CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 147Career Development and DiversityHigher Education Research StudiesDoctoral Education Challenges and Solutions

Outcomes and Processes in the Meyerhoff Scholars Program: STEM PhD Completion, Sense of Community, Perceived Program Benefit, Science Identity, and Research Self-Efficacy

Open access
Maton, Kenneth I., Beason, Tiffany S., Godsay, Surbhi, Sto. Domingo, Mariano R., Bailey, TaShara C., Sun, Shuyan, Hrabowski, Freeman A.·2016·CBE—Life Sciences Education
DOI 10.1187/cbe.16-01-0062PMC PMC5008895
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Previous research has shown that the Meyerhoff Scholars Program at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County, is an effective intervention for high-achieving underrepresented minority (URM) students; African-American Meyerhoff students are significantly more likely to enter science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) PhD programs than comparison students. The first of two studies in this report extends the prior research by examining levels of PhD completion for Meyerhoff (N = 479) versus comparison sample (N = 249) students among the first 16 cohorts. Entering African-American Meyerhoff students were 4.8 times more likely to complete STEM PhDs than comparison sample students. To enhance understanding of potential mechanisms of influence, the second study used data from the 22nd (Fall 2010) to 25th (Fall 2013) cohorts (N = 109) to test the hypothesis that perceived program benefit at the end of freshman year would mediate the relationship between sense of community at the end of Summer Bridge and science identity and research self-efficacy at the end of sophomore year. Study 2 results indicated that perceived program benefit fully mediated the relationship between sense of community and both criterion measures. The findings underscore the potential of comprehensive STEM intervention programs to enhance PhD completion, and suggest mechanisms of influence.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

This paper reports two studies of the Meyerhoff Scholars Program (MSP), showing that African-American MSP students were much more likely than declined comparison students to complete STEM PhDs, and that perceived program benefit fully mediated the link between sense of community and both science identity and research self-efficacy. It extends prior MSP research by examining STEM PhD completion and a psychosocial mechanism of program influence.

Key findings

  • In Study 1, African-American Meyerhoff students in the 1989–2004 cohorts were 4.8 times more likely to complete a STEM PhD (28.6%, 137/479) than declined comparison students (6.0%, 15/249); with covariates controlled, the logistic regression odds ratio was 7.5 (Wald = 45.3, p < 0.001).
  • STEM PhD completion rose across MSP cohorts: 21.9% for 1989–1996 Meyerhoff students vs. 5.6% for declined students, and 36.5% for 1997–2004 Meyerhoff students vs. 6.4% for declined students.
  • In Study 2 (N = 109), sense of community at the end of Summer Bridge predicted perceived program benefit at the end of freshman year (beta = 0.38, p < 0.01), and perceived program benefit predicted science identity (beta = 0.31, p < 0.01) and research self-efficacy (beta = 0.33, p < 0.01) at the end of sophomore year.
  • Perceived program benefit fully mediated the relations: sense of community was no longer significantly related to science identity (beta = 0.12, ns) or research self-efficacy (beta = 0.12, ns) after perceived program benefit was entered.

Methods

  • Study 1 used African-American students from the first 16 MSP cohorts entering 1989–2004: 479 Meyerhoff students and 249 declined comparison students (final N = 728 after exclusions), with STEM PhD completion assessed via transcripts, program records, and verified Internet searches; logistic regression controlled for high school GPA, SAT Math, SAT Verbal, gender, and cohort.
  • Study 2 surveyed 109 MSP students entering Fall 2010–2013 at three time points: sense of community at the end of the 6-week Summer Bridge, perceived program benefit at the end of freshman year, and science identity and research self-efficacy at the end of sophomore year.
  • Study 2 used stepwise multiple regression to test mediation, with covariates entered first and Baron and Kenny criteria for full mediation.

Limitations

  • The paper states that possible self-selection differences between Meyerhoff and declined students limit causal conclusions, and that only random assignment could definitively overcome this design weakness.
  • The paper states that the perceived program benefit scale has unknown validity, the four psychosocial variables are self-report and may reflect solo-method bias, the science identity and research self-efficacy measures have unknown predictive validity for STEM PhD outcomes, Study 2 has a relatively small sample size, and generalizability to other universities and programs is unknown.
  • Evident from the text: Study 1 is not randomized, and the comparison group consists of students who declined the MSP offer, so unmeasured differences such as initial PhD commitment or research excitement may remain.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1187/cbe.16-01-0062

Cites

72 of 72 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

10 of 30 cited sources checked · 6 supported · 1 flagged · accuracy not yet measured

  • Premisecitation

    Research/scientific self-efficacy is predictive of STEM degree completion and graduate school entry.

