Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36590349›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical and translational science2022

Measuring the processes of interdisciplinary team collaboration: Creating valid measures using a many-facet Rasch model approach.

Jue Wang, Soyeon Ahn, Susan E Morgan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical and translational science, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Jue WangDepartment of Psychology, University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3519-2693
Soyeon AhnDepartment of Educational and Psychological Studies, University of Miami, Miami, FL, USA.
Susan E MorganDepartment of Communication Studies, University of Miami, Miami, FL, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: The science of team science (SciTS) is an emerging research area that studies the processes and outcomes of team-based research. A well-established conceptual framework and appropriate methodology for examining the effectiveness of team science are critically important for promoting and advancing collaborative and interdisciplinary research. Although many instruments have been developed and used in the SciTS field, psychometric evidence has not been routinely assessed or reported for these scales. In addition, commonly used psychometric methods were mainly limited to internal consistency and factor analysis. To fill the gaps, this study introduces a framework based on Rasch measurement theory for creating and evaluating measures for team sciences. Methods: We illustrate the application of Rasch measurement theory through the creation of valid measures to evaluate the processes of interdisciplinary scientific teams. Data were collected from 16 interdisciplinary teams through a university-wide initiative for promoting interdisciplinary team collaboration. Psychometric evidence based on a many-facet Rasch model was obtained for assessing the quality of the measures. Results: The interdisciplinary teams differed in their clarity measures. Significant differences were also found between gender groups, racial groups, and academic ranks. We reported the reliability of measures and identified items that do not fit the model and may present potential threat to validity and fairness of SciTS measures. Conclusion: This study shows the great potential of using Rasch measurement theory for developing and evaluating SciTS measures. Applying Rasch measurement theory produces objective measures that are comparable across individuals, interdisciplinary teams, institutions, time, and various demographic groups.

Indexed as

fairnessRasch measurement theoryreliabilityScience of team scienceteam science assessmentvalidity

Identifiers

PMID36590349
PMCPMC9794954

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.