Evaluation of HSR&D

Career Development

Award Program: Phase I

John Finney, PhD

July 8, 2014

1 
Poll Question

• What is your role in the CDA program?

– Current CDA recipient

– Former CDA recipient

– Current Mentor

– Former Mentor

– Multiple Roles (both CDA recipient and Mentor)

– Other 

2 
3 

How does one gauge the 

quality of a research career 

development program?
4 

How does one gauge the 

quality of a research career 

development program?

• Compare funded and unfunded applicants?
5 

How does one gauge the 

quality of a research career 

development program?

• Compare funded and unfunded applicants?

• Compare award recipients with those 

 from other highly-regarded programs?
Compare the academic advancement 

and research productivity of HSR&D 

Career Development Awardees (CDAs), 

National Institutes of Health (NIH) K 

awardees in health services research 

and Agency for Healthcare Research 

and Quality (AHRQ) K awardees. 

Primary Aim 1

6 
7 

Award 

Program 

HSR&D CDA

NIH K in HSR

AHRQ K

Awardees’ Outcomes

Tenure-track Academic rank 

Number of Grants as PI 

Number of Major Journal

 Articles 

Number of Major Journal

 Articles as First/Sole Author

Citation (h) Index

Honors 

 Journal Editorship Position

 Grant Review Committee

Number of Postgraduate 

 Mentees 

Awardee Characteristics 

at Time of Award

Gender

Minority Group (white- 

 non-Hispanic vs other)

MD Degree (Y/N)

Research Ranking of 

 University Conferring

 Highest Degree

Years Since Highest

 Degree/Residency

Postdoctoral Training (Y/N)

Grants/Contracts as PI 

Major Journal Articles

Number 

of Years 

Postaward

Note: Dashed arrows indicate the control of covariates via ANCOVA. “Major” journal articles are 

reports of empirical research, reviews, guideline reports, extended commentaries, etc. (i.e., not 

editorials, letters to the editor, brief commentaries or book reviews). 

Figure 1. Conceptual Model for ANCOVA Analyses 

Comparing HSR&D, NIH and AHRQ Awardees
Participants

• 244 HSR&D CDAs

 219 (90%) responded (124 primary 

mentors)

• 226 NIH K (K01, K08 or K23) awardees 

(71% of 318 eligible) - 154 (68%) 

responded

• 91 eligible (of 120 total) AHRQ K (K01, 

K08) awardees 69 (76%) responded 

(FY2000 first yr)

8 
• Data sources: (1) Curriculum vitae solicited 

by evaluation team via email, telephone, 

and/or (faxed) letter in calendar year 2011 

and (2) Thomson Reuters WOK Citation 

Index.

• Positions and productivity for the HSR&D 

awardees are from year of their only award 

or their “relevant award.”

Methods

9 
• “Relevant award” = RCD, MREP or CDA-2 

(comparable to individual-mentored K 

awards).

• For Aim 1, compared (a) all HSR&D CDAs 

with all NIH K awardees from 1991 to 2010, 

and (b) HSR&D, NIH and AHRQ K awardees 

from 2000 to 2010.

Methods

10
Number of HSR&D Career Development 

Awards Received

Type of HSR&D Award (not 

mutually exclusive) N % (of 219)

Entry-level Awards

 AI 11 5% 

 CDA-1 5 2% 

Mid-level Awards

 RCD 114 52% 

 MREP 33 15% 

 CDA-2 44 20% 

Advanced or Transition Awards

 ARCD 68 31% 

 CDTA 13 6% 

Unspecified 1 <1% 

Multiple awards 67 31% 

Mean number of awards 1.32 

11
12

Figure 2. Number of HSR&D Awardees by Year
13

Figure 3. Number of NIH K Awardees by Year
14

Figure 4. Number of AHRQ K Awardees by Year
Participants’ Characteristics

All Awardees Awardees 2000-2010 

 

Characteristic 

HSR&D 

(n=219) 

Mean 

NIH K 

(n=154) 

Mean

HSR&D

 (n=161) 

Mean 

NIH K

(n=132) 

Mean

AHRQ K 

(n=69) 

Mean

Age at (relevant) 

award

37.3 37.9 37.1 38.3 38.4 

Years since 

highest degree or 

residency at time 

of (relevant) 

award

5.9 6.7 5.4 6.9 6.5 

Years since 

(relevant) award 8.3 6.9 6.0 5.8 4.5 

15
Gender and Racial/Ethnic Background of

HSR&D, NIH and AHRQ Awardees

All Awardees Awardees 2000-2010

Demographic 

Characteristic

HSR&D 

(n=219)

