Research Quality Assessment
CoRPS – Center of Research on
Psychology in Somatic Diseases
End-term Evaluation Report 2008 – 2012
Committee chair: Prof. J.C.J.M. de Haes
Tilburg School of Social and Behavioral Sciences
Tilburg University
Tilburg, NL
March 2013
1
Report of the Evaluation Committee for
Research Quality Assessment
Committee chair: Prof. J.C.J.M. de Haes
Research Review CoRPS 2008 – 2012
CoRPS – Center of Research on
Psychology in Somatic Diseases
Tilburg School of Social and Behavioral Sciences
Tilburg University
March 2013
Submitted to:
Tilburg University
Warandelaan 2
P.O. Box 90153
5000 LE Tilburg
The Netherlands
www.tilburguniversity.edu
2
Preface
As chair, it is a pleasure to present the report of the Evaluation Committee that was
assigned the task of assessing the quality of the research and research management of
CoRPS – the Center of Research on Psychology in Somatic Diseases – an interdisciplinary
research institute within the Tilburg School of Social and Behavioral Sciences. This
committee assessment considers the first funding period of CoRPS, namely the period 2008
– 2012.
The Committee members were impressed by the open and constructive communication
during the site visit, on January 18 2013 at the university campus, at meetings with the
Rector of Tilburg University, the Board of the Tilburg school of Social and Behavioral
Sciences (TSB), the Director and Program Coordinators of CoRPS, and during the highlevel conversations with researchers and PhD students at CoRPS. The already positive
opinion that the Committee had formed from the written materials it received was
reinforced during the day of the visit.
On behalf of our Committee, I wish to thank the University administration, the
management of the Institute, and the faculty, staff and PhD students, for their open
dialogue with us and for providing the detailed information necessary to complete our task.
As a committee, we received a warm welcome and are grateful for the support encountered
during our visit.
We hope that our assessment and comments will support the future of CoRPS and, thus, to
understand better and possibly improve the health of diseased people in our society.
Prof. Hanneke de Haes
Chair to the CoRPS Evaluation Committee 2013
3
Structure of this report
The Evaluation Committee assessed the research and management quality of CoRPS – the
Center of Research on Psychology in Somatic Diseases – which is housed within the
Tilburg School of Social and Behavioral Sciences of Tilburg University. This was the ‘endterm’ research review 2008 – 2012.
Chapter 1 provides a short introduction to the report, a brief description of the Netherlands
System of Research Quality Assessment, information on the current review of CoRPS, the
composition of the review Committee and the procedures employed by the Committee.
Chapter 2 presents the reader of this report with a brief description of the CoRPS Institute
and its program, based on the self-evaluation report from the period 2008 – 2012.
Chapter 3 presents the Committee’s assessment according to SEP (Strategic Evaluation
Plan) of the quality of research management at CoRPS – the Center of Research on
Psychology in Somatic Diseases.
Chapter 4 is made up of appendices that relate to aspects of the evaluation, the members of
the Review Committee, and the visit to CoRPS at the Tilburg University campus site.
4
Contents
1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 6 The Netherlands System of Quality Assessment of Publicly funded Research ........................................ 6 The Evaluation of CoRPS ............................................................................................................................................. 7 The Review Committee .................................................................................................................................................. 8 Data provided to the Committee ...................................................................................................................... 8 Procedures followed by the Committee ......................................................................................................... 8 Assessment Aspects and Assessment Scale ................................................................................................. 9 2. CoRPS – Center of Research on Psychology in Somatic Diseases ............................... 11 Information on CoRPS Institute and Program ................................................................................................. 11 3. Assessment ............................................................................................................................... 17 Assessment of the Institute ........................................................................................................................................ 17 Assessment of the Research Program ................................................................................................................... 18 Additional evaluation criteria for CoRPS .......................................................................................................... 20 4. Appendices ............................................................................................................................... 21 Aspects of the Assessment ......................................................................................................................................... 21 Preliminary assessment Institute ................................................................................................................... 21 Preliminary assessment Program .................................................................................................................. 23 The Five-Point Scale ......................................................................................................................................... 24 CoRPS – Evaluation criteria and deliverables ................................................................................................. 25 Target Journals .................................................................................................................................................... 26 Curricula vitae of the members of the Review Committee ........................................................................... 28 Program for site visit CoRPS, Tilburg University, January 17 – 18 2013 ............................................ 31 5
1. Introduction
In 2007 Tilburg University funded CoRPS – Center of Research on Psychology in Somatic
Diseases – for the five-year period 2008 – 2012. It was agreed that during this period an
international committee of experts would review the Center’s research and management
quality twice, according to the Standard Evaluation Protocol (SEP) 2009 – 2015 and
additional criteria formulated by CoRPS, thus performing a ‘mid-term’ and an ‘end-term’
review.
An external committee chaired by J. Blumenthal, PhD, submitted its assessment report in
June 2011, thus completing the ‘mid-term’ review. This report was provided as information
to the committee for the ‘end-term’ review.
This ‘end-term’ review, which was performed by an external committee chaired by Prof.
J.C.J.M. de Haes, again according to the requirements of the Standard Evaluation Protocol
(SEP) 2009 – 2015 and the additional evaluation criteria formulated by the Institute for
CoRPS (see Appendix 4).
The Netherlands System of Quality Assessment of Publicly funded Research
The evaluation of publicly funded research in the Netherlands is performed according to
the Standard Evaluation Protocol for Public Research Organisations (SEP)1. This protocol
provides common guidelines for evaluating and improving research and research policy
based on expert assessments.
The SEP 2009 – 2015 evaluation is based on two objectives regarding research (including
PhD training) and research management:
• to improve the quality of research through external peer review, including the
scientific and societal relevance of research, research policy and research
management;
• to ensure the accountability of the board of the research organization vis-à-vis
funding agencies, government and society at large.
