Research productivity and academic lineage in clinical psychology: Who is training the faculty to do research?

This study examined the research productivity of graduates of American Psychological Association accredited, clinical psychology doctoral programs who currently hold faculty positions. Normative averages of aggregated publications over the 2000-2004 five-year period were computed. Rankings based on the mean number of publications produced by graduates of each training program and the number of graduates were significantly correlated with U.S. News and World Report rankings, although some important differences were noted. Programs that have produced a larger number of faculty members were also more highly ranked but there was increased variability for the number of publications produced by the larger numbers of graduates. Objective outcome analyses such as graduates' publications may be preferable to more subjective reputation rankings of programs. Particularly for scientist-practitioner and clinical-scientist training programs, outcome data such as graduates' publications is an important aspect of the programs' continued self-study.     

Top producers of scholarly publications in clinical psychology PhD programs

Publication productivity of 1,927 core faculty members in clinical psychology training programs was tallied over a 5-year period (2000-2004) from their PsycINFO database entries (http://www.apa.org/psycinfo/). The top-producing faculty members are presented with rank by total number of publications and rank by number of peer-reviewed journal articles. In this report, the authors recognize those productive clinical psychologists in accredited clinical programs who have advanced the field through their substantial contributions to the literature base.     

Assessing research productivity: evaluating journal publication across academic departments

Publications produced by faculty over a three-year period are used in analyzing the relative research productivity of basic and clinical science departments in a college of medicine. The citation ratings of the journals, the number of authors, and the byline position of the faculty member are used in various publication evaluation schemes. The departments vary almost tenfold in research productivity per faculty member. Results of the analysis demonstrate that the number of authors and the byline position influence departmental productivity rankings very little. Rankings are substantially affected, however, when the journals are weighted based heavily on citation ratings.     

Fifteen years of aligning faculty development with primary care clinician-educator roles and academic advancement at the Medical College of Wisconsin.

Starting in 1991, the Medical College of Wisconsin's (MCW) primary care-focused faculty development programs have continuously evolved in order to sustain tight alignment among faculty members' needs, institutional priorities, and academic reward structures. Informed by literature on the essential competencies associated with academic success and using educational methods demonstrated to achieve targeted objectives, MCW's initial 1.5-day per month comprehensive faculty development programs prepared faculty as clinician-researchers, leaders, and educators. As institutional priorities and faculty roles shifted, a half-day per month advanced education program was added, and the comprehensive faculty development program transitioned to its current half-day per month program. Using a modular approach, this program focuses exclusively on clinician-educator competencies in curriculum, teaching, leadership, evaluation, and learner assessment. Instructional methods combine interactive, face-to-face sessions modeling a range of instructional strategies with between-session assignments now supported through an e-learning platform. All participants complete a required project, which addresses a divisional or departmental need, meets standards associated with scholarship, and is submitted to a peer-reviewed forum. To date, over 115 faculty members have enrolled in MCW's faculty development programs. Program evaluation over the 15-year span has served to guide program revision and to provide clear evidence of program impact. A longitudinal evaluation of comprehensive program graduates from 1993 to 1999 showed that 88% of graduates' educational projects were implemented and sustained more than one year after program completion. Since 2001, each participant, on average, attributes more than two peer-reviewed presentations and one peer-reviewed publication to program participation. Based on 15 years of evaluation data, five tenets associated with program success are outlined.     

Scholarly Productivity of Athletic Training Faculty Members

OBJECTIVE: To compare the scholarly productivity index (SPI) among the levels of academic appointment, degree type, and percentage of academic appointment of athletic training faculty members. DESIGN AND SETTING: We used a 5 x 6 x 4 factorial design for this study. A survey instrument was used to determine the number of publications and the number of years in their current appointment. SUBJECTS: Subjects were faculty members in Commission on Accreditation of Allied Health Education Programs-accredited athletic training education programs. MEASUREMENTS: The SPI was calculated by dividing the total number of publications (peer-reviewed and non-peer-reviewed journal articles, peer-reviewed abstracts, books written or edited, book chapters, platform presentations, published book reviews, and external funding) by the number of years in the productivity period. RESULTS: The SPIs were different for the levels of academic rank. Full professors had a higher SPI than all other groups (Tukey honestly significant difference, P 相似文献   

Publications and extramural activities of general internal medicine and medicine subspecialty clinician-educators: a multicenter study.

