Background
Multi-disciplinary and multi-sector research teams are essential for tackling complex scientific challenges, yet they often require training and support to develop effective team science competencies and practices. Evidence-based competencies—such as psychological safety, interpersonal awareness, structured communication, and clear role delineation—can enhance team coordination, collaboration, and overall success. However, there is a need for robust frameworks to guide the implementation and evaluation of team science training. Specifically, research frameworks should assess both the effectiveness of these interventions (i.e., their impact on team success, including scientific outcomes) and how they work (i.e., the mechanisms through which they influence team functioning). Additionally, such frameworks should prioritize the development of meaningful metrics that advance the science of team science while providing actionable insights for research teams themselves.

Aims
This study examines the implementation and evaluation of a structured team science training intervention provided to two newly established, multi-disciplinary and multi-sector research teams. These teams received 12 months of pilot funding and team science training through the Southern California Clinical and Translational Science Research Institute (SC CTSI). We describe the training and mixed-methods evaluation framework used to evaluate its impact on team science competencies and project success.

Methods
The intervention included tailored team science consultations at project initiation, mid-point, and closeout, alongside participation in targeted workshops aimed at fostering key team science competencies. To evaluate the impact of the training, we conducted pre- and post-project surveys with all team members, assessing individual competencies, perceptions of team practices, and team social networks. Changes in team member readiness and competencies, and team social network structures, were analyzed to identify shifts in team functioning over time. Additionally, principal investigators completed annual surveys to track the dissemination of project results, acquisition of follow-on research funding, and outcomes based on the Translational Science Benefits Model.

Results
Findings from this case study illustrate how structured team science training leads to changes in key team competencies and social network structures over a 12-month project. We describe how changes in these team characteristics and processes can be linked to project outcomes, to understand the potential long-term benefits of team science training for project success. We also describe how these metrics can be beneficial to: (i) building an evidence base of team science training, as well as (ii) the research team members, as ‘diagnostics’ for improving team practices and communicating team strengths to research funders and evaluators.

Conclusions
This study contributes to the growing evidence base on team science training by demonstrating an effective framework for supporting new research teams and evaluating the impact of training initiatives. The findings provide insights into how team science interventions can be systematically evaluated, to contribute needed evidence for future training models designed to strengthen diverse research team performance and translational impact.