# Using the Researcher Investment Tool to inform a clinical and translational research initiative

## TL;DR

This paper introduces a new tool to evaluate clinical and translational research initiatives by capturing individual researcher experiences and perceptions.

## Contribution

The paper introduces the Researcher Investment Tool (RIT) for evaluating clinical and translational research initiatives at the individual level.

## Key findings

- The RIT revealed that researchers scored highest in research skills and lowest in productivity and community engagement.
- Researchers with higher bibliometric scores showed stronger skills and collaboration.
- New investigators reported lower perceptions of institutional support.

## Abstract

Numerous efforts are focused on building the clinical and translational research (CTR) workforce. Approaches to evaluate CTR initiatives are varied, and efforts often rely on research project-level outcomes. This article applies an evaluation tool to capture individual-level data.

The study used a novel Researcher Investment Tool (RIT) to measure researchers’ experience as well as perceptions of institutional support, including an analysis based on researcher characteristics. The study also evaluated the RIT based on common measures, including a bibliometric indicator, investigator status, and percent time dedicated to research.

The RIT was administered to researchers who received funding or targeted research support from a CTR initiative. Mean scores were assessed by RIT section, domains/sub-domains, and for each item. Mean scores per section were compared across researcher characteristics using t-tests, and associations between common measures and average domain scores were tested using linear regression.

Thirty researchers completed all RIT items. RIT domain scores ranged from a high mean of 4.0 for the research skills domain to a low mean of 2.6 for researcher productivity and community engagement domains. Analysis of indicators of commonly used measures across domains suggest that researchers with a higher bibliometric score had more advanced research skills, service to profession, research productivity, and research collaboration (p < .05). New investigators had lower perceptions of institutional support (p < .05).

As an evaluation tool, the RIT captures individual-level data that may help to determine key areas of strength and opportunities for growth of a CTR program.