The SEP consists of a self-evaluation component and an external review, including a site
visit once every six years and a mid-term review between two external reviews. The
Evaluation Committee reports to the board of the research organization. The results of the
evaluation are made up of both the evaluation report and the position of the board.
The external evaluation of scientific research applies at two levels: the research institute as
a whole and its individual research programs. The three main tasks of the research institute
and its research programs are subject to assessment: the output of results relevant to the
scientific community, the output of results relevant to society, and the training of PhD
1
Standard Evaluation Protocol 2009 – 2015: Protocol for Research Assessment In The Netherlands, VSNU,
NWO, KNAW, Published VSNU, KNAW and NWO 2009 (Updated June 2010), www.knaw.nl/content
6
students. Four main criteria are considered in the assessment: 1) quality, 2) productivity, 3)
societal relevance, and 4) vitality and feasibility.
The SEP protocol is primarily directed toward the evaluation of scientific research, but the
scope of the term ‘research’ is not limited to the research results. Research management,
research policy, research facilities, PhD training and the societal relevance of research are
also considered integral parts of the quality of work of an institute and its programs. These
elements broaden the scope of the evaluation of research.
An institute may be defined as ‘a group of researchers with an articulated shared mission,
operating within one or more research programs under the same management’. Each
‘institute’ will have a director and/or research leader(s) with final responsibility. The board
under whose jurisdiction a research institute falls is responsible for organizing the
evaluation of that institute and following the appropriate procedures.
The Evaluation of CoRPS
This evaluation of the research program of the Center of Research on Psychology in
Somatic Diseases (CoRPS) was commissioned by Tilburg University’s Executive Board.
The period under review is 2008 – 2012.
The board appointed an external committee of national and international peers, assisted by
a secretary to help the committee chair to prepare their visit to the institute and the
committee’s evaluation report. This report will cover the findings, in accordance with
requirements from the SEP protocol (Appendices 1-3) and additional criteria from the
institute (Appendix 4).
In accordance with the Standard Evaluation Protocol (SEP 2009 – 2015), and looking at the
requests from the board, the tasks of the appointed Evaluation Committee were as follows:
•
to assess the quality of research and research management of the institute on the
basis of the information provided by the institute and through interviews;
•
to assess the realization of additional criteria and deliverables from the institute
(Appendix 4);
•
to advise how CoRPS research and research management might be improved,
regarding the international standing of the research group and program.
During a visit at the campus of Tilburg University on January 18 2013 (Appendix 6), the
Committee held interviews with members of the board of Tilburg University, the Tilburg
School of Social and Behavioral Sciences, the management of CoRPS, program directors,
researchers and PhD students working on the research program. Before this visit, the
Committee had received the CoRPS End-term Self-evaluation Report 2008 – 2012, with
appendices covering specific information, such as a complete list of all CoRPS publications
for the period 2008 – 2012, the mid-term review report 2011, and a copy of CoRPUS
Magazine.
7
The Review Committee
The Review Committee, appointed by the Board of the Tilburg University, consisted of the
following members:
Chair:
• Prof. J.C.J.M. (Hanneke) de Haes (Academic Medical Center / University of
Amsterdam)
Members:
• Prof. J. (Johannes) Siegrist (Heinrich-Heine-Universität, Düsseldorf)
• Prof. A.A. (Ad) Kaptein (Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden University)
Secretary:
• Dr R.R. (Robert) Braam (Utrecht)
More details relating to the experience of the Committee members are included in
Appendix 5.
Independence
The Committee assessed the quality of the CoRPS Institute and its research program
carefully, objectively, and independently. The Committee as a whole decided and agreed
on the assessment of the Institute and its research program (including research themes)
described in this document. The members of the Committee worked in close partnership.
Data provided to the Committee
The Committee received the following documentation on the CoRPS institute and its
research program from the CoRPS institute board:
•
End-term Self-Evaluation Report 2008 – 2012: CoRPS – Center of Research on
Psychology in Somatic Diseases, Tilburg University, School of Social and
Behavioral Sciences, December 2012;
• Mid-Term Evaluation Report 2008 – 2010: CoRPS – Center of Research on
Psychology in Somatic Diseases Tilburg University, School of Social and
Behavioral Sciences, J. Blumenthal, PhD, committee chair, June 2011;
• a copy issue of the CoRPUS Magazine June 2010, published by the Institute;
• a document pertaining to the renewed tenure track regulations and criteria that the
Tilburg School of Social and Behavioral Sciences put in place in 2012, at the
Committee’s request during the site visit.
The above documentation included all the information required by the SEP 2009 – 2015
protocol and required by additional criteria.
Procedures followed by the Committee
The Committee proceeded according to the SEP Protocol (SEP 2009 – 2015).
8
The Committee members read the self-evaluation report with the appendices, carefully
examined the list of publications of the program faculty, and reviewed its themes and target
groups. The Committee members also carefully examined the mid-term review report and
read the CoRPUS Magazine.
The Committee made a preliminary assessment of the program using the SEP checklist for
internal committee use (see Appendices 1 – 3 of the SEP). This preliminary assessment was
discussed within the Committee at a preparatory meeting the evening prior to the site visit
and again during a breakfast meeting on the day of the official visit. The Committee then
also discussed the process by which the interviews would be conducted during the site visit
on January 18 2013.
The Committee was welcomed by the Rector of Tilburg University and met with the board
of the Tilburg School of Social and Behavioral Sciences – i.e. the Dean of the Faculty, the
Vice Dean of research and the Director of the Education and Research Institute (ERI) – on
the university campus on the morning of the visit.
On the same day, the Committee held meetings and interviews with the academic director
and program coordinators of CoRPS, researchers and PhD students of the research
program, in consecutive meetings throughout the day. At the end of the day, after internal
deliberations, the Committee informally presented its first impressions and findings.
