Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2026 Jun 20.
Published in final edited form as: Am J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2026 Mar 19;34(7):914–924. doi: 10.1016/j.jagp.2026.03.208

Advanced Research Institute scholars’ perspectives on program success: A self-determination theory evaluation

Christy A Denckla 1,2,*, Patricia M Bamonti 3, Courtney J Stevens 4, Lauren J Parker 5, Swathi Gujral 6, Maria Garcia 7, Megan Shepherd-Banigan 8,9, Tatiana Wolfe 10, Zhi-De Deng 11
PMCID: PMC13280989  NIHMSID: NIHMS2158530  PMID: 42014298

Abstract

Objectives.

The Advanced Research Institute (ARI) is a National Institute of Mental Health- funded career development program designed to progress early-career investigators with specializations in geriatric mental health to scientific independence. Scholars who participate in ARI demonstrate a three-fold greater likelihood of securing independent funding (e.g. an R01) relative to non-participants, yet scholar perspectives are not represented in the literature.

Design:

To explain scholars’ views on ARI’s effectiveness, this paper adopts Self-Determination Theory as a guiding framework, which posits that three fundamental psychological needs—competence, autonomy, and relatedness—underlie motivation and growth.

Setting and Participants:

In February 2023, all ARI graduates with current email addresses (n=164) received a link to a Qualtrics Survey on scientific leadership. Of the 141(86%) responses, scholars also provided narrative open-ended responses regarding their experience with ARI.

Measurements:

First, we draw on published descriptions and a grant proposal (R25MH119050) wherein ARI program elements are described to explore alignment with the SDT framework. Then, we use participant narratives to offer experience-near ways of understanding the effective elements from the Scholar perspective.

Results:

ARI fosters competence through structured feedback, research and professional skill development, autonomy through scholar-driven research planning, and relatedness by creating a connected, collaborative community.

Conclusions:

The SDT framework provides a useful lens to contextualize the experiences of Scholars in this successful program and underscores that further research and development is warranted.

Keywords: Career development, self-determination theory, geriatric mental health

1. Introduction

Developing the next generation of aging-focused mental health researchers, including clinician–scientists, is a widely recognized national priority. By 2030, 1 in 5 US adults will be 65 years or older1,2, yet the pipeline of geriatric behavioral and mental health professionals has not kept pace3,4. Developed to address this shortage, the Advanced Research Institute in Mental Health and Aging (ARI) is a National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH)-funded program (Project Number R25MH119050) designed to help early-career faculty become independent investigators and scientific leaders5. ARI’s outcomes are well documented: from 2004 to 2023, ARI enrolled 184 scholars across 61 institutions; among NIMH mentored K awardees, 77.1% of ARI scholars versus 49.5% of non-participants obtained an R01, corresponding to more than 3-fold higher odds after adjusting for year of K award. ARI scholars also show high research engagement (87.3%), scientific service (83.6%), and federal grant funding (80.6%)5,6. Collectively, these data establish ARI as an instructive model for expanding the aging-focused mental health research workforce and an exemplary of supporting a major gap in the pipeline.

While other programs exists to support early career aging researchers at earlier in the pipeline (e.g., post-doctoral, post-residency), including the Career Institute in the Mental Health of Aging (CIMA)7 and Grants for Early Medical/Surgical Specialists’ Transition to Aging Research (GEMSSTAR)8, ARI is unique in targeting early-career researchers focused on aging and mental health that are at the critical juncture between a mentored award and first independent award6. This career transition is notoriously characterized by high attrition due to a climate of scarce grant funding, heavy teaching, clinical, and administrative loads, inadequate support for underrepresented trainees, and competing family or personal circumstances3,9–14. To address these gaps, ARI leverages structured and integrated program components that nurture mentor/mentee relationships within and outside home institutions, which has been shown to be especially effective as trainees advance beyond earlier stages of career development into independent investigators15,16. This approach in consistent with the transdisciplinary approach to training in psychiatry that emphasizes innovation and dialogue-based processes reflecting integrated expertise across different intellectual frameworks to yield synthesized knowledge across disciplines, rather than additive knowledge17.