% 

NIH K 

(n=154)

% 

HSR&D

(n=161)

% 

NIH K

(n=132)

% 

AHRQ K 

(n=69)

% 

Female 43% 54% 47% 58% 48%

Race/Ethnicity

White Non-Hispanic 82% 72% 81% 68% 77%

Asian 7% 14% 8% 15% 15%

Hispanic/Latino/Latina 3% 4% 3% 5% 0%

African American/Black 2% 5% 2% 5% 3%

Mixed Race 2% 1% 3% 2% 4%

American 

Indian/Alaskan Native 0% 1% 0% 1% 0%

Unknown/Missing 4% 4% 4% 5% 1%

Minority Group 14% 24% 15% 27% 22%

16
Highest Degrees for HSR&D, NIH and 

AHRQ Awardees

All Awardees Awardees 2000-2010

 

Highest Degree

HSR&D 

(n=219)

% 

NIH K 

(n=154)

% 

HSR&D 

(n=161)

% 

NIH K

(n=132)

% 

AHRQ K 

(n=69)

% 

MD Degree 66% 66% 56% 64% 71%

PhD Degree 32% 30% 42% 33% 20%

Other Doctoral 

Degree 2% 4% 2% 4% 9%

17
All Awardees Awardees 2000-2010

 

Outcome

HSR&D 

(n=219)

Mean 

or % 

NIH K 

(n=154)

Mean 

or %

HSR&D 

(n=161)

Mean 

or % 

NIH K

(n=132)

Mean 

or %

AHRQ K 

(n=69) 

Mean 

or % 

Adjusted Mean 

Academic Rank

1.2 1.3 .9 1.0 1.0

Outcome:

Tenure-track Academic Positions of 

HSR&D, NIH and AHRQ Awardees

18
19

All Awardees Awardees 2000-2010

 

Outcome

HSR&D 

(n=219) 

NIH K 

(n=154) 

HSR&D 

(n=161)

NIH K

(n=132) 

AHRQ K 

(n=69) 

Total grants (PI) 1,147 564 547 401 146

Total grants (PI) over 

$100,000 585 226 234 157 57

Grants as PI for HSR&D, NIH 

and AHRQ Awardees
All Awardees Awardees 2000-2010

 

Outcome

HSR&D 

(n=219) 

NIH K 

(n=154) 

HSR&D 

(n=161)

NIH K

(n=132) 

AHRQ K 

(n=69) 

Total grants (PI) 1,147 564 547 401 146

Total grants (PI) over 

$100,000 585 226 234 157 57

Adjusted mean 

number of grants 

(PI)

4.8 4.3 3.2 2.9 2.7

Adjusted mean 

number of grants 

(PI) over $100,000

2.4* 

(n=154)

1.8

(n=91)

1.3

(n=107)

1.2

(n=76)

1.2

(n=58)

Grants as PI for HSR&D, NIH 

and AHRQ Awardees

*p <.05 difference between all HSR&D and NIH K awardees. 

20
21

All Awardees Awardees 2000-2010

Outcome

HSR&D 

(n=219) 

NIH K 

(n=154)

HSR&D 

(n=161)

NIH K

(n=132)

AHRQ K 

(n=69)

Major journal 

articles 9,350 4,234 4,346 2,949 1,271

Major journal 

articles as first or 

sole author

2,480 1,497 1,449 1,053 527

Number of Major Journal Articles 
22

All Awardees Awardees 2000-2010

Outcome

HSR&D 

(n=219) 

NIH K 

(n=154)

HSR&D 

(n=161)

NIH K

(n=132)

AHRQ K 

(n=69)

Major journal 

articles 9,350 4,234 4,346 2,949 1,271

Major journal 

articles as first or 

sole author

2,480 1,497 1,449 1,053 527

Adjusted mean 

number of major 

journal articles 

39.0* 32.8 25.3 22.8 21.6 

Adjusted mean 

number of major 

journal articles as first 

or sole author

10.4 11.0 8.4 8.1 8.8 

Adjusted citation (h) 

index 15.8 15.6 12.2 12.9 12.0 

Number of Major Journal Articles 

*p <.05 difference between all HSR&D and NIH K awardees. 
23

All Awardees Awardees 2000-2010 

Outcome HSR&D 

(n=219) 