The Committee, assisted by the Committee secretary, prepared an initial draft report of the
evaluation for the CoRPS Institute and the research program, which was distributed
electronically shortly after the site visit. The final draft version of the report was sent to the
Institute Board for factual corrections and comments, which were received in good order
and processed by the Committee to produce the final report. This was then sent to the
Faculty Board’s Vice Dean of research and to CoRPS’s academic director.
Assessment Aspects and Assessment Scale
The Standard Evaluation Protocol requires the Review Committee to assess the research on
the following four main aspects:
•
•
•
•
quality (policy and management, international recognition and innovative potential);
productivity (productivity policy, scientific output);
societal relevance (societal orientation, societal impact, valorization);
vitality and feasibility (orientation, flexibility, management).
At the level of the Institute, the four criteria are employed focusing on policy and
strategy, preferably in a qualitative manner, identifying the main issues of praise and
criticism and putting forward recommendations for improvement. The focus/emphasis here
was on future planning.
9
At the level of the research group or Program, the four criteria are used to focus on
performance, both in terms of scientific achievements and societal relevance. The group
evaluation ends with a summary in which the four main criteria are rated on a five-point
scale. The Committee applied the full range of the five-point scale according to the SEP
2009 – 2015 descriptions: excellent (5); very good (4); good (3); satisfactory (2);
unsatisfactory (1). A description of the five-point scale as used can be found in Appendix 3.
Using the above research quality criteria and the managerial aspects listed, the Committee
acquired a comprehensive picture of the performance of the research institute and the
research program (including its themes and target groups).
10
2. CoRPS – Center of Research on Psychology in Somatic
Diseases2
Management:
- Prof. J. Denollet, director
- Prof. S. Pedersen, research
- Prof. A. Roukema, societal relevance
- Ms. K. Boermans, operations
Information on CoRPS Institute and Program
To inform readers of this report on the Institute and its program, a brief overview of the
structure and function of CoRPS now follows, derived from the self-evaluation report.
The Center of Research on Psychology in Somatic Diseases CoRPS is one of the
multidisciplinary research institutes accommodated in the School of Social and Behavioral
Sciences of Tilburg University (TSB). In particular, CoRPS relates to the Department of
Medical Psychology and Neuropsychology of TSB. The educational and research activities
of the TSB departments are coordinated by the Education and Research Department (ERI).3
The Dean of TSB, the Vice Dean of education and the Vice Dean of research, together with
the director of ERI, manage the activities in the TSB. The Education and Research Institute
ERI is concerned with educational and research policy, the supervision of students,
international affairs, and organizing and scheduling education.
The mission of the CoRPS research program is: ‘To further uncover the nature of the
interface between the human mind and body, in order to achieve optimal health care for
patients with chronic medical or psychological conditions’. The institute is one of the
leading research institutes in Europe in the area of psychology and somatic diseases.
The theoretical framework that drives this research agenda is the biopsychosocial model
(of G.L. Engel, 1977), which states that human functioning in the context of health and
disease is influenced by the interplay of biological, psychological and social factors.
The self-evaluation report by CoRPS states that the research program focuses primarily
on four groups of patients with chronic medical conditions, including:
1) cardiovascular disorders;
2) diabetes and hypertension;
3) cancer & cancer survivorship;
4) neurological disorders.
2
3
The information in this chapter is taken from the CoRPS Self-Evaluation Report, December 2012, pp. 7-12.
Formerly, the research activities were organized in the Oldendorff Institute, now in ERI.
11
The research program further covers the following thematic areas that guide the
development of the research program across the different target groups of patients with
chronic medical conditions:
1. risk assessment;
2. patient-centered outcome assessment;
3. mediating mechanisms;
4. clinical care;
5. theory and methods.
In order to achieve its research aims, CoRPS is based on cooperation between the
departments of Medical Psychology, Cognitive Neurosciences, and Methodology and
Statistics of Tilburg University. CoRPS has an ongoing collaboration with two teaching
hospitals, St. Elisabeth and TweeSteden in Tilburg, a long-term partnership with the Cancer
Registry South (IKZ), and a General Practitioners Support Collaboration (POZOB) in the
region. In addition, by sponsoring chairs and PhD projects, these partnerships have offered
CoRPS researchers the necessary access to specific expertise, data and infrastructure. In
return, CoRPS has seconded research officers, providing methodological-epidemiological
support for the two above-mentioned hospitals.
Researchers from the Department of Methodology and Statistics of TSB participate in
CoRPS to enhance the methodological quality of studies of a complex nature (longitudinal
design, repeated measurements, experimental manipulation) in CoRPS’s research program.
The management of CoRPS has appointed program coordinators who serve informally as
key-advisors across the various research domains. These program coordinators supervise
the researchers and the PhD students, and contribute to the research agenda of CoRPS.
The research staff of CoRPS grew from 29 FTE [full time equivalent] in 2008 to 45 FTE
in 2010, and after a peak of 50 FTE in 2011, it was at a level of 44 FTE in 2012. Tenured
positions (full professors, associate professors and assistant professors) grew from 7 FTE in
2008, to nearly 9 in 2010 and 11.5 FTE in 2012. Non-tenured staff included about 2 FTE
assistant professors and researchers, and 30 FTE PhD students in 2012 (compared to 7 FTE
assistant professors and 30 FTE PhD students in 2010).
The self-evaluation report characterizes the academic staff as a young, dynamic and
motivated team of researchers who cooperate with colleagues from other academic centers
in the Netherlands, Europe, and the United States. The senior staff was strengthened in
2012 by the appointment of professors in three of its core areas: diabetes, cancer, and
cardiology, following the earlier appointment of two part-time professors in neurological
disorders, and the appointment of three staff members with tenured positions as assistant
professors. The number of junior staff increased due to a large amount of external funding.
Since 2008, the self-evaluation report states, 45 PhD students and 15 postdoctoral fellows
have been appointed (these 45 PhD students include 5 students that had started earlier, in
2005 or 2007. Another student discontinued in 2009). The board of CoRPS plans to appoint
two additional associate professors to enhance the teaching and supervision of junior staff.
