Assessing Research Experiences through PITS Survey

The pathway model was constructed using previously described approaches (20 (link)), and detailed methods are described in SI Appendix. Program assessment used the PITS survey tool and comprised five existing survey tools covering project ownership, self-efficacy, science identity, scientific community values, and networking, all of which measure different psychological components of a research experience and have individually been used in a range of investigations of educational programs. Before usage in this data collection process, the PITS survey was evaluated for its dimensionality, validity, and internal consistency (28 (link)). The tool underwent psychometric evaluation and has been validated for usage in the assessment of research experiences. Details of the survey cohorts, data, and statistical analyses are described in detail in SI Appendix. This study was approved and supervised by the Institutional Review Board of the Indiana University of Pennsylvania (14-302) and the University of Pittsburgh Institutional Review Board (PRO14100567 and PRO15030412).

Partial Protocol Preview
This section provides a glimpse into the protocol.
The remaining content is hidden due to licensing restrictions, but the full text is available at the following link: Access Free Full Text.

Hanauer D.I., Graham M.J., Betancur L., Bobrownicki A., Cresawn S.G., Garlena R.A., Jacobs-Sera D., Kaufmann N., Pope W.H., Russell D.A., Jacobs WR J.r., Sivanathan V., Asai D.J, & Hatfull G.F. (2017). An inclusive Research Education Community (iREC): Impact of the SEA-PHAGES program on research outcomes and student learning. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 114(51), 13531-13536.

Publication 2017

Educational investigations Institutional review board Pits Psychometric

Corresponding Organization :

Other organizations : Indiana University of Pennsylvania, Yale University, University of Pittsburgh, James Madison University, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Howard Hughes Medical Institute

Top 5 similar protocols

Protocol cited in 5 other protocols

Variable analysis

independent variables

Not explicitly mentioned

dependent variables

Not explicitly mentioned

control variables

The PITS survey tool used in this study was evaluated for its dimensionality, validity, and internal consistency prior to usage in the data collection process.

Annotations

Based on most similar protocols

Etiam vel ipsum. Morbi facilisis vestibulum nisl. Praesent cursus laoreet felis. Integer adipiscing pretium orci. Nulla facilisi. Quisque posuere bibendum purus. Nulla quam mauris, cursus eget, convallis ac, molestie non, enim. Aliquam congue. Quisque sagittis nonummy sapien. Proin molestie sem vitae urna. Maecenas lorem.

As authors may omit details in methods from publication, our AI will look for missing critical information across the 5 most similar protocols.

About PubCompare

Our mission is to provide scientists with the largest repository of trustworthy protocols and intelligent analytical tools, thereby offering them extensive information to design robust protocols aimed at minimizing the risk of failures.

We believe that the most crucial aspect is to grant scientists access to a wide range of reliable sources and new useful tools that surpass human capabilities.

However, we trust in allowing scientists to determine how to construct their own protocols based on this information, as they are the experts in their field.

Ready to get started?

Revolutionizing how scientists
search and build protocols!