From the scholar perspective, we seek to add to this knowledge base by suggesting that ARI’s success can also be understood as meeting fundamental psychological needs necessary for career development8,18. Across education and psychology, prominent theories of motivation include Social Cognitive Theory19, Achievement Motivation Theories20, among others. SDT chosen as the current study framework 1) because of its conceptual alignment with ARI’s explicit focus on cultivating scientific leadership, and 2) the substantial prior literature base evaluating educational and training environments by applying the SDT framework21–23 , allowing comparability with prior investigations. Nested within the broader SDT framework, Basic Psychological Needs Theory 25 posits that humans have three universal psychological needs: competence, relatedness, and autonomy 26. Here we aim to apply a SDT lens to characterize— from the perspective of ARI scholars—the elements of ARI that we feel supported our professional growth by fulfilling these three universal psychological needs as reflected in the brief comments captured in scholar narratives.

2. Methods

The Advanced Research Institute programming is offered to fellowship cohorts of up to 16 ARI scholars for up to two years. The major components of ARI programming have been described previously 5,6 and include: sustained mentoring, annual in-person retreat, web-based research presentations, consultation with biostatisticians/others, consultation with NIH program officers, webinar lecture series, and access to a web-based library of career development materials and resources library. ARI program elements are described in detail in the grant proposal (R25MH119050), which was used to extract detailed descriptions of elements of ARI programming features. Then, we organized these program features within the SDT framework across the three fundamental psychological needs of competence, autonomy, and relatedness24.

In February 2023, all ARI graduates with current email addresses (n=164) received a link to a brief Qualtrics Survey containing questions assessing scientific leadership (see Sirey et al. 6 for further details). 141(86%) responses were received. The brief survey also included an optional free-text comment box where Scholars had the opportunity describe aspects of ARI that they perceived as most helpful. 27 (19%) respondents provided an optional narrative comment. One quote was excluded because it contained identifying information.

To illustrate scholar experiences, we analyze free-text comments from the Qualtrics Survey in two ways. First, we include paraphrased deidentified quotes from former scholars alongside the description of each SDT component (e.g. competence, autonomy, and relatedness) and its corresponding ARI program element. Second, a word cloud (Figure 2) was generated from scholars’ quotes using Python. All quotes were aggregated into a single text corpus, from which standard English stop words and a set of non-informative words were removed. Word frequencies were then computed and visualized using the WordCloud package27, with word size proportional to frequency.

Figure 2.

Figure 2.

Open in a new tab

Word-cloud generated from Scholar testimonials about the Advanced Research Institute. The visualization highlights the most frequently mentioned themes, with larger words representing higher frequency. Prominent terms such as “experience,” “mentoring,” “program,” “career,” “research,” and “feedback” underscore the central importance of mentorship, career development, and research training in ARI participants’ reflections.

3. Results of Themes Based on Self-Determination Theory Elements

Figure 1 illustrates how the three basic psychological needs in the SDT framework are supported within ARI’s design. Next, the word-cloud analysis of scholar testimonials (Figure 2) highlights mentoring as the dominant theme, closely followed by research, career development, and program experience. Frequent references to funding, feedback, and grant applications suggest that participants viewed ARI as instrumental not only for professional development but also for achieving concrete research milestones and align with SDT needs as described below.

Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Open in a new tab

ARI’s integrated training model supports early-career investigators by fostering the three core psychological needs articulated in self-determination theory: competence, autonomy, and relatedness. Competence is cultivated through sustained expert collaboration and longitudinal mentorship, methodological rigor and mock grant review, and iterative revision with feedback integration. Autonomy is supported through protected time for self-directed work, mentorship that encourages volitional decision-making, and the development of an independent scientific identity. Relatedness is strengthened through caring, supportive mentoring relationships, community-building and shared experiences, and sustained professional connections that foster long-term belonging. Together, these mechanisms converge to promote scientific success, reflected in substantially higher rates of major grant funding among ARI scholars compared with non-participants.

3.1. SDT Need 1: Competence

Competence describes the extent to which an individual feels capable and effective in expressing their capabilities24. ARI Scholars enter the program with a high degree of competence with respect to their area of study and intentions to conduct rigorous research. As stated in the ARI application materials, “Applicants should be prepared to be working on an NIH R01 (or equivalent). Most successful applicants will have sufficient pilot data to support an R01 application.”28 Some scholars will come to ARI from institutional environments adept at supporting early career scholars in ways that satisfy need for competence. For them, ARI might be expected to further enhance or expand upon the scholar’s sense of competence in new ways. However, other scholars may come to ARI from institutional environments that have more limited structured opportunities to pursue growth and development opportunities or to receive regular constructive feedback on scholarly work. Per SDT, these scholars may seek out participation in ARI because the program might support the scholars’ need for competence.

