Final Research Report

View this project's final research report.

Peer-Review Summary

Peer review of PCORI-funded research helps make sure the report presents complete, balanced, and useful information about the research. It also assesses how the project addressed PCORI’s Methodology Standards. During peer review, experts read a draft report of the research and provide comments about the report. These experts may include a scientist focused on the research topic, a specialist in research methods, a patient or caregiver, and a healthcare professional. These reviewers cannot have conflicts of interest with the study.

The peer reviewers point out where the draft report may need revision. For example, they may suggest ways to improve descriptions of the conduct of the study or to clarify the connection between results and conclusions. Sometimes, awardees revise their draft reports twice or more to address all of the reviewers’ comments. 

Peer reviewers commented and the researchers made changes or provided responses. Those comments and responses included the following:

  • The reviewers asked about the report’s references to item response theory, stating that it was not clear in the text why this work was done and how it contributed to instrument development. The researchers explained that they did not use item response theory in the traditional sense, instead applying the technique to help determine which items might be potential candidates for inclusion or exclusion in the condensed version of their final Research Engagement Survey Tool (REST).
  • The reviewers questioned the development of tailored versions of REST for different demographic groups, pointing out that individual scale items showing differential responding by demographic group should probably be excluded instead, to ensure the consistency of the instrument. The researchers agreed that having different groups of people respond to different items on the same scale would not be helpful for scale development. However, they explained that they tested the tailored versions of REST to determine the feasibility of using such versions in the future. The researchers noted that future investigators might want to use a tailored subset of REST items for specific demographic groups.
  • The reviewers requested more statistical information regarding the factor analysis described in the report. The researchers explained that they did not make any inferences from the factor analysis or create factors or subscales from the results, instead using the factor analysis descriptively as one component of a triangulation approach to identify which REST items i would be best to use in a condensed version of the measure.

Conflict of Interest Disclosures

Project Information

Vetta Sanders Thompson, PhD, MA^
Washington University School of Medicine
$1,030,161
10.25302/10.2021.ME.151133027
Developing and Validating Quantitative Measures to Assess Community Engagement in Research: Addressing the Measurement Challenge

Key Dates

July 2016
September 2021
2016
2021

Study Registration Information

^Melody S. Goodman, PhD, MPH, was the principal investigator when this project was initially awarded.

Tags

Has Results
Award Type
State State The state where the project originates, or where the primary institution or organization is located. View Glossary
Last updated: June 27, 2022