ArticleJournal of clinical and translational science2026
Evaluating confidence in translational science principles to guide workforce development.
Article in Journal of clinical and translational science, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Translational science (TS) workforce development initiatives are emerging to fast-track conversion of findings into applications to improve health. Principles of TS were developed to guide workforce development; however, few tools are available to evaluate confidence related to these principles to benchmark progress. Objective: Our goal was to develop and validate a scale for assessing confidence related to the seven TS principles and get feedback about future workforce development opportunities that could be evaluated with this scale. Methods: A cross-sectional survey was conducted in 2025 engaging 158 researchers and research staff affiliated with three Clinical and Translational Science Award hubs in Alabama, Massachusetts, and Ohio. Factor analysis was conducted to determine interrelatedness among the TS principles, reliability was assessed using Cronbach's alpha, and mixed effects models were used to examine differences in confidence levels. Results: Four factors emerged (α = 0.95 for full scale, 14 items), including Taking Risks for Impact (α = 0.85, 2 items), Multi-perspective Research (α = 0.88, 3 items), Collaborative Methods (α = 0.89, 6 items), and Efficiency and Productive Failure (α = 0.88, 3 items). Confidence levels varied significantly by factor ( Conclusion: Findings provide guidance for prioritizing topics for future TS workforce development initiatives as well as a brief scale for evaluating how these interventions cultivate confidence across the seven TS principles.
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.