Table 4. Partner contribution to research and partnership processes and partner ratings of success.
| Predominant Contribution (faculty, community, or equal)1 |
Mean Ratings of Success (poor to excellent)2 |
|||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||||||
| Community Scholar | Faculty Scholar | Community Scholar | Faculty Scholar | |||||
|
| ||||||||
| Time since completion of trainings | 3 months (n=9) |
12 months (n=7) |
3 months (n=6) |
12 months (n=6) |
3 months (n=9) |
12 months (n=7) |
3 months (n=6) |
12 months (n=6) |
|
| ||||||||
| Research processes | ||||||||
| Identify research area | CS | CS | CS | CS | 4.2 | 3.6 | 4.3 | 4.5 |
| Identify research question | EQ | EQ | EQ | EQ | 3.7 | 3.3 | 4.3 | 4.0 |
| Identify methods | EQ | FAC | FAC | FAC | 3.7 | 3.4 | 4.5 | 4.2 |
| Identify analysis approach | EQ | FAC | FAC | FAC | 3.8 | 3.0 | 4.4 | 3.8 |
| Identify dissemination plan | EQ | EQ | EQ | EQ | 3.3 | 3.0 | 3.6 | 3.4 |
| Determine data ownership | EQ | EQ | EQ | EQ | 3.9 | 3.2 | 4.0 | 3.0 |
| Determine initial budget | EQ | EQ | FAC | FAC | 3.9 | 3.4 | 4.0 | 3.5 |
| Proposal writing | EQ | EQ | FAC | FAC | 3.7 | 3.0 | 4.0 | 3.8 |
| Partnership processes | ||||||||
| Decision making approach | EQ | EQ | EQ | EQ | 3.4 | 3.4 | 4.0 | 3.2 |
| Communicating goals | EQ | EQ | EQ | EQ | 3.6 | 3.4 | 3.8 | 3.2 |
| Negotiating differences | EQ | EQ | EQ | EQ | 3.8 | 3.4 | 4.3 | 3.5 |
As indicated below, cut points for the 5 point Likert scales divided into equal intervals can be interpreted as follows:
1
“FAC” indicates faculty dominated (score 1.0-2.59), “EQ” indicates equal contribution (score 2.6-3.39), and “CS” indicates community scholar dominated (score 3.4-5.0).
2
There are no reponses in the fair or poor categories (1.0-2.59); mean responses between 2.6-3.39 are good; 3.4-4.19 are very good; and 4.2-5.0 are excellent.