Innovation Labs to Enhance Collaboration

April 5, 2026 updated by: Larry Hawk, Ph.D., State University of New York at Buffalo

Controlled Evaluation of Innovation Labs for Enhancing Collaboration Among Early Career Scholars in the CTSA Network

Conduct and evaluate the impact of two week-long Innovation Labs on collaboration attitudes and behavior among early career scholars. Applicants to each Innovation Lab will be screened and then randomized to either the Innovation Lab group or a control group.

Study Overview

Status

Status

Indicates the current recruitment status or the expanded access status.
Completed

Conditions

Conditions

The disease, disorder, syndrome, illness, or injury that is being studied. On ClinicalTrials.gov, conditions may also include other health-related issues, such as lifespan, quality of life, and health risks.

Intervention / Treatment

Intervention / Treatment

A process or action that is the focus of a clinical study. Interventions include drugs, medical devices, procedures, vaccines, and other products that are either investigational or already available. Interventions can also include noninvasive approaches, such as education or modifying diet and exercise.

Detailed Description

Building on the science of team science and preliminary work at the Buffalo and Vanderbilt CTSAs, the investigators worked with industry partner Knowinnovation to implement, assess, and disseminate an innovative and promising method for stimulating and nurturing new transdisciplinary research teams across the CTSA Program consortium: Innovation Labs. The study focused on early career investigators. The study took a translational science approach to identify and test "best practices". To accomplish this, the study critically evaluated the impact of Innovation Labs in two preliminary randomized controlled trials (RCTs). In collaboration with NCATs and broad input from the CTSA network, the investigators developed a clinical and translational research grand challenge focus for each Innovation Lab. A diverse applicant pool of early career investigators invited from every CTSA hub in the consortium was reviewed, and top applicants were randomized to a 5-day residential Innovation Lab or "treatment as usual" control group. Measures of process and outcome were collected from the application phase through 12-month follow-up and aggregated across the two RCTs. Given the preliminary nature of the work and an emerging consensus regarding the science of team science, primary outcomes were measures of the depth and breadth of participants collaborative networks and attitudes towards collaboration, which were predicted to be enhanced in the Innovation Lab group compared to the treatment as usual control group. Initial data on the degree to which Innovation Labs resulted in increased transdisciplinary collaborative output were also examined.

Study Type

Study Type

Describes the nature of a clinical study. Study types include interventional studies (also called clinical trials), observational studies (including patient registries), and expanded access.
Interventional

Enrollment (Actual)

Enrollment

The number of participants in a clinical study. The "anticipated" enrollment is the target number of participants that the researchers need for the study.
94

Phase

Phase

The stage of a clinical trial studying a drug or biological product, based on definitions developed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The phase is based on the study's objective, the number of participants, and other characteristics. There are five phases: Early Phase 1 (formerly listed as Phase 0), Phase 1, Phase 2, Phase 3, and Phase 4. Not Applicable is used to describe trials without FDA-defined phases, including trials of devices or behavioral interventions.
  • Not Applicable

Contacts and Locations

This section provides the contact details for those conducting the study, and information on where this study is being conducted.

Study Locations

  • United States
    • New York
      • Buffalo, New York, United States, 14260
        • University at Buffalo

Participation Criteria

Researchers look for people who fit a certain description, called eligibility criteria. Some examples of these criteria are a person's general health condition or prior treatments.

Eligibility Criteria

Eligibility Criteria

The key requirements that people who want to participate in a clinical study must meet or the characteristics they must have. Eligibility criteria consist of both inclusion criteria (which are required for a person to participate in the study) and exclusion criteria (which prevent a person from participating). Types of eligibility criteria include whether a study accepts healthy volunteers, has age or age group requirements, or is limited by sex.