    “which in turn is predictive of STEM degree completion and graduate school entry (e.g., Lent et al., 1986, 2008; Marra et al., 2009; Estrada et al., 2011; Adedokun et al., 2013; Tate et al., 2014; Larson et al., 2015).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Lent et al., 1986 source
    • cites Estrada et al., 2011 source

      The Results (page unavailable) state that scientific self-efficacy was not uniquely predictive of applications to graduate school after accounting for other predictors. They also report no statistically significant direct effect of scientific integration on graduate-school attendance. The paper discusses self-efficacy and STEM persistence generally, but does not establish the claimed prediction of STEM degree completion. (LLM, conf=0.82)

      Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites Adedokun et al., 2013 source
  • Premisecitation

    Psychosocial factors such as science identity and research self-efficacy are predictive of increased persistence and academic achievement in STEM.

    “Previous research has shown that psychosocial factors such as science identity and research self-efficacy are predictive of increased persistence and academic achievement in STEM (e.g., Lent et al., 1986, 2008; Marra et al., 2009; Estrada et al., 2011; Adedokun et al., 2013; Tate et al., 2014; Larson et al., 2015).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Lent et al., 1986 source
    • cites Estrada et al., 2011 source

      The Discussion (page unavailable) reports that scientific identity and self-efficacy were each correlated with intention to continue a scientific career. The Results (page unavailable) found an indirect effect for identity, but no unique predictive effect for self-efficacy after accounting for other factors. The authors explicitly say they did not assess academic performance, so this paper's findings do not establish the academic-achievement part of the claim. (LLM, conf=0.89)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites Adedokun et al., 2013 source
  • Premisecitation

    Science identity predicts STEM persistence and achievement.

    “In turn, science identity is repeatedly found to predict STEM persistence and achievement (e.g., Carlone and Johnson, 2007; Malone and Barabino, 2009; Espinosa, 2011; Estrada et al., 2011; Eagan et al., 2013; Hernandez et al., 2013; Krogh and Andersen, 2013; Chang et al., 2014).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim2 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Carlone and Johnson, 2007 source

      In “A More Grounded (and Still Evolving) Model of Science Identity” (page not provided), the authors link strong, satisfying science identities to persistence among successful students of color. The paper does not establish that science identity predicts STEM achievement, and its qualitative account does not establish the predictive relationship claimed. (LLM, conf=0.85)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites Estrada et al., 2011 source

      The Results report that scientific identity was the strongest predictor of whether participants held a science-related job, and the Discussion relates identity to intentions to stay in science. That supports the persistence part of the claim. The Discussion also explicitly says the study did not assess academic performance, so it does not support the achievement part. (LLM, conf=0.90)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites Chang et al., 2014 source
  • Premisecitation

    Research experience helps students to build up their science identity.

    “Cumulative evidence suggests that research experience helps students to build up their science identity (e.g., Junge et al., 2010; Grunert and Bodner, 2011; Schultz et al., 2011; Thiry et al., 2011; Strawn and Livelybrooks, 2012; Adedokun et al., 2013; Merolla and Serpe, 2013).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim2 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Junge et al., 2010 source
    • cites Adedokun et al., 2013 source
    • cites Merolla and Serpe, 2013 source
  • Premisecitation

    African-American MSP students are five times more likely to pursue a STEM PhD compared with the declined sample.

    “Specifically, African-American MSP students are five times more likely to pursue a STEM PhD compared with the declined sample (Maton et al., 2009, 2012).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim2 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Maton et al., 2009 source
    • cites Maton et al., 2012 source
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 13
  • May combine two claims. 12
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 1

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductcitation

    The science identity and research self-efficacy measures had high reliability reported in previous studies.

    “High reliability was reported in previous studies (Chemers et al., 2010; Estrada et al., 2011).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Chemers et al., 2010

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Estrada et al., 2011 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Sense of community at the end of Summer Bridge was positively related to perceived program benefit at the end of freshman year (beta = 0.38, p < 0.01), explaining 13.9% of the variance in perceived program benefit beyond covariates.

    “Sense of community at the end of Summer Bridge was positively related to the mediator, perceived program benefit at the end of freshman year (beta = 0.38, p < 0.01).”
    • Also stated in: § Results · plain
      “Sense of community explained a significant 13.9% of the variance in perceived program benefit beyond that explained by the covariates, F change (1, 98) = 17.82, p < 0.01 (Table 6).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Perceived program benefit was positively related to research self-efficacy (beta = 0.33), explaining a significant 8.4% of the variance beyond that explained by covariates and sense of community.

