Center Fidelity Survey IUCRC Evaluators Meeting June 8, 2012 Denis - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Industry/University Cooperative Research Centers

Center Fidelity Survey

IUCRC Evaluator’s Meeting June 8, 2012

Denis Gray, Lindsey McGowen, Olena Leonchuk & Sarah DeYoung North Carolina State University

Industry/University Cooperative Research Centers

Background and Goal

• Background

– IUCRCs have recently exhibited some heterogeneity on how consortially they operate – Questions have also come up about the extent to which IUCRCs represent “team science” (e.g., multidisciplinary, team-based0

• Goals

– Examine the extent to which IUCRCs exhibit fidelity to the consortial model – Examine the extent to which IUCRCs practice “team science” – Explore the relationships among these variables

June 2012 IUCRC Evaluation Team 2

Industry/University Cooperative Research Centers

Methodology

• Questionnaire

– Completed by evaluator rating center practices and

• perations (e.g. meeting attendance)

– N=48

• Merged with archival data

– Structural data – Process/Outcome data

June 2012 IUCRC Evaluation Team 3

Industry/University Cooperative Research Centers

Which of the following best describes how this multi-site center operates:

48.9% 36.2% 14.9%

Decision Making

Center-based mostly Center-based Site-based

June 2012 IUCRC Evaluation Team 4

Industry/University Cooperative Research Centers

Estimate the percentage of total IAB who physically attended this meeting:

6.3% 4.2% 20.8% 22.9% 45.8%

Last Meeting

0-20% 21-40% 41-60% 61-80% 81-100%

June 2012 IUCRC Evaluation Team 5

Industry/University Cooperative Research Centers

If face-to-face meeting, which of the following best describes the attendance at the meeting:

66.7% 18.8% 14.6%

Last Meeting

Equal attendance across sites Host site dominant attendance Other

June 2012 IUCRC Evaluation Team 6

Industry/University Cooperative Research Centers

Which of the following new project decision-making procedures best describes how new research proposals are selected/approved at this center:

70.8% 4.2% 12.5% 12.5%

Project Selection

Consortial Site-based Consortial Modified Member-based Member-based

June 2012 IUCRC Evaluation Team 7

Industry/University Cooperative Research Centers

Which of the following statements best describes how this center provides project results to their dues-paying IAB members:

75.0% 22.9% 2.1%

Results Dissemination

Consortial Modified member-based Member-based

June 2012 IUCRC Evaluation Team 8

Industry/University Cooperative Research Centers

Please check the response that most accurately describes the estimated frequency of collaborative projects (project involving multiple PIs) within this center

2.1% 0.0% 6.6% 14.6% 31.3% 43.8%

Single PI

14.6% 48.8% 19.5% 7.3% 7.3% 2.4%

Multi-PI

0% 1-20% 21-40% 41-60% 61-80% 81-100%

June 2012 IUCRC Evaluation Team 9

31.0% 54.8% 4.8% 4.8% 4.8% 4.8%

Multi-site

41.2% 52.9% 2.9% 2.9%

Multi-disciplinary

Industry/University Cooperative Research Centers

Predictive Analyses

Preliminary Findings

June 2012 IUCRC Evaluation Team 10

Industry/University Cooperative Research Centers

Question?

• What are the consequences of operating at varying

degrees of fidelity?

– Does it have implications for structural outcomes? – Does it have implications for factors measured by the process/outcome questionnaire or fidelity questionnaire (e.g. multidisciplinarity)?

June 2012 IUCRC Evaluation Team 11

Industry/University Cooperative Research Centers

Methodology

• Creating Fidelity Scale

– Dichotomize Q2 (decision making), 15 (project selection) &16 (results dissemination)

• 1 = high fidelity
• 0 – low fidelity

– Sum across those variables so that the fidelity scale ranges from 0 to 3

• Predictive Analyses

– Bivariate correlations, for now…

June 2012 IUCRC Evaluation Team 12

Industry/University Cooperative Research Centers

Significant Correlates with Fidelity*

*Caution: we evaluated about 50 bivariate correlations.

June 2012 IUCRC Evaluation Team 13

1 2 3 4 5 6

• 1. Fidelity

48

• 2. % Members Physically Attending

0.31* 48

• 3. % Projects Interested

0.30* 0.38* 43

• 4. % CD time spent teaching
• 0.35*
• 0.17

0.09 48

• 5. Members Added
• 0.32*
• 0.17
• 0.63**
• 0.08

48

• 6. Members Dropped
• 0.33*
• 0.44**
• 0.45**

0.01 0.65** 48 Note: N reported along the diagonal; * p < .05, **p < .01