3.1.1. Competence through sustained expert collaboration and longitudinal mentorship

Once in the program, scholars engage in sustained collaboration with assigned mentors and multidisciplinary working groups composed of faculty and peers with aligned scientific interests. These expert relationships provide a stable relational scaffold through which scholars iteratively develop their R01 (or equivalent) proposals while learning how experienced investigators think about framing, positioning, and refining fundable research questions.

During the four-day retreat, scholars work intensively with their mentors and working groups in a format designed to promote repeated cycles of presentation, critique, and revision. Day One of the retreat begins with small working group meetings organized by ARI faculty to support transdisciplinary engagement. The day ends with an orientation dinner. On Day 2, scholars present their developing grant proposals, receive focused feedback from mentors, NIMH program officers, and peers, and revise their applications that afternoon. On Day 3, they present revised proposals to the same groups, allowing scholars to incorporate feedback, test revised ideas, and refine their scientific narratives. One scholar reflected, “The faculty at ARI were a tremendous resource. They genuinely cared about junior faculty and other trainees and were willing to spend a great deal of time on grant proposals.”

On Day 4, small groups meet for a final presentation where scholars’ consolidate the feedback received over the course of the retreat and articulate next steps that support ongoing mentoring and engagement in ARI activities (e.g., grant review, annual training plan, mentor meetings). Following the retreat, scholars meet with mentors at regular intervals throughout the fellowship period. Mentors provide expert content guidance on proposal development, facilitate introductions to other leaders in geriatric mental health, and offer strategic advice on building a sustainable research career. Through this longitudinal mentor–mentee relationship, scholars receive ongoing support, engage in problem-solving, and develop confidence in their emerging scholarly identities. As one scholar noted, “ARI provided me with valuable perspectives on my research and career outside my home mentorship team that helped me begin to find my own voice in my research and the direction of my career.”

3.1.2. Competence through methodological rigor and simulated grant review

ARI strengthens scholars’ methodological competence by embedding biostatistical expertise and formal grant evaluation into the proposal development process. The program recruits a national team of biostatisticians with expertise in geriatric mental health, ensuring that each working group formed during the retreat includes at least one biostatistician. These biostatisticians provide structured feedback on scholars’ applications at multiple stages of development. In addition to group-based input, biostatisticians meet individually with scholars to co-design statistical approaches that align with each scholar’s research question, study design, and available data. This individualized consultation supports rigorous methodological decisionmaking and helps scholars articulate analytic plans that are both scientifically sound and responsive to reviewer expectations. One scholar emphasized this impact, stating, “ARI was an instrumental experience in my development as an independent investigator in geriatric psychiatry. ARI provided top notch mentorship in grant writing, research design and methodology, and strategies for navigating a research career.”

These methodological supports culminate in an optional pre-submission mock grant review conducted by external reviewers with relevant scientific expertise. Through this simulated review process, scholars receive comprehensive, criterion-based feedback that mirrors the evaluative standards used by funding agencies. By normalizing the challenges inherent in grant revision while providing concrete, actionable critiques, the mock review process helps scholars align their proposals with external expectations for rigor, clarity, and significance. As one scholar reported, “I brought the reviews from a VA Merit grant to ARI and with the feedback and mentoring I received, I was able to convert the submission into a funded grant.”

3.1.3. Competence through iterative revision and feedback integration

ARI promotes the development of grant-writing competence by structuring proposal development as an iterative process of revision informed by layered feedback. Across the retreat and subsequent program activities, scholars repeatedly present, revise, and refine their grant proposals in response to input from mentors, peers, biostatisticians, and external reviewers. During the retreat and follow-on activities, scholars participate in rapid revision cycles under constrained timelines, integrating focused critiques, methodological guidance, and an optional mock review designed to provide feedback that informs successive versions of their proposals. Through repeated cycles of feedback integration and revision, scholars move from passive receipt of critique to active control over proposal refinement.