PURPOSE: Generalist clinician-educators may have more difficulty than specialists satisfying common promotion criteria (peer-reviewed publication and extramural reputation). This study compared publication rates and participation in extramural activities among subspecialist and generalist clinician-educators, and sought to determine the views of clinician-educators on the use of publication and reputation in determining their promotion. METHOD: A cross-sectional questionnaire was delivered to 526 clinician-educators identified by the chairs at ten randomly selected U.S. medical schools in 2002. RESULTS: A total of 270 clinician-educators responded. Medicine subspecialist clinician-educators reported more peer-reviewed publications than did general internal medicine (GIM) faculty (mean 26.4 versus 10.2, p < .003). Independent predictors of having a greater number of peer-reviewed publications were subspecialty membership (p < .01), less time spent in clinic (p < .01), focus of scholarship (p = .01), academic rank (p < .01), higher quartile of National Institutes of Health funding received by respondent's department (p < .01), and years on faculty (p = .03). A greater proportion of GIM faculty reported spending most of their protected time on scholarly activities less amenable to publication (p = .05). A greater proportion of subspecialists felt peer-reviewed publication should be required for promotion (p < .01), but a minority of both groups felt this should necessarily entail original research. CONCLUSION: Subspecialist clinician-educators generate significantly more peer-reviewed publications than do their GIM colleagues. clinician-educators hold diverse views on the role of publication and reputation in determining their promotion.     

Faculty Publication Rates and the Science–Practice Divide in Clinical Psychology

This commentary points out serious areas for concern in the assessment of faculty productivity as reported by Stewart, Roberts, and Roy (2007). Matters of measurement are especially problematic when ranking subjects rather than calculating group trends or testing the relationships among variables. Beyond measurement issues are broader questions about the value of using faculty publication counts to assess clinical psychology programs. An alternate and perhaps more meaningful approach to program quality could focus on student outcomes rather than faculty outcomes, and clinical and scientific measures of quality.     

Increasing departmental and college-wide faculty development opportunities through a teaching scholars program.

The University of Iowa Teaching Scholars Program was initiated in 1999 at the University of Iowa Carver College of Medicine (CCOM) with the overall goal of promoting leadership in faculty development related to teaching skills. Specific goals of this program are (1) to promote the development of a cadre of faculty members who have the skills to implement faculty development within their departments and the CCOM; (2) to increase departmental involvement in faculty development efforts; (3) to increase resources available for dissemination of college-wide faculty development efforts; and (4) to acknowledge the extra effort faculty put into developing their skills and knowledge in medical education and in providing continuing education to their faculty colleagues. All clinical and basic science departments in the CCOM are given the opportunity to have a faculty member participate in the program. Unlike other programs reported in the literature, competitive decisions for program participation are made at the departmental level. The three-year program combines monthly meetings and other activities to train faculty to provide faculty development in teaching skills. Each scholar develops and implements a project to address departmental faculty development needs as well as needs of other departments in the CCOM. To date (2006), 50 faculty members from 19 different departments have participated in the program with an average of 12 scholars per class. The program has resulted in a substantial increase in departmental and college-wide faculty development programming and has had a positive impact on individual scholars' teaching skills and leadership roles.     

Evaluation of an Enhanced Peer Mentoring Program on Scholarly Productivity and Promotion in Academic Emergency Medicine: A Five-Year Review

ObjectiveTo design, implement, and evaluate the effectiveness of an enhanced peer mentoring program (EPMP) for faculty in emergency medicine aimed at overcoming traditional mentoring challenges.MethodsFull time faculty (Clinical Instructor, Assistant, and Associate levels) were placed into peer groups (based upon their primary academic roles) led by senior faculty advisors at the Professor level. Peer groups met at least quarterly from 2012 to 2017. In lieu of a structured curriculum, session topics were informed by individual faculty surveys and peer group consensus. Areas of focus included work-life balance, prioritizing academic commitments, identification of mentors (both within and external to the department and university), networking opportunities, promotions goals, and career satisfaction.ResultsEffectiveness of the EPMP was evaluated by academic productivity and advancement over a 5- year period. A total of 22 faculty members participated in the program. There was an increase in promotions to the next academic level, from 3 promotions in the five years before the program to 7 promotions in the five years of the program. Total grant funding increased 3-fold from $500,000 to $1,706,479 from the first year to the last year of the evaluation period.ConclusionsThis enhanced peer mentoring program was effective in mitigating many of the traditional mentoring challenges faced by faculty in academia and was successful in improving both academic productivity and advancement.     