Ages Eligible for Study

  • Child
  • Adult
  • Older Adult

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

Yes

Description

Inclusion Criteria:

  • Completion of application and baseline assessment.
  • Faculty at a NIH CTSA hub institution or regional partner.
  • Early stage investigators (NIH-defined as "within 10 years of completing his/her terminal research degree or is within 10 years of completing medical residency (or the equivalent)") who are emerging as independent scholars.
  • Ratings of goodness of fit with the topic of the Innovation Lab. Applications were reviewed for the above criteria and ranked by committee according to goodness of fit with the topic of the Innovation Lab, the quality and quantity of academic productivity and collaboration, and contribution to diversity of perspectives among Lab participants (e.g., biomedical and social/psychological, basic and applied). Top-ranked applicants were retained for randomization to the Innovation Lab group or control group.

Study Plan

This section provides details of the study plan, including how the study is designed and what the study is measuring.

How is the study designed?

Design Details

  • Primary Purpose: Other
  • Allocation: Randomized
  • Interventional Model: Parallel Assignment
  • Masking: None (Open Label)

Arms and Interventions

Participant Group / Arm

Participant Group / Arm

A group or subgroup of participants in a clinical trial that receives a specific intervention/treatment, or no intervention, according to the trial's protocol.
Intervention / Treatment

Intervention / Treatment

A process or action that is the focus of a clinical study. Interventions include drugs, medical devices, procedures, vaccines, and other products that are either investigational or already available. Interventions can also include noninvasive approaches, such as education or modifying diet and exercise.
Experimental: Innovation Lab Group
Randomized to attend the Innovation Lab
Behavioral: Innovation Lab
An Innovation Lab is a facilitated 5-day residential event designed to create novel, transdisciplinary and potentially transformative research ideas and proposals to address a specific grand challenge. Participants, along with a director, organizers, subject matter guides, and KI facilitators communally explore the problem space, generate a broad range of ideas, and form transdisciplinary teams to pursue research projects.
No Intervention: Control Group
Randomized to NOT attend the Innovation Lab

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Primary Outcome Measures

In a clinical study's protocol, the planned outcome measure that is the most important for evaluating the effect of an intervention/treatment. Most clinical studies have one primary outcome measure, but some have more than one.
Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
MATRICx Collaboration Benefits/Motivators Scale
Time Frame: 15 months
Self-report: The Motivation Assessment for Team Readiness, Integration, and Collaboration (MATRICx; Mallinson, Lotrecchiano, et al., 2016) benefits scale includes 17 items that tap into perceived motivators/benefits of collaboration. Each is rated on a 1-4 scale. Scale scores were computed as the mean of all 17 items, for a benefits scale score ranging from 1-4, with higher scores indicating greater collaboration readiness.
15 months
MATRICx Collaboration Barriers/Threats Scale
Time Frame: 15 months
Self-report: The Motivation Assessment for Team Readiness, Integration, and Collaboration (MATRICx; Mallinson, Lotrecchiano, et al., 2016) Threats Scale includes 31 barriers to -- or threats of -- collaboration. Each is rated on a 1-4 scale. Scale scores were computed as the mean of all 31 items, for a Barriers/Threats scale score ranging from 1-4, with lower scores indicating greater collaboration readiness.
15 months
Transdisciplinary Orientation Scale
Time Frame: 15 months
Self-report: The Transdisciplinary Orientation scale (TDO; Misra, Stokols, & Cheng, 2015) is a 12-item scale that measures values, attitudes, and beliefs, and conceptual skills and behaviors, that assesses the degree to which participants are oriented towards transdisciplinary collaboration. Items are rated on a five-point scale (1="Strongly Disagree," 5="Strongly Agree"). The total score is the mean of all 12 items, with a resulting 1-5 range, in which higher scores indicate greater transdisciplinary collaboration orientation.
15 months
Collaboration Network Size
Time Frame: 36 Months (18-monts pre- and post-treatment, after excluding articles published within +/-3 months of the Innovation Lab)
Objective number of collaborators from published articles on PubMed
36 Months (18-monts pre- and post-treatment, after excluding articles published within +/-3 months of the Innovation Lab)

