ArticleJournal of clinical and translational science2025
The development, validity, and reliability of the Researcher Investment Tool.
Article in Journal of clinical and translational science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Using the Researcher Investment Tool to inform a clinical and translational research initiative.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Over the last two decades, there have been significant investments designed to advance clinical and translational research (CTR) with an emphasis on supporting early career investigators and building a cadre of skilled researchers. Despite the investments, there are no comprehensive measurement tools to track individual-level progress along the research continuum as supports are put in place. Objective: The Researcher Investment Tool (RIT) is a novel tool that was created to provide a consistent approach for measuring individual-level changes in the research career trajectory of investigators receiving support from CTR programs. Methods: The RIT is a 90-item questionnaire, with eight domains and four sub-domains, designed to measure a researcher's experiences and perceptions. Several rounds of testing were conducted to assess the tool's face and content validity as well as the internal consistency and test-retest reliability. Results: Psychometric testing revealed strong content validity and good internal consistency with Cronbach's alpha coefficients ranging from 0.85 to 0.97 across all domains. Test-retest reliability results also revealed stability in the domain measures over time with Pearson's correlation coefficients ranging from 0.70 to 0.98 for all but one domain (.53). Conclusions: This novel RIT may be useful to evaluators when measuring the impact of investments designed to support early career clinical and translational researchers.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.