3.2. SDT Need 2: Autonomy

Autonomy describes the extent to which an individual experiences behavior as volitional, that is deriving from one’s self, as well as congruent with one’s values24. Autonomy-supportive organizations have been shown to produce positive emptions and creativity among employees29, as well as improved leadership skills30. Once scholars are admitted to the program, ARI works to support autonomy through (1) time away from the home institution to focus on independent research goals, (2) longitudinal mentorship, and (3) building a network outside their home institution.

3.2.1. Autonomy through protected time for self-directed work

The four-day retreat asks scholars to focus solely on their science and career development in an environment that supports meaningful dialogue, exploration of professional identity, and dissemination of information and advice in a non-judgmental, non-critical manner. The protected time at the annual retreats allows scholars to delve deeply into challenging and thoughtprovoking discussions about their proposal, as well as elaborate on how their proposal connects to their overall professional identity and “sense of self” as a researcher. The dual focus on the proposal and professional identity occurs within an environment that prioritizes scholars’ autonomy in making decisions about their science and career. In the words of one Scholar, “ARI allowed me to focus and receive critical feedback on plans for my R01 application in a way that just was not possible on campus amidst the daily grind of teaching and running smaller studies.”

3.2.2. Autonomy through mentorship that supports volitional decision-making

The longitudinal aspect of the mentorship that occurs over a minimum of up to two years serves to help scholars build confidence as they navigate career decisions and questions about the direction of their research program. Mentors serve as touchpoints for scholars who often face challenging career decisions this period. Mentors seek to understand scholars’ thoughts and perspectives on career motivations, centering scholars’ perspectives while also providing input and advice from their own career. In the words of one Scholar, “The mentoring provided through ARI is second to none, not only during the retreat, but during crucial times of application preparation outside of the retreat period. I have relied on my ARI mentors to provide feedback on drafts of aims, as well as for how to best respond to a request for additional information by Program following grant review. My mentors have been available, responsive, and incredibly supportive throughout this process, and I am truly grateful to the ARI for helping me along my path to independence.”

3.2.3. Autonomy through development of independent scientific identity

Through sustained engagement with mentors and peers, ARI supports scholars in clarifying and consolidating an independent scientific identity. Longitudinal mentorship and retreat-based discussions encourage scholars to articulate their scientific values, refine their research vision, and make self-endorsed decisions about the direction of their work. As scholars progress through and beyond the program, many report increased confidence in defining their research agendas and positioning themselves as independent investigators. One scholar reflected, “I benefited from the advice and mentorship from the expert faculty. I also developed a number of friendships and collaborations that have endured to this day.” While these enduring relationships also foster relatedness, scholars frequently described them as reinforcing their sense of professional identity and confidence in leading their own research programs.

3.3. SDT Need 3: Relatedness

Relatedness refers to the extent to which individuals feel cared for and connected to others24. Scholars enter the program with varying degrees of having this need satisfied at their home institution. For some, the community and mentorship elements offered by ARI will serve to supplement lasting social connections and a sense of belonging at the scholars’ home institution. For others, ARI may fill gaps where scholars may not feel adequately connected to or supported at their home institution. ARI promotes relatedness specifically through (1) small group mentoring; (2) 4-day off site retreat, social dinners and activities; (3) semi-annual small group check-ins; and (4) networking. Visual inspection of the word cloud generated from ARI Scholar quotes demonstrates indicated that the words ‘mentoring’, ‘mentee’, and ‘mentor’ are among the more frequent, suggesting that ARI may be especially effective at fulfilling relatedness needs.

3.3.1. Relatedness through caring, supportive mentoring relationships

Once accepted into the program, ARI scholars complete a pre-workshop visit with the other scholars so that everyone is introduced prior to attending the annual retreat. At the beginning of the retreat, scholars break into their small working groups, designed ahead of time to consist of scholars and mentors with complementary content and methodological expertise, for focused, structured project discussion and feedback sessions. During each day of the workshop, scholars also have numerous opportunities to meet one-on-one with their primary ARI mentor and other ARI faculty by request. The primary objective across all these consultative meetings is to provide scholars constructive support and reflection regarding the anticipated strengths and weaknesses reviewers may find with their proposed research projects. One scholar shared, “Having access and getting feedback from a diverse group of extremely knowledgeable and productive researchers was amazing.”