    “Perceived program benefit was also positively related to the second outcome variable (beta = 0.33), explaining a significant 8.4% of the variance in research self-efficacy beyond that explained by the covariates and by sense of community”
    • Also stated in: § Results · plain
      “the proposed mediator significantly predicts the outcome (beta = 0.33, p < 0.01)”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The perceived program benefit scale assesses actual benefit from program involvement rather than just a positive feeling about the program.
    • Rests on an assumption: The science identity and research self-efficacy measures are predictive of STEM PhD pursuit and completion.
    • Rests on an assumption: The self-report measures reflect true levels of the psychosocial constructs rather than being substantially influenced by solo-method bias.

  • The quote only partly states this claim.

    Findingown data

    After controlling for high school GPA, SAT Math, SAT Verbal, gender, and cohort, African-American Meyerhoff students in the 1989-2004 entering cohorts were significantly more likely to complete a STEM PhD than declined comparison students (OR = 7.5, Wald = 45.3, p < 0.001).

    “Logistic regression analysis revealed that the 1989–2004 entering African-American Meyerhoff students were significantly more likely to complete a STEM PhD compared with the declined student comparison group, after controlling for covariates (Table 3; odds ratio [OR] = 7.5, Wald [df = 1] = 45.3, p < 0.001).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Differences between Meyerhoff and declined students in STEM PhD completion after covariate adjustment are attributable to MSP participation rather than unmeasured confounding.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Perceived program benefit was positively related to science identity (beta = 0.31), explaining a significant 7.2% of the variance beyond that explained by covariates and sense of community.

    “Perceived program benefit was positively related to the first outcome variable (beta = 0.31), explaining a significant 7.2% of the variance in science identity beyond that explained by the covariates and by sense of community”
    • Also stated in: § Results · plain
      “the proposed mediator significantly predicts the outcome (beta = 0.31, p < 0.01)”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The perceived program benefit scale assesses actual benefit from program involvement rather than just a positive feeling about the program.
    • Rests on an assumption: The science identity and research self-efficacy measures are predictive of STEM PhD pursuit and completion.
    • Rests on an assumption: The self-report measures reflect true levels of the psychosocial constructs rather than being substantially influenced by solo-method bias.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingnone given

    All students accepted into the program expressed a strong interest in pursuing a STEM PhD and began college with a STEM focus.

    “all students accepted into the program expressed a strong interest in pursuing a STEM PhD and began college with a STEM focus.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The Meyerhoff students did not have higher SAT scores or high school GPAs than comparison students.

    “The Meyerhoff students did not have higher SAT scores or high school GPAs than comparison students”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Meyerhoff and comparison students were comparable at college entry on characteristics other than those measured (e.g., research excitement, STEM PhD commitment).

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given

    Degree completion data found through Internet searches were verified by comparing at least two sources.

    “Degree completion data found through Internet searches were verified by comparing at least two sources.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Study groups give students the opportunity to provide and receive academic help in difficult STEM courses and have been linked to academic gain in previous research.

    “Study groups give students the opportunity to provide and receive academic help in difficult STEM courses and have been linked to academic gain in previous research (Gandara and Maxwell-Jolly, 1999; Moreno et al., 1999).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Gandara and Maxwell-Jolly, 1999
    • cites Moreno et al., 1999 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Academic advising from staff, peers, and mentors is important to help students make informed, strategic decisions about the number and type of courses to take (and retake) and which possible research opportunities to pursue.

    “Academic advising from staff, peers, and mentors is important to help students make informed, strategic decisions about the number and type of courses to take (and retake) and which possible research opportunities to pursue (Seymour and Hewitt, 1997; Gandara and Maxwell-Jolly, 1999).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Seymour and Hewitt, 1997

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Gandara and Maxwell-Jolly, 1999

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Study design and conductnone given

    The items of the perceived program benefit scale possess strong face validity.

    “The items do possess strong face validity.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductown data

    The sense of community measure had high reliability in the current sample (Cronbach's alpha = 0.82).

    “Reliability of this measure has been found to be high (Chavis et al., 2008), including in the current sample (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.82).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Chavis et al., 2008

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Financial support allows students to afford college and to focus exclusively on their studies rather than working during college.

    “financial support allows students to afford college and to focus exclusively on their studies rather than working during college (Georges, 1999).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Georges, 1999

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    The self-report nature of the four psychosocial variables may cause solo-method bias, so the findings may be due, at least in part, to measurement bias rather than causal relationships.