Research support infrastructure and productivity in U.S. family practice residency programs.

PURPOSE: To examine the associations between 11 research support infrastructural characteristics and measures of research productivity. METHOD: A questionnaire was mailed to 462 directors of non-military family practice residency programs in the United States. A total of 11 research support infrastructural characteristics and six research productivity measures were coded. Initial analyses indicated a skewness in responses given by larger versus smaller programs. Respondents were divided into those from programs with eight or fewer full-time faculty and those from programs with nine or more. Separate analyses were run for each. Logistic regression was employed to determine which research support characteristics would best predict productivity in the top quartile. RESULTS: Of the 461 recipients of deliverable questionnaires, 351 (76.1%) responded. A large proportion of programs reported no research productivity for the preceding 12 months. Separate stepwise logistic regression analyses were run for small and large programs; the ability of the 11 characteristics to predict research-productive programs varied with size. Employment of full-time research professionals was the only characteristic positively associated with research productivity for both groups. For small programs, research productivity was positively associated with the requirement of faculty members to do research. For large programs, it was positively associated with both the presence of fellowship programs and the presence of a specific, written research strategic plan. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated a positive association between several elements of research infrastructure and research productivity but that such infrastructure is inconsistent across programs and seemingly insufficient to develop the necessary research culture and socialization.     

Observations on Training Clinical Psychology Faculty

The rank ordering of psychology programs based on the number of "core" clinical program faculty they produce is interesting and valuable. It is important to emphasize, as the Hard! et al. (this issue) did, that this is only one measure of program quality. The study was based only on faculty of university doctoral training programs, and there are other programs and locations in which faculty are involved in training future clinical psychology program faculty. It is most interesting that even the best programs train very few future clinical program faculty per year. Because of temporal shifts in program quality, when making evaluative decisions, it is essential for consumers of rank-ordered lists to obtain the most recent and direct information regarding programs. I also discuss some future implications of these and other data for future directions in training clinical psychology program faculty.     

The impact of a program for systematically recognizing and rewarding academic performance.

PURPOSE: To describe an academic performance incentive system (APIS) and faculty perception of it; explore the impacts of incentive level, faculty rank, clinical practice volume, and administrative responsibility on academic productivity; and describe the APIS's use in maintaining congruence between department mission and activities. METHOD: A list of teaching, research, and academic service activities was developed, which full-time faculty (n = 33) used to report activities. Clinical faculty members received incentive income based on credits earned. APIS initially distributed 1% of practice plan receipts (subsequently increased to 3% and then 5%). Productivity was measured by differences in APIS points achieved. Satisfaction of all faculty participants was measured by survey. RESULTS: Faculty members (n = 20) who participated throughout averaged 22 credits per month (nine to 42 credits), and quarterly incentive bonuses ranged from 145 US dollars to 6,128 US dollars. Average credits earned per month were 24 for the 1% incentive, 23 for the 3% incentive, and 20 for the 5% incentive. Faculty members with administrative responsibilities were as productive academically as were their non-administrative counterparts. Senior faculty members were as productive as junior faculty. Faculty members who were more productive clinically were more productive academically. Seventy percent of respondents reported they were either very satisfied or somewhat satisfied with the APIS. Seventy-eight percent felt that the APIS accurately reflected their academic productivity. Most respondents (81%) felt that the amount of money allocated to the incentive system was appropriate (15% felt it should be increased and one respondent recommended reduction). CONCLUSIONS: The APIS system has been well accepted by faculty and allows for data-driven discussion of the department's mission and activities.     

Using a productivity-based physician compensation program at an academic health center: a case study.

