Instrument Refinement for Measuring Self-Efficacy for Competence in Interprofessional Collaborative Practice: Development and Psychometric Analysis of IPECC-SET 27 and IPECC-SET 9

Utilizing simulation-enhanced interprofessional education to identify differences in healthcare students' collaborative practice behaviors: A mixed method study

BACKGROUND

Teaching collaborative practice behaviors (CPBs) to interprofessional healthcare students could improve healthcare for underserved populations.

OBJECTIVE

This study explained the impact of Simulation Enhanced Interprofessional Education (SIM-IPE) on healthcare students' self-reported CPBs and their perceptions of utilizing CPBs when caring for underserved populations, as well as the differences among professions within interprofessional teams.

DESIGN

Mixed methods explanatory design.

PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING

Sixty-Eight doctorate of nurse practitioner, dental and pharmacy students from a large research-intensive university in the United States.

METHODS

The Interprofessional Education Collaborative Competency Self Efficacy Tool (IPECC-SET27) was used to collect quantitative data. Qualitative data was collected through recorded simulation debriefing sessions. One hundred and thirty-six quantitative surveys were collected, and 214 qualitative responses were reviewed from the 48 simulations and recorded debriefing sessions. Paired t-tests and directed content analysis were used to infer the quantitative and qualitative impact of SIM-IPE on all students in an interprofessional team and differences among each profession.

RESULTS

After SIM-IPE, all students showed statistically significant increases in mean CPB scores for all 27 items (ρ < 0.0001) for IPECC-SET 27. Students perceived their CPBs when caring for underserved individuals improved most in Teams and Teamwork item one (48 %, n = 103). Comparing individual professions and CPB skills; Values and ethics (14 %, n = 8) for pharmacy, roles, and RESPONSIBILITIES (28 %, n = 24) and Communication (32 % n = 27) for dentistry, and teams and teamwork (61 % n = 43) for nurse practitioner had the greatest impact and were most frequently reported.

CONCLUSIONS

Significantly increased mean scores in competence for CPBs was demonstrated. CPB differences were evident among professions. Educators must understand professional CPB differences and develop SIM - IPE that promotes development of collaborative practice-ready healthcare professionals.

Variations in measurement of interprofessional core competencies: a systematic review of self-report instruments in undergraduate health professions education

Educating health care professionals for working in interprofessional teams is a key preparation for roles in modern healthcare. Interprofessional teams require members who are competent in their roles. Self-assessment instruments measuring interprofessional competence (IPC) are widely used in educational preparation, but their ability to accurately and reliably measure competence is unknown. We conducted a systematic review to identify variations in the characteristics and use of self-report instruments measuring IPC. Following a systematic search of electronic databases and after applying eligibility criteria, 38 articles were included that describe 8 IPC self-report instruments. A large variation was found in the extent of coverage of IPC core competencies as articulated by the Interprofessional Education Collaborative. Each instrument's strength of evidence, psychometric performance and uses varied. Rather than measuring competency as "behaviours", they measured indirect proxies for competence, such as attitudes towards core interprofessional competencies. Educators and researchers should identify the most appropriate and highest-performing IPC instruments according to the context in which they will be used.Systematic review registration: Open Science Framework (https://archive.org/details/osf-registrations-vrfjn-v1).

Development and Validation of the Interprofessional Collaboration Practice Competency Scale (IPCPCS) for Clinical Nurses