    “A third limitation is the self-report nature of the four psychosocial variables. It is possible that the findings, at least in part, are due to “solo-method” bias, in that students who are positively predisposed may report higher levels on all four measures.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The self-report measures reflect true levels of the psychosocial constructs rather than being substantially influenced by solo-method bias.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductreasoning

    The generalizability of findings to programs in different universities and with differing arrays of program elements is not known.

    “Finally, the generalizability of findings to programs in different universities and with differing arrays of program elements is not known.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductcitation

    The design effect for science identity (1.77) and research self-efficacy (1.57) was smaller than 2, so multilevel modeling was not necessary.

    “The design effect for the two outcomes of interest was smaller than 2 (science identity 1.77; research self-efficacy 1.57). Thus, multilevel modeling (individuals nested within cohorts) is not necessary (Satorra and Muthen, 1995; Maas and Hox, 2005).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Satorra and Muthen, 1995 source
    • cites Maas and Hox, 2005 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Study design and conductnone given

    Students who opted to attend the program may be more committed initially to obtaining a PhD than those who declined the admissions offer.

    “students who opted to attend the program may be more committed initially to obtaining a PhD than those who declined the admissions offer.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Meyerhoff and comparison students were comparable at college entry on characteristics other than those measured (e.g., research excitement, STEM PhD commitment).

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Now that the program has been shown to be effective, a random assignment design may raise ethical concerns, as it would deny worthy students access to likely program benefits.

    “now that the program has been shown to be effective, a random assignment design may raise ethical concerns, as it would deny worthy students access to likely program benefits (Freedman, 1987).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Freedman, 1987 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Although all students likely benefit to some extent from the sense of community, those who experience higher levels of community appear to benefit more.

    “Although all students likely benefit to some extent from the sense of community, those who experience higher levels of community appear to benefit more.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The perceived program benefit scale assesses actual benefit from program involvement rather than just a positive feeling about the program.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductnone given

    The predictive validity of the science identity and research self-efficacy measures is unknown; research has not examined whether Meyerhoff students with higher levels of these variables at the end of sophomore year are more likely to earn STEM PhDs.

    “A fourth limitation is the unknown predictive validity of the science identity and research self-efficacy measures. To date, research has not examined whether Meyerhoff students with higher levels of science identity and research self-efficacy at the end of their sophomore year are more likely to earn STEM PhDs than students with lower levels.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The science identity and research self-efficacy measures are predictive of STEM PhD pursuit and completion.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductreasoning

    The relatively small sample size in study 2 is a limitation.

    “A fifth limitation is the relatively small sample size in study 2.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Students who are assigned to the control group may underperform due to a resentful awareness of not being included.

    “students who are assigned to the control group may underperform due to a resentful awareness of not being included (Ong-Dean et al., 2011).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Ong-Dean et al., 2011 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductnone given

    The validity of the perceived program benefit scale is unknown; it cannot be known whether this measure assesses actual benefit from program involvement or just a positive feeling about the program in the absence of concrete benefit.

    “A second limitation relates to the unknown validity of the perceived program benefit scale. It cannot be known whether this measure assesses actual benefit from program involvement or, alternatively, just a positive feeling about the program in the absence of concrete benefit.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The perceived program benefit scale assesses actual benefit from program involvement rather than just a positive feeling about the program.
23 of 23

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Differences between Meyerhoff and declined students in STEM PhD completion after covariate adjustment are attributable to MSP participation rather than unmeasured confounding.

    “Study 1 provides evidence for the long-term impact of the MSP on participants’ academic success in STEM.”
    “after controlling for covariates (Table 3; odds ratio [OR] = 7.5, Wald [df = 1] = 45.3, p < 0.001)”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The mediation analysis’s conclusion that perceived program benefit fully mediates the relation between sense of community and science identity and research self-efficacy is not confounded by unmeasured variables.

    “Steps 2 and 3 establish support for full mediation by perceived program benefit on the relation between sense of community and science identity.”
    “perceived benefits of program components fully mediated the relationship between sense of community and both science identity and research self-efficacy (study 2)”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The 17-item perceived program benefit scale validly measures students’ perceived benefit from program involvement.

    “This measure was developed for the study and is intended to assess student perceptions of the level of benefit of program involvement; as such, it serves as a measure of subjective program impact.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The perceived program benefit scale assesses actual benefit from program involvement rather than just a positive feeling about the program.

    “It cannot be known whether this measure assesses actual benefit from program involvement or, alternatively, just a positive feeling about the program in the absence of concrete benefit.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The science identity and research self-efficacy measures are predictive of STEM PhD pursuit and completion.