PURPOSE: With increased budget constraints, academic health centers (AHCs) have turned their focus on physician compensation. While many AHCs are concerned that compensation programs driven primarily by revenue generation will have a negative impact on their academic mission, little information is available to support this. The authors examined the effects on teaching and clinical productivity of an innovative compensation program for pediatrics primary care faculty at an AHC and related those effects to national standards for productivity. METHOD: A baseline productivity and compensation assessment was conducted for a group of 35 academic general pediatricians. The data were compared with Medical Group Management Association (MGMA) figures for general pediatricians. A productivity-based faculty compensation program using the work component of the relative-value unit (RVU) as the measure of productivity was designed and implemented. Productivity and compensation were measured after the first year of the program and compared with the baseline assessment. The numbers of hours precepting students and residents and the students' evaluations of their clinical experiences before and after implementation of the program were compared. RESULTS: The baseline assessment showed that over half of the faculty had productivity that fell below the MGMA 25th percentile, while the majority had compensation that exceeded this percentile. After implementation of the compensation program, 89% of the faculty increased their clinical productivity. The times faculty spent precepting and students' evaluations before and after program implementation were unchanged. CONCLUSIONS: Successful productivity-based physician compensation programs can be developed for AHCs.     

Program Proficiency in Training Graduate Students for Clinical Faculty Careers: Does Program Size Matter?

Hunt suggests that our published analysis of program proficiency in training graduate students for clinical psychology faculty careers is "worse than useless," inasmuch as it utilizes as its principal measure the total number (rather than the percentage) of each program's graduates which have attained training faculty status— an approach that, according to Hunt, "systematically underrates small programs." In reply, we note that (a) our analysis was not intended as an overall rating of program strength, but rather as an indication of program achievement in a narrowly specified domain, (b) the utilized total number metric has considerable specific informative utility, and (c) additional analyses based upon Hunt's preferred percentage metric do not support the claim that our previously published report systematically underrated small programs. Because it may be of interest to prospective students (and others), a rank-ordered listing of programs which have placed at least 5% of recent Ph.D. recipients in clinical faculty positions is provided.     

Development of the medical humanities program at East Carolina University

The medical humanities program at East Carolina University School of Medicine has 50 contact hours with medical students in the required curriculum, fourth-year electives that are well-subscribed (47% of the members of the class of 1989 took one or more), and programs for residents, fellows, and faculty. The author discusses several crucial decisions made in the first year of the program (1978-79) that affected the nature and development of the program: first, to begin the medical humanities courses in the preclinical required curriculum and use these courses as a base to build on in the clinical years; second, to develop a program through all years of training while preserving time for faculty research; third, to arrange for program faculty to team-teach with clinical faculty; fourth, to show the importance of the humanities programs and courses by the way in which they were constructed and situated in the curriculum; and fifth, to seek primarily to teach a method of inquiry.     

On the Origins of Clinical Psychology Faculty: Who Is Training the Trainers?

There exists little published research regarding the comparative performance of graduate programs in clinical psychology on relevant measures of program achievement. The present report thus aims to provide information about one such measure—program proficiency in training graduates to assume clinical psychology faculty positions. Degree-granting institution and year of degree completion were obtained for 1,529 individuals listed as core faculty at 150 university-based clinical psychology Ph.D. programs accredited by the American Psychological Association. On this basis, leading programs (i.e., those having trained numerous clinical faculty members) are identified. Proficiency in placing graduates in clinical faculty positions was moderately positively correlated with program reputational strength; it was not significantly associated with program size. A set of recommendations for the systematic investigation of factors germane to such proficiency, as well as to program achievement in other important (and heretofore unstudied) domains, is proffered. It is argued that no single measure is adequate as an overall gauge of program excellence.     

Scholarly productivity of geriatrics senior faculty members and faculty trainees compared with that of other health professions educators.

To compare the scholarly productivity levels of senior geriatrics educators and faculty trainees, and to compare their productivity with those of other faculty groups, the authors analyzed questionnaires completed in 1988 by 97 senior staff members of geriatrics education centers nationwide and in 1985-1989 by 91 faculty enrollees in the year-long professional development program of the Texas Consortium of Geriatric Education Centers. The chief difference between the two groups was that more senior educators (75%) than enrollees (40%) had published in the three years previous to completing the questionnaire. The authors conclude that the productivity levels of the two groups compare favorably with previously reported productivity levels of health sciences faculties in general.     

Factors encouraging research productivity in a division of general internal medicine

The authors investigated two of the causes of and possible remedies for low research activity (as measured by rate of publication) of faculty members in a division of general internal medicine at a university hospital and its affiliated Veterans Administration medical center. They did this by analyzing information about the faculty in the health center's records spanning a 16-year period. This 1989 study suggests that the general medicine faculty members who are also involved in subspecialties and who have protected research time can improve their research productivity.