Competency indices to assess the knowledge, skills and abilities of clinical research professionals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Clinical research in the 21st century will require a well-trained workforce to ensure that research protocols yield valid and reliable results. Several organizations have developed lists of core competencies for clinical trial coordinators, administrators, monitors, data management/informaticians, regulatory affairs personnel and others. Methods: We used data collected by the joint task force on the harmonization of core competencies from a survey of research professionals working in the US and Canada to create competency Indices for clinical research professionals. Respondents reported how competent they believed themselves to be on 51 clinical research core competencies. Results: Factor analyzes identified 20 core competencies that defined a competency index for clinical research professionals—general (CICRP-General, i.e., GCPs) and four sub-indices that define specialized research functions: Medicines Development; Ethics and Participant Safety; Data Management; and Research Concepts. Conclusions: These indices can be used to gage an individual’s readiness to perform general as well as more advanced research functions; to assess the education and training needs of research workers; and to evaluate the impact of education and training programs on the competency of research coordinators, monitors and other clinical research team members.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.050 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".