Janice R. Devier, MPA, DrPH¹, Shawna L. Mercer, PhD¹, Vanessa J. Brown, MHS¹, Margaret Potter, JD², R. Scott Olds, HSD³, Mark Daniel, PhD⁴, and Lawrence W. Green, DrPH¹. (1) Office of Science and Extramural Research, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 4770 Buford Highway, NE, Mail Stop, K-36, Atlanta, GA 30341, (770) 488-2086, jyd6@cdc.gov, (2) Graduate School of Public Health, University of Pittsburgh, Center for Public Health Practice, 3109 Forbes Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15260, (3) Health Promotion, Kent State University, 316 White Hall, Kent State University, Kent, OH 44242, (4) Dept. of Social and Preventive Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Montreal, CHUM - Hotel-Dieu Centre de recherche Pavillon Masson, 3850, rue Saint-Urbain, Montreal, QC H2W 1T7, Canada

Increasing interest in Participatory Research (PR) has given rise to some confusion about terms and criteria. We reviewed a set of extramural research applications (n=56) funded by CDC in FY-99. Each application was categorized as PR or Non-PR by: 1) the project’s principal investigator during a post-project interview, 2) two peer reviewers using the Royal Society of Canada’s Guidelines for Classifying Participatory Research Projects, and 3) an independent reviewer familiar with PR. Data analysis revealed that there was full consensus among raters for approximately half of the applications. Consensus for PR was complete when the application explicitly discussed active engagement of the community(ies) in all aspects of the research process and when applicants demonstrated alignment with guiding principles of PR in their previous work and proposed study. Alternatively, consensus for Non-PR was complete when these elements were missing. Our analysis also identified dimensions of PR that led to the greatest agreement or disagreement among raters, including: whether and how clearly the community was defined; whether research questions were posed by the researchers, practitioners, and/or the community(ies); the frequency and intensity of engagement of the community(ies) and practitioners in each phase of the research process; and planning to use the results to guide decision-making, practice, and further research. This analysis provides an important step toward validating rating scales that are being proposed for use by: researchers and communities in forming and governing their research collaborations, funding agencies to guide applicants in preparing grant applications, and peer reviewers in rating research proposals.

Learning Objectives: At the end of this session participants will be able to

• Describe one approach for reviewing and assessing Participatory and Non-Participatory Research applications.
• Identify dimensions of participatory research that lead to the greatest agreement or disagreement among raters.
• Discuss how funding agencies might best use rating scales to guide applicants in preparing grant applications, and peer reviewers in rating them.

Keywords: Community Research, Participatory Research

Presenting author's disclosure statement:
I do not have any significant financial interest/arrangement or affiliation with any organization/institution whose products or services are being discussed in this session.