12
The funding received by CoRPS from within Tilburg University, the Department of
Medical Psychology & Neurology, the Tilburg School of Social and Behavioral Sciences,
and the Education and Research Institute (ERI) – formerly the Oldendorff Research
Institute – varied from €483,000 in 2008, to €359,000 in 2010 and to €584,000 in 2012.
About €2,000,000 is contributed annually to the CoRPS program from partner
organizations, the two hospitals and POZOB. Research grants and contract research
increased from €528,000 in 2009 to €1,372,000 in 2010 and has remained at this level. The
funding of CoRPS thus grew from €650,000 in 2008 to €2,000,000 in 2010, to €2,100,000
in 2012.
The CoRPS research environment and embedding is described in the self-evaluation
report. The CoRPS faculty contributes to the interdisciplinary field of Medical Psychology.
Multiple international partnerships have been developed, leading to joint publications and
exchanges of PhD students and post-doctoral fellows. CoRPS faculty is involved in the
leading academic societies of Medical Psychology and Behavioral Medicine, including the
European Society of Cardiology and the American Psychosomatic Society. One of
CoRPS’s professors is Editor-in-Chief of Psychosomatic Medicine.
Nationally, CoRPS managed to secure research funding for junior and senior faculty, and
its faculty participates in the scientific review centers of the Netherlands Organisation for
Scientific Research (NWO), the Netherlands Heart Foundation, and the Dutch Cancer
Society. CoRPS has also established partnerships with academic centers (Rotterdam,
Utrecht, Groningen, Maastricht) in the Netherlands and with local teaching hospitals
(TweeSteden Hospital and St. Elisabeth Hospital in Tilburg, Catharina Hospital in
Eindhoven and Amphia Hospital in Breda). The institute has welcomed international
visiting scholars and it co-sponsors a national series of lectures.
Responses to two earlier reviews are mentioned in the self-evaluation report: a mid-term
review of CoRPS in 2011, and a national evaluation of psychology departments in 2011,
including the department of Medical Psychology at Tilburg. CoRPS implemented the
recommendations that related to organization (appointing an administrator), research
(adding focus to interventions), presence in national research organizations, and activities
to encourage outreach to the general public. Furthermore, the national psychology review
suggested that more attention be given to the theoretical background of the research
program. This issue was taken into account by CoRPS in its SWOT analysis (see below).
CoRPS had a total research output of 791 items in the review period 2008 – 2012,
including 630 refereed articles (ISI), 58 other refereed articles, 9 books, 36 book chapters,
26 PhD theses and 32 professional publications.
For each of its thematic areas, a list of five prototypical examples of publications is
included in the self-evaluation report document:
1. publications on risk stratification;
2. publications on outcome assessment;
3. publications on mediating mechanisms;
4. publications on behavioral intervention and clinical care;
13
5. publications on methodology and medical statistics.
The institute also lists examples of publications covering meta-analyses and narrative
reviews. Furthermore, in the appendices, the institute presents a complete list of all its
publications from 2008 – 2012, as well as lists of scientific lectures, oral presentations and
media appearances.
The distribution of the output over the target groups and thematic areas is included in a
separate table in the self-evaluation report, with the largest numbers of publications in
thematic areas combined with medical conditions related to cardiovascular problems and
cancer.
The CoRPS institute contributes to research training in two ways. The research carried
out by CoRPS is linked to the education of students at Tilburg School of Social and
Behavioral Sciences, in particular the Master’s program in Medical Psychology, and the
enrolment of PhD candidates within CoRPS. The two-year Master’s program includes
writing a thesis in English while contributing to ongoing CoRPS research projects. In the
period 2008 – 2012, CoRPS enrolled 41 PhD candidates, in addition to the five PhDs who
started in 2005 – 2007 in projects related to the CoRPS institute. By the end of 2012,
twelve PhD students had graduated, and 33 PhD projects are currently ongoing.
The earning capacity of researchers from CoRPS as to external funds and personal grants,
totals over €7,600,000 for the period 2008 – 2012. External funding has increased to about
two-thirds of the total income of CoRPS since 2010, exceeding internal funding from
Tilburg University.
The self-evaluation report lists approaches to implementation and results on societal
relevance in these categories:
• maintaining regular contact with the boards of the two participating hospitals;
• translating research findings into publications for specific patient groups and for
professionals in clinical practice and health care, and for the wider public audience;
• providing scientific staff and graduate students of CoRPS to train and assist physicians
and other health care professionals in hospitals in the region;
• translating research findings into applications for everyday clinical practice;
• transferring knowledge to primary and high school education by presentations and
publications.
The self-evaluation report lists the numbers of presentations at meetings for the academic
community and health professionals; of professional publications; and media appearances,
both nationally (345 items) and internationally (255 items).
As for viability, CoRPS’s management organizes supervision for researchers and PhD
students, regular discussions between the board of directors and program coordinators,
weekly meetings for all staff and PhD students addressing operational and scientific issues.
Moreover, the appointment of additional professors is helping to broaden the research
scope and enlarge the capacity for supervision. Finally, CoRPS plans to appoint an
advisory board of stakeholders and an independent scientific council to monitor and guide
scientific quality and operational aspects.
14
CoRPS provides support for the development of the next generation of researchers by
teaching doctoral students who are following the Master’s program, PhD students working
within Tilburg University in TSB/ERI and PhD students who are working outside
universities at their employers.
