scispace - formally typeset
A

Anna Kaatz

Researcher at University of Wisconsin-Madison

Publications -  25
Citations -  2336

Anna Kaatz is an academic researcher from University of Wisconsin-Madison. The author has contributed to research in topics: Peer review & Career development. The author has an hindex of 16, co-authored 25 publications receiving 1725 citations.

Papers
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI

Physicians and Implicit Bias: How Doctors May Unwittingly Perpetuate Health Care Disparities

TL;DR: It is concluded that increasing the number of African American/Black physicians could reduce the impact of implicit bias on health care disparities because they exhibit significantly less implicit race bias.
Journal ArticleDOI

The effect of an intervention to break the gender bias habit for faculty at one institution: a cluster randomized, controlled trial.

TL;DR: An intervention that facilitates intentional behavioral change can help faculty break the gender bias habit and change department climate in ways that should support the career advancement of women in academic medicine, science, and engineering.
Journal ArticleDOI

A Gender Bias Habit-Breaking Intervention Led to Increased Hiring of Female Faculty in STEMM Departments.

TL;DR: This study compares, in a preregistered analysis, hiring rates of new female faculty pre- and post-manipulation, and provides promising evidence that psychological interventions can facilitate gender equity and diversity.
Journal ArticleDOI

Analysis of National Institutes of Health R01 Application Critiques, Impact, and Criteria Scores: Does the Sex of the Principal Investigator Make a Difference?

TL;DR: The authors’ analyses suggest that subtle gender bias may continue to operate in the post-2009 NIH review format in ways that could lead reviewers to implicitly hold male and female applicants to different standards of evaluation, particularly for R01 renewals.
Journal ArticleDOI

Low agreement among reviewers evaluating the same NIH grant applications.

TL;DR: No agreement was found among reviewers regarding the quality of the applications in either their qualitative or quantitative evaluations, and it appeared that the outcome of the grant review depended more on the reviewer to whom the grant was assigned than the research proposed in the grant.