NIH K 

(n=154) 

HSR&D 

 (n=161) 

NIH K

(n=122) 

AHRQ K 

(n=69) 

Journal editorship/ 

editorial board (Y/N) 33% 40% 23% 27% 32% 

Grant review 

committee (Y/N) 15% 11% 10% 8% 6% 

Adjusted Predicted Probabilities of Honors for HSR&D, 

NIH and AHRQ Awardees

All Awardees Awardees 2000-2010 

Outcome 

HSR&D 

(n=183) 

Mean

NIH K 

(n=110) 

Mean 

HSR&D 

 (n=133) 

Mean 

NIH K

(n=95) 

Mean 

AHRQ K 

(n=53) 

Mean

Adjusted Number 

of Mentees 8.5 7.3 6.7 5.5 7.2 

Adjusted Mean Number of Post-graduate Mentees for 

HSR&D, NIH and AHRQ Awardees
24

 

 Outcome

HSR&D

CDAs 

(n=219) 

% or Mean 

VA-related Outcomes

Retention in VA 80% 

Retention in VA Research 74% 

QUERI Involvement Mean 0.8 

 Any QUERI Involvement 41% 

Workgroup Member or PI on Local QUERI 

Project = 1

9% 

Executive Committee Member or PI on 

Either RRP or SDP = 2 27% 

Research Director, or Clinical, or 

Implementation Research Coordinator = 3 5% 

VA-Related Outcomes for HSR&D CDAs
Conclusion: Aim 1

• The HSR&D CDA program has been selecting promising 

applicants for CDAs and mentoring them very effectively, 

as indicated by their advancing in academic positions, 

securing grants, publishing, garnering honors and 

mentoring young investigators at levels that are at least 

equal to those of K awardees from the highly regarded NIH 

and AHRQ programs. 

• The HSR&D CDA program also has been quite successful in 

retaining outstanding health services researchers in VA 

where they can make substantial research contributions to 

help improve VHA care for Veterans.

25
Publishing Trajectories of 

Health Services Research 

Career Development 

Awardees

Max Halvorson, MA

July 8, 2014

26
Research Career Development 

Awardees

• How can we measure “success?”

– Publications; Grants; Positions; Honors; Mentorship; 

Health Care Impact; Professional Networks; 

Satisfaction...

 

27
Research Career Development 

Awardees

• How can we measure “success?”

– Publications; Grants; Positions; Honors; Mentorship; 

Health Care Impact; Professional Networks; 

Satisfaction...

• Do some awardees publish more than others?

• What factors are associated with high publishing 

rates?

• How do publishing rates unfold over time?

• What is the role of collaboration in publishing in 

health services research?

28
Research Career Development 

Awardees

• How can we measure “success?”

– Publications; Grants; Positions; Honors; Mentorship; 

Health Care Impact; Professional Networks; 

Satisfaction...

• Do some awardees publish more than others?

• What factors are associated with high publishing 

rates?

• How do publishing rates unfold over time?

• What is the role of collaboration in publishing in 

health services research?

29
Research Career Development 

Awardees

• How can we measure “success?”

– Publications; Grants; Positions; Honors; Mentorship; 

Health Care Impact; Professional Networks; 

Satisfaction...

• Do some awardees publish more than others?

• What factors are associated with high publishing 

rates?

• How do publishing rates unfold over time?

• What is the role of collaboration in publishing in 

health services research?

30
Research Career Development 

Awardees

• How can we measure “success?”

– Publications; Grants; Positions; Honors; Mentorship; 

Health Care Impact; Professional Networks; 

Satisfaction...

• Do some awardees publish more than others?

• What factors are associated with high publishing 

rates?

• How do publishing rates unfold over time?

• What is the role of collaboration in publishing in 

health services research?

31
Research Career Development 

Awardees

• How can we measure “success?”

– Publications; Grants; Positions; Honors; Mentorship; 

Health Care Impact; Professional Networks; 

Satisfaction...

• Do some awardees publish more than others?

• What factors are associated with high publishing 

rates?

• How do publishing rates unfold over time?

• What is the role of collaboration in publishing in 

health services research?