    “To date, research has not examined whether Meyerhoff students with higher levels of science identity and research self-efficacy at the end of their sophomore year are more likely to earn STEM PhDs than students with lower levels.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The self-report measures reflect true levels of the psychosocial constructs rather than being substantially influenced by solo-method bias.

    “It is possible that the findings, at least in part, are due to “solo-method” bias, in that students who are positively predisposed may report higher levels on all four measures.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Meyerhoff and comparison students were comparable at college entry on characteristics other than those measured (e.g., research excitement, STEM PhD commitment).

    “in the absence of random assignment, it cannot be ruled out that the groups differed initially, at least to some extent, in other characteristics (e.g., research excitement, STEM PhD commitment), which may have contributed in part to observed outcomes.”
7 of 7

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Statistics recomputed

Every reported test result, recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom. A result shows as not adding up only once an independent check has confirmed it.

  • Consistentχ²(1) = 8.18reported p < .05 · recomputed p = .004

    “χ2(1) = 8.180, p < .05”

  • Consistentt(785) = 3.235reported p < .01 · recomputed p = .001

    “t(785) = 3.235, p < .01”

2 of 2

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • Figure 2 and Table 8 give different final coefficients

    Minor

    For the relation between sense of community and research self-efficacy after perceived program benefit is entered, Figure 2 reports beta = 0.12, whereas Table 8 reports 0.13.

  • Logistic-regression reference category conflicts with the odds-ratio interpretation

    Minor

    If STEM PhD completion is the reference category, a positive Meyerhoff coefficient and an odds ratio above 1 describe higher odds of noncompletion relative to completion. The results instead interpret that odds ratio as higher odds of completion.

2 of 2

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 13

  1. Bowman PJ, 2011, Readings on Equal Education: Diversity, Merit, and Higher Education: Toward a Comprehensive Agenda for the 21st Century
  2. Bridglall BL, 2013, Promoting Teaching and Learning: Studies of Three Undergraduate Student Academic Development Programs, 37
  3. Chubin DE, 2012, Understanding Interventions That Broaden Participation in Research Careers: Intervening to Critical Mass, vol. 5
  4. Chubin DE, 2009, Understanding Interventions That Broaden Participation in Research Careers: Embracing the Breadth of Purpose, vol. 3
  5. DePass AL, 2008, Understanding Interventions That Encourage Minorities to Pursue Research Careers: Building a Community of Research and Practice
  6. Georges A, 1999, NACME Res Lett, 9, 1
  7. Kuh G, 1991, Involving Colleges
  8. National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and National Academy of Mathematics, 2007, Rising above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter Future
  9. Olson S, 2007, Understanding Interventions That Encourage Minorities to Pursue Research Careers: Summary of a Workshop
  10. Strawn C, 2012, J Coll Sci Teach, 41, 47
  11. Strayhorn TL, 2015, Western J Black Stud, 39, 45
  12. Stryker S, 1980, Symbolic Interactionism: A Social Structural View
  13. Thiry H, 2011, J High Educ, 82, 357

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Maton, K. I., Beason, T. S., Godsay, S., Sto. Domingo, M. R., Bailey, T. C., Sun, S., & Hrabowski, F. A.
Affiliations
  • Department of Psychology, University of Maryland, Baltimore County, Baltimore, MD 21250
  • University of Maryland, Baltimore County (US)
ORCID
Venue
CBE—Life Sciences Education
Publisher
American Society for Cell Biology (ASCB)
Published
2016-09
Volume
15
Issue
3
Pages
ar48
ISSN
1931-7913 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1187/cbe.16-01-0062
PMC
PMC5008895
OpenAlex
W2508743023
Cited by
147
References
72
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 28 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 29 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 3
FWCI
17.77
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc-sa
Locations
  • CBE—Life Sciences Education (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Maryland Shared Open Access Repository (USMAI Consortium) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • Digital Repository at the University of Maryland (University of Maryland College Park)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Career Development and Diversity
  • Social Sciences › Education › Higher Education Research Studies
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Doctoral Education Challenges and Solutions
Keywords
underrepresented minority students, African American students, sense of community, science identity, research self-efficacy, summer bridge programs, influence mechanism, graduate student retention
MeSH terms
Demography, Engineering, Female, Humans, Male, Mathematics, Minority Groups, Research, Residence Characteristics, Science, Technology, Logistic Models, Models, Educational, Self Efficacy

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-11-03.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-11-03.

Cited sources are checked by gpt-6-sol.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review