Table 1 Study Assessments and Data Acquisition Schedule

 Race, ethnicity, gender identity, disabilities, education

x

 Research training, scientific discipline, primary research area and methods

x

 Publications, previous grant writing experience

x

 Access to mentoring and institutional research resources

x

 Institution, department, position, rank (faculty), appointment type (tenure, other)

x

x

x

x

x

 Research/teaching/clinical-focused position; effort distribution across work roles

x

x

x

x

x

 Primary: Funding of proposal(s) developed during coaching interventions

x

x

x

x

 Secondary: Submission, scoring, resubmission of developed proposals

x

x

x

x

 Grant writing self-efficacy (19-CRAI)

x

x

x

x

 Intention to pursue a biomedical research career (postdoctoral fellows only)

x

x

x

x

x

 Self-efficacy to advance in career; scholarly activities to support advancement

x

x

x

x

x

 Submission/funding of other proposals developed since participating in the study

x

x

x

x

 Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on work life and grant writing (open-ended)^a

x

x

x

x

 Perceived value of coach and group meetings

x

x

 Impact of group coaching group on grant writing process

x

x

 Perceived value of peer feedback and mock review session

x

x

 Perceived quality/value of coaching process, proposal feedback, other intervention components (individual items differ for the 6-month and 24 month surveys)

x

x

 Satisfaction with scientific advisor: interaction frequency, feedback quality

x

x

 Participant attendance at group coaching sessions, completion of assignments, participants progress and barriers, number and type of coaching interactions outside of the group sessions

x

x

x

x

x

 Structured arms: Engagement of scientific advisors with coaching intervention

x

x

x

x

x

 Submission of proposal draft for group mock study section

x

 Frequency of scientific advisor interactions

x

x

x

x

 Extended dose: Number and type of one-on-one coaching interactions, meetings to review summary sheets, and engagement of mock reviewers

x

x

x

 Demographics, Institution and Position, Experience in Research and Mentoring

x

 Nature of relationship with participant (e.g., past/current mentor, colleague)

x

 Structured arm: Perceived value of direct engagement with coaching intervention

x

 Perception of the participant’s responsiveness to feedback

x

x

 Self-assessment of their advising’s value to the proposal’s development

x

x

 Expectation to continue in a professional relationship with the participant

x

x

 Demographics, Institution and Position, Experience in Research and Mentoring

x

 Perceptions of: their performance as a coach, quality of scientific advisor and peer feedback, value of other intervention components (e.g., mock review)

x

 Perceptions of group dynamics, peer feedback, and participant progress

x

 Perceived value of scientific advisor participation and mock reviews

x

 Perceptions of their contributions as coaches and the intervention’s impact on their mentoring practices

x

 Perceived value of the intervention to participants’ development

x