The self-evaluation report includes results of a SWOT analysis: Strengths, Weaknesses,
Opportunities and Threats, a related Strategy paragraph, and an overview of positive
results regarding all the deliverables mentioned in the additional criteria. All the targets
listed in the deliverables – namely academic research, external funding, PhD education,
networking, and validation – have been achieved, as pointed out in the report. According to
the self-evaluation report, the future of CoRPS is seen as a continuous development of
novel strategies to further improve the quality of research. Given its strengths and
weaknesses, opportunities and threats, CoRPS’s strategy from 2013 onwards will be as
follows:
• appoint an internal committee to advise the director of CoRPS on supporting research
integrity and quality;
• appoint an Advisory Board, including stakeholders, to translate findings into clinical
practice;
• appoint an external Scientific Council, consisting of international scholars, to provide
advice on the quality of research and operational matters within the research program;
• shift the focus in the program from empirical, clinical research to psychological work, to
substantiate and validate behavioral constructs and method, and theoretical models;
• add studies addressing clinical intervention trials, ambulatory monitoring of potential
mechanisms of disease, and experimental laboratory research in medical and clinical
psychology;
• emphasize patient-oriented research, directed at issues such as the self-management of
chronic medical conditions, adherence to medical advice, communication in medical
settings, intervention studies related to novel psychotherapeutic modalities, coping skills
training, and web-based interventions;
• further integrate the research program of CoRPS to bring in insights from the field of
clinical psychology, in response to the recent merger of the former departments of
medical psychology and clinical psychology into one unified Department of Medical and
Clinical Psychology;
• study the role of social inhibition as a behavioral factor in increasing the risk of adverse
cardiovascular events (ERC Advanced Grant proposal, November 2012).
The Appendices to the self-evaluation report provided the Committee with information on:
1.
2.
3.
4.
15
organizational embedding
thematic areas of research groups & target groups
external funding
acquired grants for participating centers
5. completed PhD projects
6. current PhD projects
7. the organization of academic meetings
8. visibility: keynotes, invitations for lectures and presentations
9. academic reputation
10. media appearances
11. affiliates
12. the societal relevance of CoRPS research and valorization
Finally, the self-evaluation report lists all publications in the period 2008 – 2012, by year
and type, and presents a table showing the numbers of publications in the various areas of
research.
16
3. Assessment
Assessment of the Institute
Given the relatively short period of institutional development within the Program’s
lifetime, CoRPS has reached impressive achievements at different levels. (1) It has
significantly advanced original research in core areas of psychological aspects of somatic
diseases (see below Research Program). (2) It has been consistently successful in attracting
competitive research grants. (3) It has extended collaborative research activity with clinical
centers in the region. (4) It has developed an extensive PhD program. (5) It has built up
networks of international scientific cooperation. CoRPS must be regarded as a leading
center in clinically oriented medical psychological research at the national and European
levels.
There is a strong leadership within CoRPS as well as a highly productive faculty of tenured
staff. The scope, quality and quantity of scientific contributions is, overall, excellent.
Judging from the evaluation report and the site visit, the organization of the Institute seems
to function very well.
The PhD program affiliated with the TSB Graduate School offers a broad spectrum of
dissertation projects (Self-evaluation Report, Appendices 5 and 6) for internal and external
doctoral students. There are also well-established structures and procedures for supervising
and monitoring dissertations. The career prospects of PhD students who gain their
doctorate at the CoRPS Institute are relatively limited, given the present staff structure and
the resources available elsewhere. Creating additional possibilities for tenured positions
may help remedy this situation.
The Institute’s capacity and track record in attracting extra-mural research grants is very
good. However, there is some imbalance between the four clinical research teams, not only
in terms of the amount of funding, but also in terms of receiving funding from prestigious
research agencies. In this respect there is one case of clear excellence (cognitive
neuroscience). One point that the Committee sees as meriting additional attention is how to
secure the continued existence of research in groups that are less successful in attracting
competitive grants. Is there any intra-mural funding forthcoming to overcome periods of
uncertain funding? This could help to initiate new research developments that do not yet
attract external funding.
The Institute’s efforts to reach a broader public and contribute to society are very valuable,
not only with regard to media coverage and publications for larger audiences, but also
when it comes to improving the quality of patient-centered health care, the continued and
integrated provision of health services, and early risk detection and preventive efforts.
Newly developed scientific knowledge is transferred to patients, strengthening their coping
skills and both the technical and the social support systems that they draw on. Innovative
monitoring procedures and continued administrative data collection (especially the Cancer
Registry South) are excellent examples of potential benefits to the broader public. Societal
17
relevance could be supported and reinforced by focusing on intervention development and
testing.
The Institute is essential and has a clear vision of the future. In a self-critical way, it has
shown its capacity to monitor and discuss its own strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and
threats. It is currently establishing an Advisory Board and an independent Scientific
Council to strengthen this process.
Assessment of the Research Program
The Committee assesses the program results as follows:
Quality:
Productivity:
Societal Relevance:
Feasibility:
4 – 5, very good to excellent.
5, excellent
4, very good
5, excellent
Building a research program on George Engel’s biopsychosocial model of disease provides
a theoretical basis for transdisciplinary research. At the same time, however, the model is
so broadly formulated that it provides little support when it comes to bringing focus to the
research program.
The program made substantial progress by exploring the psychological and biomedical
links in cardiovascular diseases, diabetes, cancer, and, to some extent, neurological
disorders. The social dimension within this model has remained relatively underdeveloped
in the first period of CoRPS. At the same time, this might well be justified given the need
to limit the scope of the program’s endeavors.
While each clinical team has made impressive advances, the cross-over between the study
of these disorders, and specifically the study of co-morbidity with potential common
mediating mechanisms, has yet to be given high priority. This could be a fruitful area for
future development. Likewise, the outstanding expertise of the cognitive neuroscience team
could usefully be integrated in collaborative research.