3.3.2. Relatedness through community-building and shared experiences

ARI strengthens scholars’ sense of relatedness by intentionally creating shared experiences that promote community-building within a cohort-based learning environment. The four-day retreat serves as a focal point for community-building, bringing scholars and faculty together through small-group activities, collective problem-solving, and shared reflection on the challenges of grant writing and early-career development. These interactions normalize common struggles, provide empathy, and reduce the sense of isolation often associated with academic research careers. Community-building continues beyond the retreat through ongoing cohort interactions, reinforcing peer connections over time and fostering a sense of belonging rooted in reciprocity and sustained engagement.

3.3.3. Relatedness through sustained professional connections and belonging

ARI faculty commit to supporting scholars over the fellowship period. This occurs during one-on-one meetings with ARI mentors individually and in groups during the semi-annual small working group, and in check-in meetings held after the annual retreat. ARI scholars are not only introduced to the ARI faculty, but to the other scholars and connected to other researchers with diverse disciplinary backgrounds through those connections. The networking that starts at ARI becomes lifelong for many and nurtures a sense of belonging and relatedness in academic geriatric mental health and related areas of research. Scholars develop a sense of kinship with others at the same developmental level, while also gaining a new network of mentors and colleagues through connections made across ARI cohorts. Scholars explained, “….[I] also got to know a lot of outstanding researchers in the geriatric psychiatry field who became my life-long mentors and scientific role models.” Another scholar reported, “Not only were the retreats themselves extraordinarily productive, the relationships and networks that have formed as a result of my participation in these programs continue to support and advance my career to this day (and likely into the future).” Ultimately, peer support emerged as a crucial element of ARI programming that scholars found particularly beneficial.

4. Recommendations and Discussion

The present work examined the ARI through the lens of SDT to identify features of the program that, from the perspective of current and former scholars, contributed most meaningfully to their development as independent scientists and scientific leaders in geriatric mental health. Drawing on narrative comments provided by ARI participants, we used SDT’s three basic psychological needs—competence, autonomy, and relatedness—as an organizing framework to characterize the active elements of ARI programming. Our approach is not intended as a formal program evaluation but rather as an exploratory analysis that foregrounds the scholar experience and illustrates how a well-established motivational theory can illuminate the mechanisms through which mentoring programs support career development.

Specific elements of ARI mapped onto each SDT dimension. Competence was supported through extensive mentor and scholar feedback, methodological rigor consultation, and iterative mock grant review, processes that allowed scholars to develop and refine research skills in a structured environment. Relatedness was fostered through daily structured and semi-structured group and individual meetings during the annual retreat, longitudinal mentoring relationships that extended well beyond the retreat period, and cultivation of a cohesive professional community of mentors and scholars. Autonomy was supported through the cumulative effect of the ARI experience, including broadening scholars’ professional networks beyond their home institution, protected time for self-directed work, and facilitating the development of an independent scientific identity. These observations align with other studies showing that components of successful mentoring programs typically include structured and dedicated mentoring coupled with applied learning 31, a focus on interdisciplinary team science8, and project-based learning strategies32.

These findings carry implications beyond the ARI program itself. In an aging society, solutions that result in a highly trained and diverse workforce that leads scientific discovery and innovation to meet the needs of older adults, and their caregivers, are relevant not only to geriatric psychiatry, but to healthcare more broadly. Here we propose that the unique features of the ARI program successfully met the needs of mentored faculty making this transition to career independence. This career development program also supports training of scientific leaders by augmenting home institution training programs in strategic and cost-effective ways, including by nurturing informal national peer networks. The active elements of ARI that enhance motivation and growth will facilitate scientific leadership for scholars when they return to their home institutions. These include broadening professional networks (relatedness), deliberating on technical and conceptual aspects of a grant proposal with support from the multidisciplinary community that mirrors national level grant review committees (competence), and supporting the development of scholars’ professional identity and “sense of self” as a skilled and independent researcher and scientist (autonomy).

