Developing and evaluating a team development intervention to support interdisciplinary teams

Exploring team dynamics during the development of a multi-institutional cross-disciplinary translational team: Implications for potential best practices

Introduction

A recent literature review revealed no studies that explored teams that used an explicit theoretical framework for multiteam systems in academic settings, such as the increasingly important multi-institutional cross-disciplinary translational team (MCTT) form. We conducted an exploratory 30-interview grounded theory study over two rounds to analyze participants' experiences from three universities who assembled an MCTT in order to pursue a complex grant proposal related to research on post-acute sequelae of COVID-19, also called "long COVID." This article considers activities beginning with preliminary discussions among principal investigators through grant writing and submission, and completion of reviews by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, which resulted in the proposal not being scored.

Methods

There were two stages to this interview study with MCTT members: pre-submission, and post-decision. Round one focused on the process of developing structures to collaborate on proposal writing and assembly, whereas round two focused on evaluation of the complete process. A total of 15 participants agreed to be interviewed in each round.

Findings

The first round of interviews was conducted prior to submission and explored issues during proposal writing, including (1) importance of the topic; (2) meaning and perception of "team" within the MCTT context; and (3) leadership at different levels of the team. The second round explored best practices-related issues including (1) leadership and design; (2) specific proposal assembly tasks; (3) communication; and (4) critical events.

Conclusion

We conclude with suggestions for developing best practices for assembling MCTTs involving multi-institutional teams.

Team principles for successful interdisciplinary research teams

Interdisciplinary research teams can be extremely beneficial when addressing difficult clinical problems. The incorporation of conceptual and methodological strategies from a variety of research disciplines and health professions yields transformative results. In this setting, the long-term goal of team science is to improve patient care, with emphasis on population health outcomes. However, team principles necessary for effective research teams are rarely taught in health professional schools. To form successful interdisciplinary research teams in cardio-oncology and beyond, guiding principles and organizational recommendations are necessary. Cardiovascular disease results in annual direct costs of $220 billion (about $680 per person in the US) and is the leading cause of death for cancer survivors, including adult survivors of childhood cancers. Optimizing cardio-oncology research in interdisciplinary research teams has the potential to aid in the investigation of strategies for saving hundreds of thousands of lives each year in the United States and mitigating the annual cost of cardiovascular disease. Despite published reports on experiences developing research teams across organizations, specialties and settings, there is no single journal article that compiles principles for cardiology or cardio-oncology research teams. In this review, recurring threads linked to working as a team, as well as optimal methods, advantages, and problems that arise when managing teams are described in the context of career development and research. The worth and hurdles of a team approach, based on practical lessons learned from establishing our multidisciplinary research team and information gleaned from relevant specialties in the development of a successful team are presented.

Measuring the processes of interdisciplinary team collaboration: Creating valid measures using a many-facet Rasch model approach

Introduction

The science of team science (SciTS) is an emerging research area that studies the processes and outcomes of team-based research. A well-established conceptual framework and appropriate methodology for examining the effectiveness of team science are critically important for promoting and advancing collaborative and interdisciplinary research. Although many instruments have been developed and used in the SciTS field, psychometric evidence has not been routinely assessed or reported for these scales. In addition, commonly used psychometric methods were mainly limited to internal consistency and factor analysis. To fill the gaps, this study introduces a framework based on Rasch measurement theory for creating and evaluating measures for team sciences.

Methods

We illustrate the application of Rasch measurement theory through the creation of valid measures to evaluate the processes of interdisciplinary scientific teams. Data were collected from 16 interdisciplinary teams through a university-wide initiative for promoting interdisciplinary team collaboration. Psychometric evidence based on a many-facet Rasch model was obtained for assessing the quality of the measures.

Results

The interdisciplinary teams differed in their clarity measures. Significant differences were also found between gender groups, racial groups, and academic ranks. We reported the reliability of measures and identified items that do not fit the model and may present potential threat to validity and fairness of SciTS measures.

Conclusion

This study shows the great potential of using Rasch measurement theory for developing and evaluating SciTS measures. Applying Rasch measurement theory produces objective measures that are comparable across individuals, interdisciplinary teams, institutions, time, and various demographic groups.