The quality of this program’s research is highly impressive. Several significant results were
published in leading international journals. More progress was made in the fields of ‘risk
stratification’ and ‘outcome assessment’ than in the remaining fields. The team working on
cardiovascular disorders benefits from clear leadership, judging from the originality,
cumulative evidence, clinical significance and international diffusion. Clearly, its long local
tradition and strong scientific leadership contributes to this success. However, research that
has developed more recently in the fields of diabetes and oncology also has significant
potential for international visibility and clinical relevance. Research on mediating
mechanisms focuses heavily on cardiovascular disorders, but no systematic research
agenda could be identified for this component. Research on clinical care and behavioral
interventions is an important part of the program, with immediate benefit for patients and,
thus, societal relevance. Although intervention research by social scientists in medical
settings is a complex field, extending these activities – as announced in the Self-Evaluation
Report (p.20) – would be welcome.
18
The Committee discussed with all groups the balance between quality and quantity in
science, which is important for universities today. The Committee found a shared idea that
quality is more important than quantity and suggests that this notion be elaborated in future
policy guidelines. At the same time, the Committee observed an open and collaborative
atmosphere, with a large degree of academic freedom for researchers and PhD students to
develop their own ideas and research lines. Some measures taken within the organization,
such as providing a list of target journals or putting too much emphasis on journal impact
factors, have the potential to undermine motivation and collaboration within the group if
not handled carefully.
Regarding CoRPS’ vision of its research program in the longer run, the Committee
welcomed the development from descriptive studies to a stronger focus on mechanisms and
interventions. This means that more emphasis can be given to elaborating theoretical
models developed in the field of – for example – health psychology. The program has a
well-established relationship with the medical field and with the Master’s program in
medical psychology of the department. Respect is gained from both sides, medical practice
and psychology.
The Committee found that the need for societal relevance is taken seriously at CoRPS, not
only in terms of spreading knowledge to a broader audience, but also more directly by
improving patient treatments and working with patient groups. The Committee welcomes
this very much, and thinks it is an important challenge for CoRPS to measure and evaluate
these efforts more explicitly in the next round.
The Committee discussed the issue of integrity in science with all parties and found this
was taken very seriously. It supports the establishment of processes to prevent fraudulent
science and promote good research conduct. It found a number of examples of good
practice at CoRPS in this respect, such as data checking, saving, and transparency of data
handling. The Committee welcomes the attitude found at CoRPS and welcomes the further
development plans in this area.
The Committee heard a number of examples of organization principles at CoRPS that
facilitate the exchange between different areas of research, such as mixed room sharing, an
open attitude to asking for advice and collaborating with researchers and PhD students
within and between areas, and opportunities for PhD students to attend international
meetings and conferences. The Committee was impressed by the enthusiasm and
commitment of the PhD students for their own and each other’s research work in the
program. This provides a sound basis on which to strengthen the synergy between the
various research groups, as the Committee advises.
The Committee understands the time pressure that is a fundamental part of work of this
nature. In particular, the teaching responsibilities of junior staff and PhD students may
hamper their efforts to secure funding through grants or write research publications. It
seems most important at the current point of development of the CoRPS program to take
time to reflect on the research questions to be answered in future projects and on the
theoretical impact of these findings.
19
The management of the research program is seen in a positive light. The Committee found
a great deal of respect for it at all levels within the group.
Additional evaluation criteria for CoRPS
The Committee notes that in the self-evaluation report, CoRPS clearly met all the criteria
and deliverables on the list of additional evaluation criteria. The next phase of CoRPS will
see a shift in emphasis to revealing mechanisms, clinical interventions and a stronger
emphasis on a theoretical basis in – for example – behavioral medicine or health
psychology. This could serve as the next level goal to help guide research efforts going into
the future and facilitate the realization of the high standards established by the CoRPS
investigators. The Committee is of the opinion that, given the strength of the leadership and
the commitment of the faculty, a more focused strategy on the part of CoRPS will help
bring it to this next level. The contribution of PhD students and junior staff in realizing this
strategy is important and as such, additional teaching obligations related to the integration
of Clinical Psychology should be kept limited for PhD students and junior staff.
20
4. Appendices
Aspects of the Assessment
According to the Standard Evaluation Protocol (SEP 2009 – 2015), the following checklists
and five-point scale have been used to rate research quality. The Committee has applied the
checklists for internal use only.
Preliminary assessment Institute
(Only for internal use by the Committee)
Reviewer: ………………………
Institute name:
5 = Excellent, 4 = Very good, 3 = Good, 2 = Satisfactory, 1 = Unsatisfactory.
See the Five-Point Scale (below) for a full explanation of scores.
How do you evaluate the institute with respect to:
Institute level
Quality
A1 Quality and scientific relevance of the research
A2 Leadership
A3 Academic reputation
A4 Organization
A5 Resources
A6 PhD training
Productivity
B1 Productivity strategy
B2 Productivity
21
(Assess at program level)
Relevance
C1 Societal relevance: policy measures aimed at:
•
C1.1 enhancing societal relevance of the research, and/or:
•
C1.2 enhancing societal orientation of researchers, and/or:
•
C1.3 knowledge transfer to other than academic users.
Vitality and Feasibility
D1 Strategy
D2 SWOT analysis
D3 Robustness and stability
Overall assessment of institute vitality and feasibility
22
Preliminary assessment Program
(Only for internal use by the Committee)
Reviewer: …………………
Program title (short):
5 = Excellent, 4 = Very good, 3 = Good, 2 = Satisfactory, 1 = Unsatisfactory.
See the Five-Point Scale (below) for a full explanation of scores.
How do you evaluate the research group or program with
respect to:
Quality
A1 Quality and scientific relevance of the research
A2 Leadership
A3 Academic reputation
A4 Organization
A5 Resources
A6 PhD training
Productivity
B1 Productivity strategy
B2 Productivity
Relevance
C1 Societal relevance
•
C1.1 Societal quality: interaction with stakeholders, and/or:
•
C1.2 Societal impact: how research affects stakeholders, and/or:
•
C1.3 Valorization: application, availability, usage
23
Research group or
Program level
Vitality and Feasibility
D1 Strategy
D2 SWOT analysis
(Assess at institute level)
D3 Robustness and stability
The Five-Point Scale
The Five-Point Scale
The five-point scale used in the assessment is described in the Standard Evaluation
Protocol 2009 – 2015 as follows:
5 Excellent
Research is world-leading. Researchers are working at the forefront
of their field internationally and their research has a significant and
substantial impact in the field.