Contemporary academic incentives often privilege volume metrics, prestige signals, and short-cycle funding wins. These structures emphasize extrinsic rewards and controllable indicators, thereby nudging scholars toward controlled motivation (external and introjected regulation). SDT predicts that as such rewards become harder to access, the motivational system they sustain is compromised24. In contrast, environments that support the three basic psychological needs foster autonomous motivation in their trainees and faculty resulting in sustained engagement, better performance, and greater productivity over time21,22,33. From the perspective of ARI scholars, ARI’s design, including protected time, iterative mastery feedback, and durable peer/mentor ties, effectively targets these basic psychological needs. In turn, these features foster autonomous motivation creating conditions for long, fulfilling, and successful careers in geriatric mental health.

Our approach is not without limitations. The narrative comments reflect a self-selected sample that may carry a positive bias; scholars who had less favorable experiences and outcomes may be underrepresented. These limitations could be addressed in future quantitative or experimental tests of SDT alignment with ARI program design and would represent a valuable direction for future work. Another option for future work is to employ an emerging methodological approach in qualitative health research in which large language models (LLMs) serve as structured coders for theoretically grounded dimensions 34–36. Combined with humancoding, this blended approach represents an interesting future direction to further probe identification of effective elements of structured career development programming.

Looking ahead, we believe reflecting on the ARI experience with the lens of the SDT framework can inform the design, implementation, and scaling of similar research career development training programs across other disciplines. Mentoring models informed by SDT principles may be particularly valuable in fostering long-term engagement, motivation, and scientific independence, thus creating fruitful conditions for sustained career growth. As the need for a well-prepared and healthy research workforce continues to grow — especially in fields such as geriatric mental health — programs like ARI offer a model for how thoughtful, carefully designed programming can yield a generation of scientific leaders.

Table 1.

Alignment of ARI Program Features with SDT Fundamental Needs

SDT Elements ARI Program Features Illustrative Scholar Perspective
Competence Feeling capable and effective in one’s activities, with opportunities to develop and demonstrate skills. - Retreats providing focused collaboration with experts and scholars. “The faculty at ARI were a tremendous resource. They genuinely cared about junior faculty and other trainees and were willing to spend a great deal of time on grant proposals.”
- Longitudinal mentorship to support skills necessary for transition from mentored to independent investigator. “ARI has been the most valuable training experience of my career. The combination of intensive workshops and longitudinal mentorship has been instrumental in helping me achieve my career goals”
- Biostatistics consulting to address methodological challenges and enhance rigor in proposals. “ARI helped create and influence a cooperative and pro-mentoring environment throughout academic geriatric psychiatry. It has not only benefited the individual mentees and their grant submissions but has also influenced the whole research community.”
- Mock reviews to simulate real-world grant reviews and receive constructive feedback. “The retreat gave me critical time to refine my R01 proposal, and the mock review was invaluable in helping me strengthen my aims.”
Autonomy Experiencing one’s actions as self-endorsed, aligned with personal values, and volitional. - Retreats to step away from home institution pressures and focus on independent research goals. “ARI provided me with valuable perspectives on my research and career outside my home mentorship team that helped me begin to find my own voice in my research and the direction of my career.”
- Longitudinal mentorship emphasizing scholar-driven decisions and research directions. “ARI was instrumental in challenging me to think of the ultimate research trifecta: innovative, impactful, and important science that ultimately reduces the burden of late-life mental disorders.”
- Building a network outside their home institution “Former ARI colleagues are now co-PIs, and I am still in contact with former ARI mentors. I am very grateful for my experience with ARI.”
Relatedness Feeling connected to and cared for by others, with a sense of belonging and support. - Small group mentoring fostering supportive, collaborative feedback sessions. “I would say that the ARI experience was very collaborative and truly invaluable—the mentors were amazing, and I feel like even after these years I can pick up the phone or send an email and ask for scientific feedback and professional development advice at any time.”
- Communal dinners and social activities promoting familiarity and camaraderie among scholars and faculty. “The relationships and networks that have formed as a result of my participation in these programs continue to support and advance my career to this day (and likely into the future).”
- Semi-annual small group check-ins to maintain support and guidance over time. “These relationships have been critical in maintaining ongoing grant funding. I believe I owe my research career in older adults with mental illness to ARI.”
- Networking to build long-term collaborations and connections. “ARI provided a community of mentors and fellows that provided support and helped with navigating the inevitable challenges in the transition to an independent investigator.”
Open in a new tab

Highlights.