Interprofessional collaborative practice is a core competency and is the key to strengthening health practice systems in order to deliver safe and high-quality nursing practice. However, there is no Interprofessional Collaboration Practice Competency Scale (IPCPCS) for clinical nurses in Taiwan. Therefore, the purposes of this study were to develop an IPCPCS and to verify its reliability and validity. This was a psychometric study with a cross-sectional survey using convenience sampling to recruit nurses from the seven hospitals of a medical foundation. A self-designed structured IPCPCS was rolled out via a Google survey. The data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, principal-axis factoring (PAF) with Promax rotation, Pearson correlation, reliability analysis, and one-way ANOVA. PAF analysis found that three factors could explain 77.76% of cumulative variance. These were collaborative leadership and interprofessional conflict resolution, interprofessional communication and team functioning, and role clarification and client-centered care. The internal consistency of the three factors (Cronbach's α) was between 0.970 to 0.978, and the Pearson correlation coefficients were between 0.814 to 0.883. Significant differences were presented in the IPCPCS score by age, education level, total years of work experience, position on the nursing clinical ladder, and participation in interprofessional education. In conclusion, the three factors used in the IPCPCS have good reliability and construct validity. This scale can be used as an evaluation tool of in-service interprofessional education courses for clinical nurses.

Exploring differences in and factors influencing self-efficacy for competence in interprofessional collaborative practice among health professions students

The value of health care delivered via effective interprofessional teams has created an imperative for interprofessional education (IPE) and interprofessional collaborative practice (ICP). To inform IPE strategies, we investigated differences in perceived self-efficacy (SE) for competence in ICP among health professions students. The study data were collected between 2015 and 2019 from students from 13 different health professions programmes (N = 3,497) before an annual institutional interprofessional programme. Students completed the IPECC-SET-27, a validated instrument evaluating perceived SE for competence in ICP, and rated their 1) amount of previous contact with, and 2) perceived understanding of, the role of different health professions. Students in different health professions education programmes were compared using parametric statistics. Regression analyses explored factors influencing SE for competence in ICP. Findings revealed significant differences in perceived SE for competence in ICP between programmes (p < .05). Specifically, health information management/health informatics, dentistry, medicine, and nursing students expressed relatively higher SE, whereas physical therapy and occupational therapy students expressed relatively lower SE. Perceived understanding of the role of health professions (p < .01) and gender (p < .01) contributed significantly to predicting perceived SE for competence in ICP, while the amount of previous contact with other health professions did not (p = .42). The findings highlight the value of designing IPE with consideration of specific learner needs.

The Revised American Occupational Therapy Association Fieldwork Performance Evaluations: Evaluation of Internal Structure, Response Processes, and Precision-Part 2

IMPORTANCE

There is an evidence-based need to assess the validity and reliability/precision of the revised American Occupational Therapy Association's Fieldwork Performance Evaluation (FWPE) items for the occupational therapy student (OTS) and the occupational therapy assistant student (OTAS).

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate evidence of validity in relation to response processes, internal structure, and precision of the FWPEs.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional study design.

SETTING

OTS and OTAS fieldwork practice settings, United States.

PARTICIPANTS

Two hundred sixty-seven fieldwork educators participated in total, providing 228 OTS evaluations and 39 OTAS evaluations.

OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

A Rasch model was used to evaluate aspects of validity and precision.

RESULTS

The rating scales provided evidence of the tools' overall validity. Thirty-two of 37 items on the FWPE for the OTS, and 27 of 31 items on the FWPE for the OTAS demonstrated acceptable fit, but the evidence of unidimensionality in the subscales and in the total scales was not fully supported. The total/reduced FWPE scales were able to separate students into at least four distinct groups of fieldwork performance. The relationships between the current and revised FWPEs indicate that the new scales measure different but related constructs of student fieldwork performance, compared with the current version.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

The findings support that the revised FWPEs for the OTS and OTAS demonstrate preliminary evidence of internal structure, response processes, and precision, supporting evidence-based practice in fieldwork evaluations. What This Article Adds: This article highlights evidence demonstrating the validity and precision of the revised American Occupational Therapy Association's Fieldwork Performance Evaluation items and supports academic and fieldwork settings for occupational therapy students and occupational therapy assistant students.