32
Analyses

• Used semi-parametric group-based modeling, 

a technique for identifying latent trajectory 

groupings

• Explored differences between trajectory 

groups

33
Results – Publishing Trajectories for all 

Publications 

L (n=69); L-M (n=101); H (n=49); L-I(n=140); M-I (n=56); H-I (n=27)

34
Results – Publishing Trajectories for 

First/Sole Author Publications

L-D (n=239); M (n=174); H (n=29)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Mean number of publications

Years after award

First-authored major journal publications per year

Low-decreasing

Medium

High

35
Results – Publishing Trajectories for 

Last/Senior Author Publications

L (n=69); L-M (n=101); H (n=49); L-I(n=140); M-I (n=56); H-I (n=27)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Mean number of publications

Years after award

Last-authored major journal publications per year

Low

Low-increasing

Medium

MediumIncreasing

High-increasing

36
Results - Collaboration

Low 

(N=69)

Lowmedium 

(N=101)

High 

(N=49)

Lowincreasing 

(N=140)

Mediumincreasing 

(N=56)

Highincreasing

(N=27)

F or Χ2 η2 or V

Number of authors per 

publication

3.8 4.2 4.9 4.4 4.9 4.7 6.67*** .07

37
Low 

(N=69)

Lowmedium 

(N=101)

High 

(N=49)

Lowincreasing 

(N=140)

Mediumincreasing 

(N=56)

Highincreasing

(N=27)

F or Χ2 η2 or V

Gender (% Female) 59% 52% 49% 50% 29% 26% 18.05** .20

Race (% Minority) 27% 12% 22% 20% 21% 15% 6.16 .12

Age at award (years) 39.2 37.6 38.1 37.3 37.8 35.0 3.46** .04

Highest Degree 11.68 .11

 MD (%) 64% 58% 76% 71% 71% 70% 

 PhD (%) 30% 38% 20% 26% 29% 29% 

 Other (%) 6% 4% 4% 3% 0% 1% 

Results – Awardee Characteristics

38
Low 

(N=69)

Lowmedium 

(N=101)

High 

(N=49)

Lowincreasing 

(N=140)

Mediumincreasing 

(N=56)

Highincreasing

(N=27)

F or Χ2 η2 or V

Grants as PI in 10 years since 

award 

2.6 3.3 3.5 3.7 4.1 6.2 3.41** .04

h-index (based on paper 

citations)

6.9 13.0 20.9 14.3 21.4 26.0 67.22*** .44

Results – Productivity Correlates

39
Findings – Publishing Rates and 

Collaboration

• Overall publication rates remained constant or 

increased

– Awardees seem to generally succeed in publishing

• Publishing rates as first author decreased or 

remained constant 

• Publishing rates as last author increased or 

stayed constant

• Awardees in higher trajectories had more 

authors per paper

– Collaboration seems to be an element of publishing 

at a high rate 

40
Findings – Publishing Rates and 

Collaboration

• Overall publication rates remained constant or 

increased

– Awardees seem to generally succeed in publishing

• Publishing rates as first author decreased or 

remained constant 

• Publishing rates as last author increased or 

stayed constant

• Awardees in higher trajectories had more 

authors per paper

– Collaboration seems to be an element of publishing 

at a high rate 

41
Findings – Publishing Rates and 

Collaboration

• Overall publication rates remained constant or 

increased

– Awardees seem to generally succeed in publishing

• Publishing rates as first author decreased or 

remained constant 

• Publishing rates as last author increased or 

stayed constant

• Awardees in higher trajectories had more 

authors per paper

– Collaboration seems to be an element of publishing 

at a high rate 

42
Findings – Publishing Rates and 

Collaboration

• Overall publication rates remained constant or 

increased

– Awardees seem to generally succeed in publishing

• Publishing rates as first author decreased or 

remained constant 

• Publishing rates as last author increased or 

stayed constant

• Awardees in higher trajectories had more 

authors per paper

– Collaboration seems to be an element of publishing 

at a high rate 

43
Findings – Publishing Rates and 

Collaboration

• Overall publication rates remained constant or 

increased

– Awardees seem to generally succeed in publishing

• Publishing rates as first author decreased or 

remained constant 

• Publishing rates as last author increased or 

stayed constant

• Awardees in higher trajectories had more 

authors per paper

– Collaboration seems to be an element of publishing 

at a high rate 

• Awardees who published at high rates had 

higher h-indices, more grants 44
Findings – Awardee Characteristics

• Women and older awardees tended to be in 

lower trajectories

• More research needed to address root causes

• No effect of university ranking, MD vs. PhD, 

award type

45
Next Steps

• Phase I has focused on productivity and 

outcomes

• Phase II focuses on mechanisms; specifically on 

mentorship

• The second phase of the evaluation should 

provide more information on indicators of CDA 

applicants’ potential (such as their research 

commitment), as well as characteristics of 

successful mentoring that can be used to improve 

an already successful program.