  • What is the primary question addressed by this study? What is the scholar perspective on the success of the Advanced Research Institute career development program designed to progress early-career investigators with specializations in geriatric mental health?

  • What is the main finding of this study? Through the theoretical perspective of self-determination theory, this report finds that ARI scholars experience increased competence, autonomy, and relatedness by engaging across integrated ARI program elements.

  • What is the meaning of the finding? The elements of this unique professional development program can serve as a benchmark for future program design to yield scientific leaders and independent investigators that will meet the growing needs of an aging population.

Acknowledgements

We gratefully acknowledge the generous conceptual input from ARI leadership team members including Amy Byers, Renee L. Pepin, Jo Anne Sirey, and Howard Aizenstein.

Funding

CAD is supported by the National Institute of Mental Health (1R01MH137201).

PMB is supported by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Rehabilitation Research and Development Career Development Award-2 (1IK2RX003527).

LJP is supported by the National Institute on Aging (K01AG066812).

CJS is supported by the National Cancer Institute (K08CA259632).

MEGTW is supported by a Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Harold Amos Medical Faculty Development Program award (Award 80734the National Institute of General Medicine and Surgery (5P20GM109005-09).

ZD is supported by the National Institute of Mental Health Intramural Research Program (ZIAMH002955).

Footnotes

Publisher's Disclaimer: This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

Disclosure

The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health. The authors have no competing interests to declare that are relevant to the content of this article.

Data Statement

The data has not been previously presented orally or by poster at scientific meetings.