Evaluating Measurement Properties of the Adapted Interprofessional Collaboration Scale through Rasch Analysis

This study aimed to evaluate the validity and reliability of the German and Italian versions of the Interprofessional Collaboration Scale (IPC scale) by applying a Rasch analysis. Data were gathered from 1182 nurses participating in a cross-sectional study in northern Italy. The scale demonstrated good reliability (Cronbach's alpha = 0.92). Item polarity of all 13 items was positive, indicating good construct validity. However, revising one item would further improve the validity of the scale. Item stability was confirmed for work experience, workplace, age range, the language version, and gender. The analysis, applying a non-classical test theory, confirmed that the IPC scale is a valid and reliable instrument to measure interprofessional collaboration between nurses and physicians.

Translation and validation of the Swedish version of the IPECC-SET 9 item version

Interprofessional Education (IPE) is essential to prepare future health-care professionals for collaborative practice, but IPE requires evaluation. One psychometrically sound instrument is the Interprofessional Education Collaborative Competence Self-Efficacy Tool consisting of nine items (IPECC-SET 9). This tool does not, to date, exist in a Swedish version. Therefore, the aim of this study was to translate and validate the Swedish version of the IPECC-SET 9. The English version was translated into Swedish and tested among 159 students in the 3-year Bachelor Programs in Nursing and in Biomedical Laboratory Science. The psychometric analysis was guided by a Rasch model, which showed that the items functioned well together, confirming unidimensionality, and that the person misfit was also lower than the set criterion. The separation index was 2.98, and the Rasch-equivalent Cronbach-alpha measure was estimated to .92, supporting internal consistency. No systematic differences on item level in IPECC-SET 9 further supported fairness in testing. The Swedish IPECC-SET 9 demonstrates sound psychometric properties and has the potential to be used as a measure of self-efficacy for competence in interprofessional collaborative practice among health profession students. However, the IPECC-SET 9 is recommended to be further tested in larger samples representing the entirety of health-care teams.

Perceptions of collaborative care team members on facilitators and barriers to care and glycosylated hemoglobin level as a diabetes quality metric at a federally qualified health center in Texas

OBJECTIVES

Facilitators and barriers to collaborative patient care have been explored in previous studies. Few studies provide information about collaborative care team (CCT) members' roles in treating patients with diabetes and how CCT members should be evaluated for their contributions to diabetes care. To describe the roles and responsibilities of CCT members at CommUnityCare (CUC), a federally qualified health center in Central Texas; identify the facilitators and barriers affecting referrals to other CCT members within CUC; explore the facilitators and barriers to collaborative patient care at CUC; and assess CCT members' perceptions of quality metrics for diabetes care.

METHODS

A cross-sectional design was used. Data was collected by a survey and semistructured interviews of CCT members. The survey (32 questions) assessed roles and responsibilities, including the percentage of time spent on clinic activities, referral criteria, perceptions of quality diabetes care, and facilitators and barriers to care. The interview (32 questions) gathered a description of the CCT member's role, referral process, and ideas for diabetes quality metrics. Descriptive statistics and content analysis were used for data analysis.

RESULTS

Twenty-two CCT members (4 diagnosticians, 4 clinical pharmacists, 4 behavioral health professionals, 4 registered dietitians, 2 community health workers, and 4 care managers) participated in this study. Co-location (54%) and professional relationships with coworkers (32%) facilitated referrals to other CCT members. Appointment availability (32%) and lack of referral criteria knowledge (27%) were barriers to other CCT member referrals. Seventy-five percent of the dietitians and care managers thought that the glycosylated hemoglobin (A1C) level was a good quality metric for diabetes care, followed by 50% of the clinical pharmacists, 25% of the behavioral health counselors, and 0% of the community health workers and diagnosticians.

CONCLUSION

Co-location and professional relationships facilitated referrals to CCT members, whereas lack of CCT member availability and lack of referral criteria knowledge were barriers to CCT referrals. Metrics other than the lowering of the A1C level should be further explored to assess the quality of diabetes care.