Cathleen Kane

Publications (2)3.01 Total impact

• Source

  Available from: William Michael Trochim

  Article: The end of the beginning: a commentary on 'Evaluation metrics for biostatistical and epidemiological collaborations'.

  Cathleen Kane, William M Trochim
  [show abstract] [hide abstract]
  ABSTRACT: The paper 'Evaluation Metrics for Biostatistical and Epidemiological Collaborations' of Rubio et al. represents an important initial advance in the evaluation of biostatistics, epidemiology, and research design (BERD). The authors present a sensible three-domain model (collaboration with investigators, application of BERD-related methods, and discovery of new BERD methodologies), rightly acknowledge the importance of team science, and break new ground in illustrating that the Clinical Translational Science Awards can function as a kind of national laboratory for the development and exploration of measures and metrics. Building upon these gains, there are several future considerations worthy of subsequent serious attention: strengthening the connection between BERD evaluation and both the science of team science and the field of evaluation; facing the challenges of operationalization of the conceptual domains; augmenting the work of Rubio et al. with standard evaluative models; and anticipating the need for multiplistic mixed methods and experimental and quasi-experimental complements to the proposed BERD metrics. Several common pitfalls will also be important to avoid, including the tendency to conflate the meaning of 'metrics' and 'measures' and the potential for a premature rush to adopt national 'standards' before adequately pilot testing the initial set of methods they have worked so diligently to develop.
  Statistics in Medicine 10/2011; 30(23):2778-82; author reply 2783-4. · 1.88 Impact Factor
• Source

  Available from: Harold Pincus

  Article: Evaluating Translational Research: A Process Marker Model

  William Trochim Ph.D, Cathleen Kane M.P.A, Mark J. Graham Ph.D, Harold A. Pincus M.D, William Trochim, Cathleen Kane, Mark J. Graham, Harold A. Pincus
  [show abstract] [hide abstract]
  ABSTRACT: Objective: We examine the concept of translational research from the perspective of evaluators charged with assessing translational efforts. One of the major tasks for evaluators involved in translational research is to help assess efforts that aim to reduce the time it takes to move research to practice and health impacts. Another is to assess efforts that are intended to increase the rate and volume of translation. Methods: We offer an alternative to the dominant contemporary tendency to define translational research in terms of a series of discrete “phases.”Results: We contend that this phased approach has been confusing and that it is insufficient as a basis for evaluation. Instead, we argue for the identification of key operational and measurable markers along a generalized process pathway from research to practice. Conclusions: This model provides a foundation for the evaluation of interventions designed to improve translational research and the integration of these findings into a field of translational studies. Clin Trans Sci 2011; Volume 4: 153–162
  Clinical and Translational Science 05/2011; 4(3):153 - 162. · 1.13 Impact Factor