References

  • 1.Bridges to Independence: Identifying Opportunities for and Challenges to Fostering the Independence of Young Investigators in the Life Sciences. Accessed December 18, 2025. https://www.nationalacademies.org/projects/DELS-BLS-19-P-156
  • 2.US Census Bureau. Older Population and Aging. Census.gov. Accessed January 26, 2026. https://www.census.gov/topics/population/older-aging.html
  • 3.Sung NS, Crowley WF Jr, Genel M, et al. Central challenges facing the national clinical research enterprise. JAMA. 2003;289(10):1278–1287. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Committee on National Needs for Biomedical and Behavioral Scientists, Education & Career Studies Unit, Board on Higher Education and Workforce, Policy and Global Affairs, National Research Council, National Academy of Sciences. Addressing the Nation’s Changing Needs for Biomedical and Behavioral Scientists. National Academies Press; 2000. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Bruce ML, Bartels SJ, Lyness JM, Sirey JA, Sheline YI, Smith G. Promoting the transition to independent scientist: a national career development program. Acad Med. 2011;86(9):1179–1184. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Sirey JA, Pepin R, Aizenstein H, et al. Advanced Research Institute (ARI): Supporting the Geriatric Mental Health Research Pipeline. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2023;31(12):1209–1215. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Manning KJ, Gunning FM, Aizenstein HJ, Steffens DC. Training the next generation of geriatric-focused clinical neuroscientists. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2019;27(7):720–727. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Carpenter CR, Hurria A, Lundebjerg NE, Walter LC, Mody L. Leadership lessons: Developing mentoring infrastructure for GEMSSTAR scholars: Mentoring infrastructure for gemsstar scholars. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2019;67(4):650–656. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Scheuermann TS, Clark L, Sultana N, et al. Race, gender, and faculty retention in academic medicine. JAMA Netw Open. 2024;7(11):e2445143. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Zea MC, Bowleg L. The final frontier-transitions and sustainability: From mentored to independent research. AIDS Behav. 2016;20 Suppl 2(Suppl 2):311–317. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Martinez ED, Botos J, Dohoney KM, et al. Falling off the academic bandwagon. Women are more likely to quit at the postdoc to principal investigator transition: Women are more likely to quit at the postdoc to principal investigator transition. EMBO Rep. 2007;8(11):977–981. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Daniels RJ. A generation at risk: young investigators and the future of the biomedical workforce. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2015;112(2):313–318. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Sperry SH, Douglas KM, Dean OM, et al. Barriers to and facilitators of success for early and Mid-Career professionals focused on bipolar disorder: A global needs survey by the International Society for Bipolar Disorders. Bipolar Disord. 2023;25(5):379–390. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Koelkebeck K, Andlauer O, Asztalos M, et al. Research by psychiatric trainees and early career psychiatrists-results of a survey from 34 countries in Europe. Front Psychiatry. 2021;12:718669. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Spence JP, Buddenbaum JL, Bice PJ, Welch JL, Carroll AE. Independent investigator incubator (I3): a comprehensive mentorship program to jumpstart productive research careers for junior faculty. BMC Med Educ. 2018;18(1):186. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Yin HL, Gabrilove J, Jackson R, et al. Sustaining the clinical and translational research workforce: Training and empowering the next generation of investigators. Acad Med. 2015;90(7):861–865. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Reynolds CF, Weissman MM. Transdisciplinary science and research training in psychiatry: a robust approach to innovation. JAMA Psychiatry. Published online 2022. doi: 10.7916/2nvd-jz76/download [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Chang A, Lundebjerg NE, Abrams J, et al. Leadership, inside and out: The tideswell-AGS-ADGAP Emerging Leaders in aging program: Tideswell emerging leaders in aging program. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2019;67(3):437–442. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Bandura A Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychol Rev. 1977;84(2):191–215. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Dweck CS. Motivational processes affecting learning. Am Psychol. 1986;41(10):1040–1048. [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Stupnisky RH, Larivière V, Hall NC, Omojiba O. Predicting research productivity in STEM faculty: The role of self-determined motivation. Res High Educ. 2023;64(4):598–621. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Lyness JM, Lurie SJ, Ward DS, Mooney CJ, Lambert DR. Engaging students and faculty: implications of self-determination theory for teachers and leaders in academic medicine. BMC Med Educ. 2013;13(1):151. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Wang CKJ, Liu WC, Kee YH, Chian LK. Competence, autonomy, and relatedness in the classroom: understanding students’ motivational processes using the self-determination theory. Heliyon. 2019;5(7):e01983. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Ryan RM, & Deci EL Self-Determination Theory and the Facilitation of Intrinsic Motivation, Social Development, and Well-Being. American Psychologist. 2000;55(1):68–78. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Vansteenkiste M, Niemiec C, & Soenens B The development of the five mini-theories of Self-Determination Theory: An historical overview, emerging trends, and future directions. In: Karabenick TU&., ed. Advances in Motivation and Achievement, Vol. 16: The Decade Ahead. Emerald Publishing; 2010. [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Deci EL, & Ryan RM The” what” and” why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychol Inq. 2000;11(4):227–268. [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Fellows I Wordcloud.; 2018. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=wordcloud. [Google Scholar]
  • 28.ARI Application. Mental Health and Aging Research Network. Accessed January 26, 2026. https://mentalhealthandagingresearch.org/ari-application/ [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Ye L, Li Y, Zhang N. The impact of autonomy-supportive organizational environments on employees’ emotions and creative performance: A self-determination theory perspective. PLoS One. 2025;20(5):e0322184. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Koole SL, Schlinkert C, Maldei T, Baumann N. Becoming who you are: An integrative review of self-determination theory and personality systems interactions theory. J Pers. 2019;87(1):15–36. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Jacob RR, Gacad A, Pfund C, et al. The “secret sauce” for a mentored training program: qualitative perspectives of trainees in implementation research for cancer control. BMC Med Educ. 2020;20(1):237. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Kokotsaki D, Menzies V, Wiggins A. Project-based learning: A review of the literature. Improv Sch. 2016;19(3):267–277. [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Peng JE, Gao X (andy). Understanding TEFL academics’ research motivation and its relations with research productivity. SAGE Open. 2019;9(3):215824401986629. [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Tai RH, Bentley LR, Xia X, et al. An examination of the use of Large Language Models to aid analysis of textual data. Int J Qual Methods. 2024;23(16094069241231168). doi: 10.1177/16094069241231168 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Xiao Z, Yuan X, Liao QV, Abdelghani R, Oudeyer PY. Supporting qualitative analysis with large language models: Combining codebook with GPT-3 for deductive coding. In: 28th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces. ACM; 2023. doi: 10.1145/3581754.3584136 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Castellanos A, Jiang H, Gomes P, Vander Meer D, Castillo A. LLMs for thematic summarization in qualitative healthcare research: feasibility and insights. JMIR AI. 2025;4(1):e64447. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Data Availability Statement

The data has not been previously presented orally or by poster at scientific meetings.

RESOURCES