Measuring Collaboration and Transdisciplinary Integration in Team Science

Abstract

Purpose:As the science of team science evolves, the development of measures that assess important processes related to working in transdisciplinary teams is critical. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to present the psychometric properties of scales measuring collaborative processes and transdisciplinary integration. Methods:Two hundred-sixteen researchers and research staff participating in the Transdisciplinary Tobacco Use Research Centers (TTURC) Initiative completed the TTURC researcher survey. Confirmatory-factor analyses were used to verify the hypothesized factor structures. Descriptive data pertinent to these scales and their associations with other constructs were included to further examine the properties of the scales. Results:Overall, the hypothesized-factor structures, with some minor modifications, were validated. A total of four scales were developed, three to assess collaborative processes (satisfaction with the collaboration, impact of collaboration, trust and respect) and one to assess transdisciplinary integration. All scales were found to have adequate internal consistency (i.e., Cronbach ␣'s were all Ͼ0.70); were correlated with intermediate markers of collaborations (e.g., the collaboration and transdisciplinary-integration scales were positively associated with the perception of a center's making good progress in creating new methods, new science and models, and new interventions); and showed some ability to detect group differences.Conclusions: This paper provides valid tools that can be utilized to examine the underlying processes of team science-an important step toward advancing the science of team science.(Am J Prev Med 2008;35(2S):S151-S160)

Effectiveness of a multidisciplinary facial function clinic

“…Review of the published literature finds more or less equivocal remarks on the evidence for effectiveness and utility of multidisciplinary approaches. [20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30] One of the reasons why there is no direct evidence regarding the success of teamwork in healthcare is the [31][32][33][34][35][36] Another reason would be the technical difficulty in conducting analyses of multidisciplinary approaches. Important factors that hinder such efforts include poor definition of team types and theoretic concepts, variability of populations, and healthcare settings support and infrastructure.…”

Evaluating co-creation of knowledge: from quality criteria and indicators to methods

“…The authors found the term "criterion" easy to understand and widely used (i.e. Bergmann et al, 2005;Klein, 2008;Wolf et al, 2013), as well as "indicator" (for example Klein (2008) in contrast to Masse et al (2008), who still use the very general "item"). Indicators in this sense refer to a unit to asses a specific state of something.…”

“…In the following, the elements of the cascade are demonstrated for one single criterion belonging to the dimension of "integrative process quality" (Masse et al, 2008). "Setting the scene" is a quite important criterion in terms of cocreation of knowledge (Schuck-Zöller et al, 2018), because it is key for successful involvement of practitioners.…”

Multidisciplinary Team Research as an Innovation Engine in Knowledge-Based Transition Economies and Implication for Asian Countries -From the Perspective of the Science of Team Science

“…Emotional capital is a distinct element of social capital. Satisfaction with collaboration, the resolution of conflicts, trust, and respect are all open to criticism, and transdisciplinary integration can outweigh inconvenience (Mâsse et al, 2008).…”