4 Very good
Research is nationally leading. Research is internationally
competitive and makes a significant contribution to the field.
3 Good
Research is internationally visible. Work is competitive at the
national level and makes a valuable contribution to the international
field.
2 Satisfactory
Research is nationally visible. Work adds to our understanding and is
solid, but not exciting.
1 Unsatisfactory
Work is neither solid nor exciting, flawed in its scientific and or
technical approach, repeats other work, etc.
24
CoRPS – Evaluation criteria and deliverables
Academic Research
i.
The main general criteria to be used in the evaluation are derived from the
Standard Evaluation Protocol (SEP criteria).
Other, more specific, criteria are:
ii.
There will be a steady stream of high-quality papers published in Englishlanguage journals. At the end of year five, a sufficient number of articles should
have been published, or should have been accepted for publication, in the
leading journals in the field. A motivated list of these journals is presented at the
end of this appendix.
iii.
CoRPS researchers will regularly be invited to present keynote speeches at
international conferences.
iv.
The interdisciplinary approach of the Institute and its research program will be
based on the combination of the disciplines involved (psychology and
medicine).
v.
The Institute should be continued if the output after the first three years is
considered to be very good and excellent after five years.
Outside Money (NWO, EU and the market)
vi.
After five years, the institute should have demonstrated the ability to receive
sufficient funding from NWO and other organizations that support health care
research in order to live up to the financial agreement as stated in the CoRPS
regulations. After three years, there should be clear indications that these targets
will be met.
PhD Education
vii.
CoRPS will set up four new PhD projects in the first two years and three per
year in the last three years.
viii. At the end of the PhD contract, 80% of the PhD manuscripts should have been
approved.
ix.
All PhD proposals are submitted to the regular procedures of the Oldendorff
Research Institute in order to safeguard the academic quality of the research
proposals.
x.
The PhD educational program is based at the programs of the Graduate Schools
of the Oldendorff Research Institute.
xi.
CoRPS will enable PhDs to follow courses outside the university when these
courses are not offered within the curricula of Tilburg University.
Networking
xii.
After three years, Tilburg University will be viewed as being at the cutting edge
of research in the field of psychology and medicine in the Netherlands.
xiii. After three years, the institute will be part of a formal international network.
xiv. After three years, the institute will be recognized as a leading institute in the
world, in particular in Europe and North America.
Validation
xv.
Research seminars, workshops and/or conferences bringing together researchers
from various disciplines as well as practitioners in order to exchange ideas and
benefit from different types of knowledge.
25
xvi.
The research activities and output of CoRPS will be recognized as very relevant
for disease care management by stakeholders in the field of health care and
health care policy.
Target Journals
Medical Psychology
Medicine
Psychology
General
- Psychosomatic Medicine
- The Lancet
- Psychological Medicine
- Journal of the American Medical Association
- Brain, Behavior & Immunity
- Annals of Internal Medicine
- Psychotherapy & Psychosomatics
- Archives of Internal Medicine
- Health Psychology
- Journal of Internal Medicine
- Biological Psychology*
Psychiatry
Surgery
- Archives of General Psychiatry
- Archives of Surgery
- American Journal of Psychiatry
- British Journal of Surgery
- Biological Psychiatry
- Journal of the American College of Surgeons
- Journal of Clinical Psychiatry
- Journal of Vascular Surgery
- Journal of Affective Disorders
- Journal of Heart and Lung Transplantation
Medical Specialties
Basic Sciences
Clinical Cardiology
Neuroscience - Psychology
- Circulation, incl. Circulation Specialty Journals
- Trends in Cognitive Science
- Journal of the American College of Cardiology
- Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human: HPP
- European Heart Journal
- Cognition
26
- Heart
- Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience
- American Journal of Cardiology
- Psychophysiology
Clinical Oncology
Neuroscience - Medicine
- Journal of Clinical Oncology
- Nature Reviews Neuroscience
- The Lancet Oncology
- Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews
- Annals of Oncology
- Cerebral Cortex
- International Journal Of Cancer
- Journal of Neuroscience
- European Journal Of Cancer
- Neuroimage
Diabetes
Multidisciplinary
- Diabetes
- Science
- Diabetes Care
- Nature
- Diabetologia
- Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
- Nature Reviews Endocrinology
- Clinical Science
- Psychoneuroendocrinology
- Psychological Science*
* Added Journals, since Mid-term Review
27
Curricula vitae of the members of the Review Committee
Committee chair:
Prof. Hanneke de Haes (Academic Medical Center / University of Amsterdam)
After graduating in psychology at the University of Groningen, Hanneke de Haes (1949)
worked as a psychologist and researcher in an oncology clinic in Rotterdam, the
Netherlands, and in the University Hospitals of Leiden, Rotterdam and Amsterdam. She
gained her doctorate at the Medical Faculty of Leiden on a thesis investigating the quality
of life of cancer patients. She became a full professor and chair at the Department of
Medical of Psychology at the University of Amsterdam Academic Medical Center in 1995.
Professor de Haes was and is a member of national and international committees
concerning psychosocial oncology, quality of life research, communication research, ethics
in health care and of research review boards of the European Organization of Research on
Treatment of Cancer, the Dutch Organisation for Scientific Research, the Dutch Aids Fund
and the Netherlands Cancer Foundation. Prof. de Haes was senior editor of Social Science
and Medicine and involved in other editorial boards and international site visitation
committees. She teaches medical students on health psychology as well as communication
skills. She has received fellowships and awards from the Netherlands Institute for
Assessment Development (CITO), the Dutch Cancer Society, the Union Internationale
Contre le Cancer (UICC), the Royal Dutch Academy of Sciences, and the Dutch-Belgian
Cultural Treaty.
