Cited by 129Career Development and DiversityHealth and Medical Research ImpactsHigher Education Research Studies

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 43 of the 44 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 24 of the 83 sources its claims cite were checked for support.

Underrepresented Minority High School and College Students Report STEM-Pipeline Sustaining Gains After Participating in the Loma Linda University Summer Health Disparities Research Program

Open access
Salto, Lorena M., Riggs, Matt L., Delgado De Leon, Daisy, Casiano, Carlos A., De Leon, Marino·2014·PLoS ONE

Abstract

An urgent need exists for graduate and professional schools to establish evidence-based STEM (science, technology, engineering, and math) pipeline programs to increase the diversity of the biomedical workforce. An untapped yet promising pool of willing participants are capable high school students that have a strong STEM interest but may lack the skills and the guided mentoring needed to succeed in competitive STEM fields. This study evaluates and compares the impact of the Loma Linda University (LLU) Summer Health Disparities Research Program on high school (HS) and undergraduate (UG) student participants. The primary focus of our summer research experience (SRE) is to enhance the research self-efficacy of the participants by actively involving them in a research project and by providing the students with personalized mentoring and targeted career development activities, including education on health disparities. The results of our study show that our SRE influenced terminal degree intent and increased participant willingness to incorporate research into future careers for both the HS and the UG groups. The quantitative data shows that both the HS and the UG participants reported large, statistically significant gains in self-assessed research skills and research self-efficacy. Both participant groups identified the hands-on research and the mentor experience as the most valuable aspects of our SRE and reported increased science skills, increased confidence in science ability and increased motivation and affirmation to pursue a science career. The follow-up data indicates that 67% of the HS participants and 90% of the UG participants graduated from college with a STEM degree; for those who enrolled in graduate education, 61% and 43% enrolled in LLU, respectively. We conclude that structured SREs can be highly effective STEM strengthening interventions for both UG and HS students and may be a way to measurably increase institutional and biomedical workforce diversity.

Overview

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

In a retrospective evaluation of the Loma Linda University Summer Health Disparities Research Program, high school (ABC) and undergraduate (UTP) underrepresented minority participants reported significant gains in research skills and research self-efficacy and increased intent to incorporate research into future careers. Follow-up data showed 67% of ABC and 90% of UTP college graduates earned STEM degrees, with many enrolling in graduate education.

Key findings

  • Both groups reported large gains in research self-efficacy (ABC η²=0.33; UTP η²=0.49) and research skills, with the greatest gains in “conducting research” (ABC η²=0.42; UTP η²=0.47) and “scientific writing” (ABC η²=0.45; UTP η²=0.44).
  • Intent to incorporate research into future careers rose from 23% to 87% for ABC and from 47% to 92% for UTP; combined, it rose from 33% to 89% (p<0.001). In the combined paired sample, terminal degree intent shifted from MD (55% pre) to MD/PhD (44% post).
  • Follow-up showed 67% of ABC and 90% of UTP college graduates earned STEM degrees; among those enrolled in graduate education, 61% of ABC and 43% of UTP enrolled at LLU, and combined 47% enrolled at LLU.
  • Content analysis found 74% identified mastery experiences as the most valuable aspect; about 80% reported science-pipeline sustaining gains, and 58% reported science career affirmation.

Methods

  • Retrospective evaluation of 8-week paid summer research internships for underrepresented minority high school (ABC) and college (UTP) students at LLU, using program years 1997–1999 and 2001–2012; 132 ABC and 139 UTP participants (271 total).
  • Data came from program applications, follow-up files, National Student Clearinghouse records, and PRE/POST exit surveys; paired-data subgroups included intent (ABC N=53, UTP N=38), skills/self-efficacy (ABC N=47, UTP N=45), and follow-up (ABC N=116, UTP N=136).
  • Analyses used chi-square and McNemar tests for intent changes, GLM repeated measures with η² effect sizes for skills/self-efficacy, binary logistic regression, and content analysis of free-answer exit survey responses.

Limitations

  • Stated by the paper: selection bias from eligibility and selection criteria cannot be completely accounted for; paired-data analyses represent a subsample; self-efficacy is domain-specific and was measured separately from academic efficacy; some participants were lost to follow-up.
  • Evident from the text: there was no randomized control group; outcomes rely on self-report and retrospective follow-up; educational progress is cross-sectional as of January 2013; some paired analyses use small samples.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1371/journal.pone.0108497

Cites

43 of 43 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

24 of 83 cited sources checked · 9 supported · 0 flagged · accuracy not yet measured

  • Probably not a substantial claim. 37
  • It may state two separate claims as one. 32
59 of 59
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The pre-post changes in terminal degree intent, research career intent, research skills, and self-efficacy observed among participants are attributable to the summer research experience rather than to maturation, selection, or other concurrent factors.

