ArticlePloS one2025
The comprehensive researcher development framework (CRDF): Core learning outcomes for research training.
Article in PloS one, 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.
- Broadening Biomedical Research Workforce Participation through Culturally Responsive Mentoring.Journal of STEM education : innovations and researchArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Becoming a researcher involves the iterative development of deep disciplinary knowledge, specific technical skills, and psychosocial attitudes, behaviors, and beliefs. Consequently, training researchers is resource- and time-intensive. In addition, expectations can be opaque because the traditional apprenticeship model used in research training is idiosyncratic, defined by norms and traditions that vary across disciplines. To align and make research training expectations more transparent, we developed the Comprehensive Researcher Development Framework (CRDF) by extracting and analyzing learning outcomes from 56 previously published evidence-based frameworks from across disciplines. The individual frameworks each addressed a limited range of training stages (e.g., undergraduate only), focused on a subset of learning outcomes (e.g., technical skills), and/or included a single or narrow subset of disciplines (e.g., biomedical sciences). The CRDF derived from these frameworks includes 79 core learning outcomes nested under 8 areas of researcher development that are supported by evidence of content validity collected from experts in the research community. The CRDF builds consensus across disciplines and addresses undergraduate through postdoctoral career stages to define a coherent continuum of research learning outcomes that can be used to monitor and study researcher development. The CRDF does not replace existing discipline-based or training stage specific frameworks but rather can link and coordinate their use. The CRDF can be used by research training program directors to design new or refine existing research training programs, track individual research mentee development over time, and demystify the research training process for mentors and mentees. The CRDF can also be used by scholars studying researcher development to link data on core learning outcomes across research training programs, stages, and disciplines.
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.