46
47

Phase II Evaluation of VA 

HSR&D Career Development 

Award Program: Mentoring 

Processes and Relationships

Ruth Cronkite, PhD

July 8, 2014
A critical feature of the VA HSR&D CDA Program for 

accomplishing its aims - an effective mentoring 

relationship and mentoring process - is a “black box” in 

Phase I. In Phase II , we propose two primary goals. 

Goal 1: Examine aspects of the mentorship and their 

associations with subjective and objective mentee and 

mentor outcomes. 

Goal 2: Obtain input from VA stakeholders (CDA 

mentees and mentors) on how to enhance the HSR&D 

CDA Program mentorship and on innovations in 

mentorship models. 

Phase II Evaluation

48
Goal 1: Conceptual Model

49

Mentee 

Characteristics

Mentor 

Characteristics

Program 

Characteristics

Mentoring 

Relationship 

and Process

Institutional 

Context

Outcomes

-----

Subjective 

Outcomes

-----

Objective 

Outcomes

-----

Institutional 

Outcomes
Aim 1

50

Mentee 

Characteristics

Mentor 

Characteristics

Program 

Characteristics

Mentoring 

Relationship 

and Process

Institutional 

Context

Outcomes

-----

Subjective 

Outcomes

-----

Objective 

Outcomes

-----

Institutional 

Outcomes

Aim 1: Characterize relevant aspects of mentoring 

relationships among CDAs and their mentor networks, as well 

as subjective outcomes of the mentorship.
51

Aim 2

Mentee 

Characteristics

Mentor 

Characteristics

Program 

Characteristics

Mentoring 

Relationship 

and Process

Institutional 

Context

Outcomes

-----

Subjective 

Outcomes

-----

Objective 

Outcomes

-----

Institutional 

Outcomes

Aim 2: Identify characteristics of the mentoring relationship 

that are associated with mentee outcomes.
Aim 3

52

Mentee 

Characteristics

Mentor 

Characteristics

Program 

Characteristics

Mentoring 

Relationship 

and Process

Institutional 

Context

Outcomes

-----

Subjective 

Outcomes

-----

Objective 

Outcomes

-----

Institutional 

Outcomes

Aim 3: Examine potential moderators of the association 

between aspects of the mentoring relationship and mentee 

outcomes. 
Aim 4

53

Mentee 

Characteristics

Mentor 

Characteristics

Program 

Characteristics

Mentoring 

Relationship 

and Process

Institutional 

Context

Outcomes

-----

Subjective 

Outcomes

-----

Objective 

Outcomes

-----

Institutional 

Outcomes

Aim 4: Identify characteristics of the mentoring relationship 

that are associated with mentor outcomes. 
Aim 5

54

Mentee 

Characteristics

Mentor 

Characteristics

Program 

Characteristics

Mentoring 

Relationship and 

Process

Institutional 

Context 

Outcomes 

T1

-----

Subjective 

Outcomes

-----

Objective

Outcomes

-----

Institutional 

Outcomes

Aim 5: Conduct a prospective longitudinal pilot study of the 

effects of mentorship on outcomes for current CDAs. 

Outcomes 

T2

-----

Subjective 

Outcomes

-----

Objective

Outcomes

-----

Institutional 

Outcomes
Study Design

• CV data from Phase I (updated through 2012)

• 30-minute web survey on...

– Awardee and Mentor characteristics

– CDA mentorship

– Program and Facility Infrastructure

• Survey responses will be analyzed individually 

and as Awardee-Mentor dyads

55
Response Rates so far...

• Updated CVs

– 180/182 CDAs and 189/214 Mentors

• Surveys

– Paired into 145 dyads

– 83% of CDAs and 81% of Mentors completed

– 100/145 dyads (69%)

– 42 currently active CDA-Mentor dyads

56
Obtain input from VA stakeholders (CDA mentees and 

mentors) on how to enhance the HSR&D CDA Program 

mentorship and on innovations in mentorship models.