    “The results of our study show that our SRE influenced terminal degree intent and increased participant willingness to incorporate research into future careers for both the HS and the UG groups.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The participants' self-reported gains in research skills and self-efficacy reflect actual improvements in those skills and abilities.

    “The quantitative data shows that both the HS and the UG participants reported large, statistically significant gains in self-assessed research skills and research self-efficacy.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The findings from the Loma Linda University Summer Health Disparities Research Program can be generalized to structured summer research experiences for high school and undergraduate underrepresented minority students more broadly.

    “We conclude that structured SREs can be highly effective STEM strengthening interventions for both UG and HS students and may be a way to measurably increase institutional and biomedical workforce diversity.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    An urgent need exists for graduate and professional schools to establish evidence-based STEM pipeline programs to increase the diversity of the biomedical workforce.

    “An urgent need exists for graduate and professional schools to establish evidence-based STEM (science, technology, engineering, and math) pipeline programs to increase the diversity of the biomedical workforce.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Capable high school students with strong STEM interest may lack the skills and guided mentoring needed to succeed in competitive STEM fields.

    “An untapped yet promising pool of willing participants are capable high school students that have a strong STEM interest but may lack the skills and the guided mentoring needed to succeed in competitive STEM fields.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    There is a need for graduate and professional schools to establish evidence-based pipeline programs to increase student diversity in STEM doctoral programs.

    “There is a dire need for graduate and professional schools to establish evidence-based pipeline programs that will increase the student diversity of their STEM doctoral degree programs.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The main components of the research internship have not changed since the beginning of the program.

    “the main components of research internship (i.e., the mentored hands-on research experience) have not changed since the beginning of the program.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Motivation, affective states and actions are based more on what people believe than on what is objectively true.

    “Because motivation, affective states and actions are based more on what people believe than on what is objectively true”
8 of 8

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.

  • Consistentt(90) = -3.12reported p = .002 · recomputed p = .002

    “t(90) = −3.12, p = .002”

  • Consistentt(90) = -1.99reported p = .049 · recomputed p = .050

    “t(90) = −1.99, p = .049”

  • Consistentt(90) = -2.83reported p = .006 · recomputed p = .006

    “t(90) = −2.83, p = .006”

  • Consistentt(90) = -2.44reported p = .017 · recomputed p = .017

    “t(90) = −2.44, p = .017”

  • Consistentt(90) = -2.8reported p = .006 · recomputed p = .006

    “t(90) = −2.80, p = .006”

  • Consistentr(43) = 0.42reported p = .004 · recomputed p = .004

    “r(43) = 0.42, p = .004”

  • Consistentr(45) = 0.27reported p = .065 · recomputed p = .066

    “r(45) = 0.27, p = .065”

  • Consistentr(43) = 0.45reported p = .002 · recomputed p = .002

    “r(43) = 0.45, p = .002”

  • Consistentr(45) = 0.42reported p = .003 · recomputed p = .003

    “r(45) = 0.42, p = .003”

9 of 9

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.

  • Vicarious-experiences percentage uses an inconsistent denominator

    Minor

    The combined-group entry reports 23%, but 23 of 109 is about 21%. The combined group has 102 participants, for which 23 of 102 would round to 23%.

    Reported 23 · recomputed 21.100917

  • UTP participation dates conflict

    Minor

    The results say the 139 UTP participants took part from 1997-2012, whereas the program history says those 139 participants took part from 2001-2012.

  • Combined verbal-persuasion subcategory is missing despite a nonzero total

    Minor

    Table 4 reports four combined-group responses under verbal persuasion, all four of which are attributed to encouragement and support in the UTP group. Yet the combined-group entry for that subcategory is a dash.

3 of 3

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 44 references

1 of the 44 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine (2010) Rising Above the Gathering Storm, Revisited: Rapidly Approaching Category 5: Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
  2. National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine (2011) Expanding Underrepresented Minority Participation: America’s Science and Technology Talent at the Crossroads: Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 129

Metadata

Authors
Salto, L. M., Riggs, M. L., Delgado De Leon, D., Casiano, C. A., & De Leon, M.
Affiliations
  • Loma Linda University (US)
  • California State University, San Bernardino (US)
Venue
PLoS ONE
Published
2014-09-24
Volume
9
Issue
9
Pages
e108497
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2326430778
Cited by
129
References
44
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 2
FWCI
11.14
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • Loma Linda University
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities (P20MD006988, P20MD001632)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Career Development and Diversity
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Health and Medical Research Impacts
  • Social Sciences › Education › Higher Education Research Studies
Keywords
underrepresented minority students, summer research experience, research self-efficacy, mentoring, health disparities research, high school students, undergraduate students, career development, Loma Linda University
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, California, Health Services Research, Humans, Minority Groups, Students, Universities, Health Status Disparities, Young Adult

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.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-11-03, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-11-03 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (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