Search

Background and purposeThe National Institutes of Health (NIH) funds training programs to increase the numbers and skills of scientists who obtain NIH research grants, but few programs have been rigorously evaluated. The sizeable recent NIH investment in developing programs to increase the diversity of the NIH-funded workforce, implemented through the Diversity Program Consortium (DPC), is unusual in that it also funds a Consortium-wide evaluation plan, which spans the activities of the 10 BUilding Infrastructure Leading to Diversity (BUILD) awardees and the National Research Mentoring Network (NRMN). The purpose of this article is to describe the evaluation design and innovations of the BUILD Program on students, faculty, and institutions of the 10 primarily undergraduate BUILD sites.Key highlights of the projectOur approach to this multi-methods quasi-experimental longitudinal evaluation emphasizes stakeholder participation and collaboration. The evaluation plan specifies the major evaluation questions and key short- to long-term outcome measures (or Hallmarks of Success). The Coordination and Evaluation Center (CEC) embarked on a comprehensive evaluation strategy by developing a set of logic models that incorporate the Hallmarks of Success and other outcomes that were collaboratively identified by the DPC. Data were collected from each BUILD site through national surveys from the Higher Education Research Institute at UCLA (HERI), annual followup surveys that align with the HERI instruments, site visits and case studies, program encounter data ("tracker" data), and institutional data. The analytic approach involves comparing changes in Hallmarks (key outcomes) within institutions for biomedical students who participated versus those who did not participate in the BUILD program at each institution, as well as between institution patterns of biomedical students at the BUILD sites, and matched institutions that were not BUILD grantees. Case studies provide insights into the institutionalization of these new programs and help to explain the processes that lead to the observed outcomes.ImplicationsUltimately, the results of the consortium-wide evaluation will be used to inform national policy in higher education and will provide relevant examples of institutional and educational programmatic changes required to diversify the biomedical workforce in the USA.

This publication provides an overview of the development of the Self-Efficacy as Faculty Change Agent for Diversity (SE-FCA-D) scale. The 5-item scale recently appeared as an additional module on the Higher Education and Research Institute (HERI) Faculty Survey 2019-2020 for the 10 BUILD programs within the Diversity Program Consortium that are participating in the Enhance Diversity Study, supported by the National Institutes of Health (NIH U54GM119024). The piloted scale is meant to measure DPC Hallmark of Success FAC-16: “Strong self-efficacy to act as a change agent to enhance diversity in biomedical research and research training environments” (DPC, 2019). Once data are available, scale validation will move forward and findings will be shared. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper describes the procedures for evaluating the psychometric properties of the 26-item Mentoring Competency Assessment (MCA) scale and developing short-forms to measure faculty mentoring outcomes for the NIH-funded Building Infrastructure Leading to Diversity (BUILD) Initiative and National Research Mentoring Network (NRMN). Analyses were conducted using responses to the MCA scale from NRMN mentors and faculty across 11 BUILD institutions in the 2017-18 academic year. After performing extensive item factor analyses and taking the MCA sub-constructs into analytical consideration, we created an 8-item short form and a 14-item short form. Analyses indicate that both short forms nearly equivalently measure faculty mentoring competency and are more feasible to implement in future studies, compared to the original, longer scale.