Professional address:
Prof. J.C.J.M. de Haes,
University of Amsterdam, Department of Medical Psychology,
Academic Medical Center, Meibergdreef 15, 1105 AZ Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Phone: +31 20 566 7730
E-mail: j.c.dehaes@amc.uva.nl
Committee members:
Prof. Johannes Siegrist (Heinrich-Heine-Universität, Düsseldorf)
Johannes Siegrist (1943) studied Sociology, Philosophy and History at the Universities of
Basel and Freiburg. After graduating in 1969 (doctoral degree) he gained his Habilitation in
Sociology in 1973 in Freiburg. From 1973 to 1992 Johannes was professor of Medical
Sociology at the Faculty of Human Medicine at the Philipps-Universität Marburg, and from
1992 to 2012 he held a professorship in Medical Sociology at the Faculty of Medicine of
the Heinrich-Heine-University in Düsseldorf, and was head of the teaching program
‘Master of Science’ in Public Health at the same university. Since June 2012, he has been
senior professor in Psychosocial Work Stress Research at the Medical Faculty of this
University.
Visiting professorships have brought Johannes Siegrist to the Johns Hopkins University in
Baltimore, USA, Utrecht University and the Institute for Higher Education in Vienna. From
28
2008 to 2012, he was a member of the Review Board of the German Research Foundation.
Professor Siegrist received the Salomon Neumann Award of the German Society of Social
Medicine and Prevention, is fellow of the European Academy of Occupational Health
Psychology 2003, and Honorary Member of the German Society of Medical Sociology. He
received a Research Award from the European Society of Health and Medical Sociology,
and is a Corresponding Member of the Heidelberg Academy of Sciences. Since 2012
Johannes has also been a member of the council of the Heinrich Heine University,
Düsseldorf.
Professional address:
Prof. J. Siegrist,
Heinrich-Heine-Universität, Düsseldorf
Life-Science-Center, Merowingerplatz 1a, 40225 Düsseldorf
Phone: +49 211 385 428 111
E-mail: johannes.Siegrist@med.uni-duesseldorf.de
Prof. Ad Kaptein (Leiden University Medical Center)
Ad Kaptein (1949) studied Psychology at Leiden University, and gained his PhD on Illness
behavior of patients with asthma in 1982 from VU University Amsterdam. He was
appointed professor in 2005.
Professor Kaptein’s areas of interests are: the psychosocial aspects of chronic respiratory
disorders; living with chronic illnesses; literature & medicine - medical humanities;
perceptions of illness; quality of life; and self-management. The area of application of his
research is self-management by patients with chronic respiratory disorders and other
chronic somatic disorders, which also translates into his teaching of medical psychology to
medical students.
He was Editor-in-Chief of Psychology & Health and President of the European Health
Psychology Society. He is a Fellow of the International Association of Applied Psychology
and the European Health Psychology Society.
Professional address:
Prof. A.A. Kaptein,
Section Medical Psychology, Leiden University Medical Center (LUMC),
P.O. Box 9600, 2300 RC Leiden, The Netherlands
Phone: +31 71 526 2905
E-mail: a.a.kaptein@lumc.nl
Committee secretary:
Dr Robert Braam (Utrecht)
Robert Braam (1958) graduated as physical geographer at Utrecht University and obtained
a PhD in Social Studies of Science from Leiden University, at the Center for Science and
Technology Studies CWTS. He worked at the Science System Assessment department of
the Rathenau Institute of the KNAW (Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Science).
Robert regularly serves as committee secretary in research evaluations at Netherlands
29
Universities, for QANU and as independent secretary.
Contact:
E-mail: rrbraam@telfort.nl
30
Program for site visit CoRPS, Tilburg University, January 17 – 18 2013
Review Committee:
Secretary:
Prof. Hanneke de Haes (chair)
Prof. Ad Kaptein
Prof. Johannes Siegrist
Dr Robert Braam
Thursday, January 17 2013
Location: Hotel Auberge du Bonheur
18.00 – 20.30: Committee dinner and opportunity for internal preparatory meeting on:
• Procedures, roles. etc.
• Discussion of first impressions
• Prepare meeting on January 18
Friday, January 18 2013
Location: Cobbenhagen building room C 186 (Ruth First room)
09.00 – 09.30
09.30 – 10.00
10.00 – 10.15
10.15 – 11.15
11.15 – 12.00
Welcome Committee, by the Rector, Prof. Philip Eijlander (room C20)
Meeting with Board Tilburg School of Social and Behavioral Sciences
• Prof. Klaas Sijtsma (Dean)
• Prof. Willem Kop (Vice Dean of research)
• Hans Dieteren (director)
Break
Meeting with Director and Program coordinators CoRPS
• Prof. Johan Denollet
• Prof. Susanne Pedersen
• Prof. Frans Pouwer
• Prof. Anne Roukema
• Prof. Bea de Gelder
Tour of the research labs and ICT Services (Prisma Building)
12.00 – 13.00 Lunch and opportunity for internal deliberation of the Committee in “Tilbury” (Food
Plaza Building)
13.00 – 14.00
Meeting with researchers CoRPS
Dr Kim Smolderen
Dr Karin Gehring
Dr Brenda den Oudsten
Dr Melissa Thong
Dr Paula Mommersteeg
Break
Meeting with PhD students
• Giesje Nefs MSc
• Dionne Kessing MSc
• Mariëlle Rijsbergen MSc
• Marjan Traa MSc
•
•
•
•
•
14.00 – 14.15
14.15 – 15.15
15.15 – 16.00
16.00 – 16.30
16.30
31
Internal deliberations by the Committee to formulate first impressions and make
appointments for writing the evaluation report
Informal presentation of the Committee’s first impressions and findings
Drinks