|Skip left side navigation and go to content||
Table 1. Participating Faculty Members
Sample Table 1
Instructions: List each training faculty member with his/her degree(s), academic rank, primary departmental affiliation and secondary appointments, role in the proposed training grant program, and research interests that are relevant to this program.
Rationale: This information allows reviewers to assess the distribution of junior versus senior faculty and clinical versus basic scientists participating in the training program, as well as their distribution by department. The data concisely summarize the scientific areas of the training faculty.
Table 2. Training Grant Support Available to Participating Faculty and Departments
(NIH and non-NIH Programs)
Sample Table 2
Instructions: List all other training grant support currently held by faculty members and departments participating in this training grant application. If none of the participating faculty or department(s) have other training support, this should be indicated.
Rationale: This information provides insight into the training environment in each preceptor's laboratory, as well asthe demands on his or her time to interact with participants.
Table 3. Current and Pending Research Grant and Contract Support of the Training Faculty
(Alphabetically by Faculty Member)
Sample Table 3
1Awarded figures for funded grants or contracts, or requested costs for pending applications.
Instructions: For each participating faculty member, list active and pending research grant and contract support from all sources (including Federal and non-Federal grant and contract support) that will provide the context for research training experiences. If none, state “None”. Include the source of support and grant number; title; status (active or pending) and dates of the entire project period; annual direct costs. (This table should replace Research Support of the “Biographical Sketch Format Page” of the SF424 application kit for each faculty member.)
Rationale: One component of the overall strength and suitability of the training environment is the pool of active and pending research grant and contract support held by the preceptors.
Table 4. Training Record of Participating Faculty for the Previous Ten Years
(Alphabetically by Faculty Member)
Sample Table 4
1Include undergraduate, health professional, and graduate students.
2Prior to entering training.
3For former participants, list current positions; for current participants, list source of support.
Instructions: For each faculty member identified in this application, list all past and current students for whom he/she has served as thesis advisor or sponsor (past 10 years only). If a faculty member has not had predoctoral or postdoctoral students, state “None”.
Rationale: The training experience success of a preceptor can be gauged by the number of previous participants he/she has sponsored and their subsequent career paths.
Table 5. Undergraduate and Health Professional School Applicant Pool 1
Sample Table 5
1 Complete this table only if the applicant institution has/had an undergraduate/health professional school students training program.
2 Applicants may be identified by numbers, rather than by names, to safeguard privacy.
3 Provide date for all programs/departments that are relevant to this application.
4 Designate applicants who are eligible for R25 training grant support (based on citizenship or permanent residency status) with an asterisk (*).
Instructions: Anonymously indicate the credentials and application outcomes of the applicant pool for the most recent year for each participating department and unit.
Rationale: These data can be used to evaluate the size and quality of the applicant pool from which participants may be selected.