 - CDA Application and Review Process

 - Incentives and Barriers to Mentoring

 - Evaluating/Monitoring Progress During the CDA

 - Ideas for Innovative Mentorship Models

 - Ideas for Enhancing Networking/Collegiality among CDAs

 - Support for Mentoring Processes

 - Career Advocacy

 - Ideas for Program Enhancement

 - Ideas for Attracting Minority Applicants

Goal 2: Input on Program Enhancements

57
In-depth interviews conducted with 46 interviewees

 - 2 former HSR&D Directors

 - 14 CDAs and Mentors (current and past)

 - 12 Center of Excellence (now COIN) Directors

 - 9 CDA Review Committee Members

 - 9 Directors of other Career Development Programs

Interviews so far...

58
Overall Objective: Promote and facilitate a 

community of scholarship among members of the 

HSR&D CDA Program nationwide.

 - Aim 1: Establish a national cadre of senior advisors; 

facilitate opportunities for CDAs to interact with them.

 - Aim 2: Facilitate in-person and virtual interaction among 

CDA community members nationwide.

 - Aim 3: Develop a cyber-seminar series, alternating between 

mentoring topics & CDAs research-in-progress.

 - Aim 4: Create an HSR&D CDA Toolkit for sharing resources 

relevant to mentoring.

HSR&D CDA Program Enhancement Initiative

59
Acknowledgements: Phase I 

Project Team Advisory Committee

 Ruth Cronkite, PhD Iris Litt, MD, Chair

 Erin O’Rourke Amundson, BA Mary Margaret Chren, MD 

 Xiaoyu Bi, PhD Mary Goldstein, MD

 Michael Cucciare, PhD Paul Heidenreich, MD

 Andrea Finlay, PhD Rudolf Moos, PhD

 Max Halvorson, MA Craig Rosen, PhD

 Ko Hayashi, MS Rodney Ulane, PhD

 Sue Macus, MA HSR&D Service:

 Natalya Maisel, PhD Seth Eisen, MD, MSc, Director

 Douglas Owens, PhD Robert Small, CDA Prog. Manager

 Brandy Smith, BA

 Christine Timko, PhD

 Kirsten Unger-Hu, MS

 Julie Weitlauf, PhD

60
Acknowledgements: Phase II

Project Team Advisory Committee

 John Finney, PhD Rachel Kimerling, PhD Chair

 Erin O’Rourke Amundson, BA Susan Frayne, MD, MPH

 Steven Asch, MD, MPH Paul Heidenreich, MD, MS

 Xiaoyu Bi, PhD Iris Litt, MD

 Michael Cucciare, PhD Rudolf Moos, PhD

 Michael Fine, MD, MSc Craig Rosen, PhD

 Andrea Finlay, PhD Kelley Skeff, MD, PhD

 Mary Goldstein, MD, MS Hannah Valantine, MD

 Max Halvorson, MA Elizabeth Yano, PhD

 Ko Hayashi, MS HSR&D Service: Tyson Holmes, PhD David Atkins, MD, MS

 Natalya Maisel, PhD Seth Eisen, MD, MS

 Douglas Owens, MD, MS Sara Knight, PhD

 Gary Tarasovsky, BS Karen Siegel, MA

 Christine Timko, PhD Robert Small

 Julie Weitlauf, PhD CIDER: Donna Zulman, MD, MS Gerry McGlynn, MEd

 Karen Bossi, MA

61
Acknowledgements 

Consultants 

 Mark J. Hager, PhD

 Tyson Holmes, PhD

 Ruth O’Hara, PhD

 Georgine M. Pion, PhD 

Funding Source: Phase I: HSR&D SDR 10-182 

 Phase II: HSR&D SDR 11-439 

62
Conceptual Model Based on Surveys

4

2

2 4

2 4

2 4

Mentor Characteristics 1

- Age

- Gender

- Race/Ethnicity

- Mentoring Experience

- Distribution of Time to Clinical, 

Research, Mentoring duties

- Stature (publications, etc.)