Secondary Outcome Measures

Secondary Outcome Measures

In a clinical study's protocol, a planned outcome measure that is not as important as the primary outcome measure for evaluating the effect of an intervention but is still of interest. Most clinical studies have more than one secondary outcome measure.
Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Self-Reported Number of Grants Submitted Per Year
Time Frame: 21 months (9 months pre-treatment [obtained at baseline and EOT]; 12 months post-treatment [obtained at 6- and 12-month follow-up])
Self-Reported Number of Grants Submitted per Year. For the post-treatment period, the number of grants submitted at 6- and 12-M follow-up were summed. To make the pre-treatment period (which covered only 9 months) comparable to the post-treatment period, the number of grants at baseline and EOT were summed, divided by 9, and then multiplied by 12. Participants who did not report the number of grants submitted were coded as zero for the ITT analysis.
21 months (9 months pre-treatment [obtained at baseline and EOT]; 12 months post-treatment [obtained at 6- and 12-month follow-up])
ILab Met Goal - New Collab
Time Frame: 12 months (End of Treatment [3 months post-baseline], 6-Month Follow-Up [9 months post-baseline], and 12-Month Follow-Up [15 months post-baseline])
The Innovation Lab group was asked to rate the degree to which "The Lab met the goal of forming new transdisciplinary collaborations", answering on a 6-point scale (0 = "Strongly Disagree" to 5 = "Strongly Agree"), with higher scores indicating a beneficial effect of the Innovation Lab.
12 months (End of Treatment [3 months post-baseline], 6-Month Follow-Up [9 months post-baseline], and 12-Month Follow-Up [15 months post-baseline])
ILab Met Goal - Novel Proposals
Time Frame: 12 months (End of Treatment [3 months post-baseline], 6-Month Follow-Up [9 months post-baseline], and 12-Month Follow-Up [15 months post-baseline])
The Innovation Lab group was asked to rate the degree to which "The Lab met the goal of developing novel grant proposals", answering on a 6-point scale (0 = "Strongly Disagree" to 5 = "Strongly Agree"), with higher scores indicating a beneficial effect of the Innovation Lab.
12 months (End of Treatment [3 months post-baseline], 6-Month Follow-Up [9 months post-baseline], and 12-Month Follow-Up [15 months post-baseline])
ILab - Recommend
Time Frame: 12 months (End of Treatment [3 months post-baseline], 6-Month Follow-Up [9 months post-baseline], and 12-Month Follow-Up [15 months post-baseline])
The Innovation Lab group was asked to rate the degree to which "I would recommend an Innovation Lab to a colleague", answering on a 6-point scale (0 = "Strongly Disagree" to 5 = "Strongly Agree"), with higher scores indicating a beneficial effect of the Innovation Lab.
12 months (End of Treatment [3 months post-baseline], 6-Month Follow-Up [9 months post-baseline], and 12-Month Follow-Up [15 months post-baseline])
ILab - Positive Impact
Time Frame: 12 months (End of Treatment [3 months post-baseline], 6-Month Follow-Up [9 months post-baseline], and 12-Month Follow-Up [15 months post-baseline])
The Innovation Lab group was asked to rate the degree to which "My experience in the Innovation Lab will have a positive impact on my work at my home institution", answering on a 6-point scale (0 = "Strongly Disagree" to 5 = "Strongly Agree"), with higher scores indicating a beneficial effect of the Innovation Lab.
12 months (End of Treatment [3 months post-baseline], 6-Month Follow-Up [9 months post-baseline], and 12-Month Follow-Up [15 months post-baseline])

Collaborators and Investigators

This is where you will find people and organizations involved with this study.

Sponsor

Sponsor

The organization or person who initiates the study and who has authority and control over the study.
State University of New York at Buffalo

Collaborators

Collaborators

An organization other than the sponsor that provides support for a clinical study. This support may include activities related to funding, design, implementation, data analysis, or reporting.
National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS)

Publications and helpful links

The person responsible for entering information about the study voluntarily provides these publications. These may be about anything related to the study.

