Purpose To design and evaluate a research mentor training curriculum for clinical and translational researchers. The resulting eight hour curriculum was implemented as part of a national mentor training trial. Method The mentor training curriculum was implemented with 144 mentors at 16 academic institutions. Facilitators of the curriculum participated in a train-the-trainer workshop to ensure uniform delivery. The data used for this report were collected from participants during the training sessions through reflective writing, and following the last training session via confidential survey with a 94% response rate. Results 88% of respondents reported high levels of satisfaction with the training experience, and 90% noted they would recommend the training to a colleague. Participants also reported significant learning gains across six mentoring competencies as well as specific impacts of the training on their mentoring practice. Conclusions The data suggest the described research mentor training curriculum is an effective means of engaging research mentors to reflect upon and improve their research mentoring practices. The training resulted in high satisfaction, self-reported skill gains as well as behavioral changes of clinical and translation research mentors. Given success across 16 diverse sites, this training may serve as a national model.

The results of the present study suggest that both knowledge and cadaver testing discriminate between novice and accomplished residents. However, although failure of the knowledge test can predict failure on technical skills testing, the presence of knowledge does not necessarily ensure successful performance of technical skills, as cognitive testing and technical skills testing are separate domains.

Introduction:Research mentor training is a valuable professional development activity. Options for training customization (by delivery mode, dosage, content) are needed to address the many critical attributes of effective mentoring relationships and to support mentors in different institutional settings.Methods:We conducted a pilot randomized controlled trial to evaluate a hybrid mentor training approach consisting of an innovative, 90-minute, self-paced, online module (Optimizing the Practice of Mentoring, OPM) followed by workshops based on the Entering Mentoring (EM) curriculum. Mentors (n = 59) were randomized to intervention or control arms; the control condition was receipt of a two-page mentoring tip sheet. Surveys (pre, post, 3-month follow up) and focus groups assessed training impact (self-appraised knowledge, skills, behavior change) and participants’ perceptions of the blended training model.Results:The intervention (∼6.5 hours) produced significant improvements in all outcomes, including skills gains on par with those reported previously for the 8-hour EM model. Knowledge gains and intention-to-change mentoring practices were realized after completion of OPM and augmented by the in-person sessions. Mentors valued the synergy of the blended learning format, noting the unique strengths of each modality and specific benefits to completing a foundational online module before in-person engagement.Conclusions:Findings from this pilot trial support the value of e-learning approaches, both as standalone curricula or as a component of hybrid implementation models, for the professional development of research mentors.