- Costs of Mentoring [5]

- Benefits of Mentoring [7] 

Program Characteristics 1

- Input into Formation of

 Mentorship

- Number of Mentors

- Duration

- Mentor Geographic Proximity 

- Guidelines for Mentorship

- Mentorship Orientation or

 Training

(Perceived) Mentee 

Characteristics 1

- Age

- Gender

- Race/Ethnicity 

- Highest Degree

- Additional Training

- Number of Submissions

- Career Motivation [13]

- Grit [10]

- Research Preparation [9]

- Conscientiousness [4]

Subjective Outcomes 1

From Perspective of 

Mentee/Mentor

- Mentee Research SelfEfficacy (CRAI) [28]

- Satisfaction with 

Mentorship [11]

- Mentor Effectiveness [10]

- Effectiveness of Mentoring 

Team [4]

- Mentee Career 

Progress/Satisfaction [8/3]

Objective Outcomes 1

- Post-CDA Involvement in 

CDA Program [3]

 Mentee

- Research productivity

- Career advancement

 Mentor

- Research productivity

Institutional Outcomes 1

- Retention in VA

- # years in VA

- Publications with a VHA 

 or Veteran focus

Institutional Context 1

Infrastructure

- CoE, REAP, Univ. ranking

- Affiliations with other CDPs

- Peer Mentoring Opportunities

Institutional Support

- Research support 

- Travel support

- Release time for mentoring

- Recognition for mentoring

Mentoring Relationship & 

Process 1

- Changed mentors?

Quantity/Intensity

- Frequency/Nature of meetings

 

Functions Received/Provided

- General functions [12]

- Career-related [5]

 - Career advocacy [2]

- Psychosocial [7]

Quality

- Open Communication [3]

Similarity

- Gender match

- Race/Ethnicity match

- Perceived similarity [4]

- Perceived complementarity [2]

Figure 1: Conceptual Model for Phase II Evaluation of the Mentoring Relationship & Process

The underlined numbers in heading and next to each arrow correspond to the aims addressed.

LEGEND

Awardee survey

Mentor survey

Both surveys

Phase I CV Data

Major Life Events 

Influencing Productivity

3
Aims

Aim1: Characterize relevant aspects of mentoring relationships among CDA mentees 

and their mentor networks, as well as subjective outcomes of the mentorship.

We first plan to describe all aspects of the mentoring relationships, which will include 

characteristics of the mentees and mentors, mentoring program characteristics, aspects 

of the mentoring relationship and mentoring processes, and the institutional context of 

the mentorship. We also propose to characterize the subjective outcomes of the 

mentorship from the perspective of the mentee and the perspective of the mentor, along 

with objective outcomes for mentees and outcomes and institutional outcomes regarding 

intention to mentor, retention in VA, and VA relevant research.

Aim 2: Identify characteristics of the mentoring relationship that are associated with 

mentee outcomes. 

We propose to examine the association of the mentee and mentor characteristics, 

program characteristics, and aspects of the mentoring relationship and mentoring 

process to subjective and objective mentee outcomes. In particular, we will focus on the 

extent to which conceptual domains of the mentoring relationship, such as intensity, the 

nature and amount of career-related and psychosocial functions provided, perceived 

quality, and similarity, are related to the mentee’s perceived academic self-efficacy, 

evaluation of the mentorship, and intention to mentor. 

Aim 3: Examine potential moderators of the association between aspects of the 

mentoring relationship and mentee outcomes. 

For this aim, we will examine whether having a CoE or REAP at the mentee’s facility 

interacts with the association between aspects of the mentoring relationship and 

outcomes. For example, a significant interaction may suggest that the hypothesized 

positive association of career-related functions to academic self-efficacy is stronger for 

those mentees located at facilities with a CoE. 

Aim 4: Identify characteristics of the mentoring relationship that are associated with 

mentor outcomes. 

Taking a similar approach to that described for Aim 2, we propose to examine the 

relationship of mentee and mentor characteristics, program characteristics, and aspects 

of the mentoring relationship and mentoring process to subjective and objective mentor 

outcomes (instead of mentee outcomes). The focus will be on the extent to which 

conceptual domains of the mentoring relationship, such as intensity, the nature and 

amount of career-related and psychosocial functions provided, perceived quality, and 

similarity, are related to the mentor’s self-reported efficacy as a mentor, satisfaction with 

the mentee’s performance, and overall evaluation of the mentoring relationship.
Comments? 

Questions? 

63

John Finney, PhD: John.Finney@va.gov 

Max Halvorson, MA: Max.Halvorson@va.gov 

Ruth Cronkite, PhD: Ruth.Cronkite@va.gov