General Publications

Study record dates

These dates track the progress of study record and summary results submissions to ClinicalTrials.gov. Study records and reported results are reviewed by the National Library of Medicine (NLM) to make sure they meet specific quality control standards before being posted on the public website.

Study Major Dates

Study Start (Actual)

Study Start

The actual date on which the first participant was enrolled in a clinical study. The "anticipated" study start date is the date that the researchers think will be the study start date.
August 3, 2017

Primary Completion (Actual)

Primary Completion

The date on which the last participant in a clinical study was examined or received an intervention to collect final data for the primary outcome measure. Whether the clinical study ended according to the protocol or was terminated does not affect this date. For clinical studies with more than one primary outcome measure with different completion dates, this term refers to the date on which data collection is completed for all the primary outcome measures. The "anticipated" primary completion date is the date that the researchers think will be the primary completion date for the study.
July 12, 2019

Study Completion (Actual)

Study Completion

The date on which the last participant in a clinical study was examined or received an intervention/treatment to collect final data for the primary outcome measures, secondary outcome measures, and adverse events (that is, the last participant's last visit). The "anticipated" study completion date is the date that the researchers think will be the study completion date.
June 25, 2020

Study Registration Dates

First Submitted

First Submitted

The date on which the study sponsor or investigator first submitted a study record to ClinicalTrials.gov. There is typically a delay of a few days between the first submitted date and the record's availability on ClinicalTrials.gov (the first posted date).
May 19, 2022

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

The date on which the study sponsor or investigator first submits a study record that is consistent with National Library of Medicine (NLM) quality control (QC) review criteria. The sponsor or investigator may need to revise and submit a study record one or more times before NLM's QC review criteria are met. It is the responsibility of the sponsor or investigator to ensure that the study record is consistent with the NLM QC review criteria.
May 24, 2022

First Posted (Actual)

First Posted

The date on which the study record was first available on ClinicalTrials.gov after National Library of Medicine (NLM) quality control (QC) review has concluded. There is typically a delay of a few days between the date the study sponsor or investigator submitted the study record and the first posted date.
May 27, 2022

Study Record Updates

Last Update Posted (Actual)

Last Update Posted

The most recent date on which changes to a study record were made available on ClinicalTrials.gov. There may be a delay between when the changes were submitted to ClinicalTrials.gov by the study's sponsor or investigator (the last update submitted date) and the last update posted date.
April 27, 2026

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

The most recent date on which the study sponsor or investigator submitted changes to a study record that are consistent with National Library of Medicine (NLM) quality control (QC) review criteria. It is the responsibility of the sponsor or investigator to ensure that the study record is consistent with the NLM QC review criteria.
April 5, 2026

Last Verified

Last Verified

The most recent date on which the study sponsor or investigator confirmed the information about a clinical study on ClinicalTrials.gov as accurate and current. If a study with a recruitment status of recruiting; not yet recruiting; or active, not recruiting has not been confirmed within the past 2 years, the study's recruitment status is shown as unknown.
March 1, 2026

More Information

Terms related to this study

Additional Relevant MeSH Terms

Other Study ID Numbers

Other Study ID Numbers

Identifiers or ID numbers other than the NCT number that are assigned to a clinical study by the study's sponsor, funders, or others. These numbers may include unique identifiers from other trial registries and National Institutes of Health grant numbers.
  • STUDY00001360

Drug and device information, study documents

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product

No

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product

No

This information was retrieved directly from the website clinicaltrials.gov without any changes. If you have any requests to change, remove or update your study details, please contact register@clinicaltrials.gov. As soon as a change is implemented on clinicaltrials.gov, this will be updated automatically on our website as well.

Cookie Settings

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. For more details carefully read our Privacy and Cookies Policy. ...>>>You can change your preferences or withdraw your consent at any time by deleting the cookies from your website or computer as described in the policy. Please accept it and choose your preferences by ticking the corresponding boxes in the "Manage Settings" section below. Please carefully read our Terms of Service before you proceed with using any part of this website.
«Manage Settings