Melissa Tarasenko
Melissa Tarasenko has a total of 8 co-authors. Here are the top co-authors by number of shared publications:
- Akash Dania
The Interdisciplinary Health Research, Delaware State University, Dover, DE 19901, USA
1 shared publication - Angela Sy
Department of Tropical Medicine, Medical Microbiology and Pharmacology, John A. Burns School of Medicine, University of Hawaii at Manoa, Honolulu, HI, USA
1 shared publication - Carlamarie Noboa Ramos
Center for Clinical Research and Health Promotion, School of Dental Medicine, University of Puerto Rico Medical Sciences Campus, San Juan, PR, USA
1 shared publication - Katherine Matos-Jiménez
RCMI-Center for Collaborative Research in Health Disparities, University of Puerto Rico—Medical Science Campus, San Juan, PR 00936, USA
1 shared publication - Kelly A. Laurila
Center for Community Health and Engaged Research, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ 86011, USA
1 shared publication - Lakesha Stevenson
Center for Cancer Research and Therapeutic Development, Clark Atlanta University, Atlanta, GA 30314, USA
1 shared publication
Latest Publications
- Open Access
- 2 June 2026
- Published by MDPI AG in International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
- Vol. 23 (6) , 747
Contextualizing Evaluation in Research Consortia: A Reflective Case Study from the Research Centers in Minority Institutions (RCMIs) Program
In 2020, evaluators within the Research Centers in Minority Institutions (RCMIs) program proposed a conceptual framework identifying four primary evaluation targets: scientific productivity, scientific collaboration, professional growth, and research resources. This study extends prior work by capturing the contextual and process-oriented dimensions of program impact. This reflective practice-based project examines how non-quantitative approaches complement traditional metrics to better characterize RCMI outcomes. Evaluators representing ten RCMI sites participated in a multi-site case study guided by three questions addressing: (1) qualitative evidence of impact beyond metrics; (2) challenges and successes in implementation of non-quantitative methods; and (3) potential expansion of evaluation targets. Evaluators provided descriptive responses, generating a 22-page dataset that was analyzed thematically. Thirteen non-quantitative evaluation domains emerged: investigator consultations, investigator productivity, investigator success, community partnerships, intra-RCMI collaborations, implementation of team science, career progression, programmatic support, mentoring support, impact on RCMI affiliates, intellectual resources, physical resources, and faculty hires. Key challenges included inconsistent data capture and limited evaluation resources, while successes highlighted improved cross-site learning and visibility of program impact. Findings support retaining the original evaluation targets while expanding the framework to include institutional transformation, equitable research environments, and longitudinal societal impact. A conceptual map was developed to depict how mixed methods that include non-quantitative approaches can yield RCMI evaluations that expand upon the current approach, which relies primarily on quantitative data. The authors recommend quantitative targets and non-quantitative strategies to provide context, communicate evidence of success, and inform programmatic changes to deepen the findings and strengthen the rigor of RCMI evaluation practices.
- 2 June 2026
- Published by MDPI AG in International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
- Vol. 23 (6) , 747
Open AccessContextualizing Evaluation in Research Consortia: A Reflective Case Study from the Research Centers in Minority Institutions (RCMIs) Program
In 2020, evaluators within the Research Centers in Minority Institutions (RCMIs) program proposed a conceptual framework identifying four primary evaluation targets: scientific productivity, scientific collaboration, professional growth, and research resources. This study extends prior work by capturing the contextual and process-oriented dimensions of program impact. This reflective practice-based project examines how non-quantitative approaches complement traditional metrics to better characterize RCMI outcomes. Evaluators representing ten RCMI sites participated in a multi-site case study guided by three questions addressing: (1) qualitative evidence of impact beyond metrics; (2) challenges and successes in implementation of non-quantitative methods; and (3) potential expansion of evaluation targets. Evaluators provided descriptive responses, generating a 22-page dataset that was analyzed thematically. Thirteen non-quantitative evaluation domains emerged: investigator consultations, investigator productivity, investigator success, community partnerships, intra-RCMI collaborations, implementation of team science, career progression, programmatic support, mentoring support, impact on RCMI affiliates, intellectual resources, physical resources, and faculty hires. Key challenges included inconsistent data capture and limited evaluation resources, while successes highlighted improved cross-site learning and visibility of program impact. Findings support retaining the original evaluation targets while expanding the framework to include institutional transformation, equitable research environments, and longitudinal societal impact. A conceptual map was developed to depict how mixed methods that include non-quantitative approaches can yield RCMI evaluations that expand upon the current approach, which relies primarily on quantitative data. The authors recommend quantitative targets and non-quantitative strategies to provide context, communicate evidence of success, and inform programmatic changes to deepen the findings and strengthen the rigor of RCMI evaluation practices.