review identified 726 relevant articles in a literature search of PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, ERIC, CINAHL, and Google Scholar with the keywords \"research capacity\" and \"research productivity.\" Thirty-nine English-language studies applicable to research measurement were assessed in full and 20 were included in the data extraction. Capacity/productivity metrics were identified, and the relevance of each metric was data-charted according to 3 criteria: the metric was objective, organizational in scale, and applicable to varied research domains. This produced 42 research capacity/productivity metrics that fell into 7 relevant categories: bibliometrics, impact, ongoing research, collaboration activities, funding, personnel, and education/academics. With the expertise of a Delphi panel of researchers, research leaders, and organizational leadership, 31 of these 42 metrics were included in the final PACER Tool. This multifaceted tool enables research departments to benchmark research capacity and research productivity against other programs, monitor capacity development over time, and provide valuable strategic insights for decisions such as resource allocation.</p>","PeriodicalId":50018,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3122/jabfm.2024.240085R1","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Evaluating research activity in research departments and education programs is conventionally accomplished through measurement of research funding or bibliometrics. This limited perspective of research activity restricts a more comprehensive evaluation of a program's actual research capacity, ultimately hindering efforts to enhance and expand it. The objective of this study was to conduct a scoping review of the existing literature pertaining to the measurement of research productivity in research institutions. Using these findings, the study aimed to create a standardized research measurement tool, the Productivity And Capacity Evaluation in Research (PACER) Tool. The evidence review identified 726 relevant articles in a literature search of PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, ERIC, CINAHL, and Google Scholar with the keywords "research capacity" and "research productivity." Thirty-nine English-language studies applicable to research measurement were assessed in full and 20 were included in the data extraction. Capacity/productivity metrics were identified, and the relevance of each metric was data-charted according to 3 criteria: the metric was objective, organizational in scale, and applicable to varied research domains. This produced 42 research capacity/productivity metrics that fell into 7 relevant categories: bibliometrics, impact, ongoing research, collaboration activities, funding, personnel, and education/academics. With the expertise of a Delphi panel of researchers, research leaders, and organizational leadership, 31 of these 42 metrics were included in the final PACER Tool. This multifaceted tool enables research departments to benchmark research capacity and research productivity against other programs, monitor capacity development over time, and provide valuable strategic insights for decisions such as resource allocation.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
衡量研究能力:开发 PACER 工具。
评估研究部门和教育计划的研究活动,通常是通过衡量研究经费或文献计量学来实现的。这种对研究活动的有限视角限制了对一个项目实际研究能力的更全面评估,最终阻碍了提高和扩大研究能力的努力。本研究的目的是对与衡量研究机构研究生产率有关的现有文献进行一次范围审查。利用这些研究成果,本研究旨在创建一个标准化的研究测量工具,即 "研究生产力与能力评估工具"(PACER)。在以 "研究能力 "和 "研究生产力 "为关键词对 PubMed、Web of Science、Embase、ERIC、CINAHL 和 Google Scholar 进行的文献检索中,证据审查发现了 726 篇相关文章。对 39 篇适用于研究测量的英文研究进行了全面评估,其中 20 篇纳入了数据提取。确定了能力/生产力指标,并根据以下 3 个标准对每个指标的相关性进行了数据图表分析:指标客观、具有组织规模、适用于不同的研究领域。这样就得出了 42 个研究能力/生产力指标,这些指标分为 7 个相关类别:文献计量学、影响、正在进行的研究、合作活动、资金、人员和教育/学术。借助由研究人员、研究领导和组织领导组成的德尔菲小组的专业知识,这 42 项指标中有 31 项被纳入最终的 PACER 工具。这一多方面的工具使研究部门能够将研究能力和研究生产率与其他项目进行比较,监测随时间推移的能力发展情况,并为资源分配等决策提供有价值的战略见解。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
6.90%
发文量
168
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Published since 1988, the Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine ( JABFM ) is the official peer-reviewed journal of the American Board of Family Medicine (ABFM). Believing that the public and scientific communities are best served by open access to information, JABFM makes its articles available free of charge and without registration at www.jabfm.org. JABFM is indexed by Medline, Index Medicus, and other services.
期刊最新文献
Answering the "100 Most Important Family Medicine Research Questions" from the 1985 Hames Consortium. CERA: A Vehicle for Facilitating Research in Family Medicine. Current and Future Challenges to Publishing Family Medicine Research. Diversity in Family Medicine Research. Leveraging the All of Us Database for Primary Care Research with Large Datasets.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1