A comparison of two scales for assessing health professional students’ attitude toward interprofessional learning

Rationale : The validated 19-item Readiness for Interprofessional Learning Scale (RIPLS) is often used for assessing attitudes toward interprofessional education (IPE). The 12-item Interdisciplinary Education Perception Scale (IEPS), also used for this purpose, has not been validated among the professions of medicine, pharmacy, and physician assistants (PAs). The discriminatory ability of the two scales has not been directly compared. Comparison of the two will aid educators in selecting the optimal scale. Objective : To compare psychometric properties of the RIPLS and IEPS and to examine the ability of each scale to discriminate mean scores among student subgroups (gender, profession, seniority, and prior IPE exposure). Method : We conducted a cross-sectional (Qualtrics©) survey (RIPLS and IEPS) of junior and senior students in medicine (n=360), pharmacy (n=360), and the PA profession (n=106). Descriptive statistics were used to report aggregate mean scores of subgroups. The internal consistency of each scale was assessed using Cronbach's α. Concurrent validity was measured by Pearson's correlation coefficients. Independent-sample t-tests and analysis of variances (ANOVAs) were performed to assess the discriminatory ability of each scale. Cohen's d effect sizes were calculated for all significant pair-wise comparisons. Results : Response rate was 82%. Cronbach's α was 0.85 (RIPLS) and 0.91 (IEPS). The RIPLS discriminated scores by gender among junior students only, and scores by IPE exposure among all students. The IEPS distinguished score differences for the three professions among junior students and by prior IPE exposure for all three professions. Neither scale detected differences in mean scores by profession among all students or by level of training among the three professions. Conclusions : Neither the RIPLS nor the IEPS has greater discriminatory ability for detecting attitude differences among the student subgroups. Reason for differences may be explained by slightly different scale constructs. The RIPLS is designed to assess students’ own attitude toward interprofessional learning, while the IEPS discerns perceived attitudes about team collaboration for students’ own professions and may be more appropriate for more advanced students

What and How Do Students Learn in an Interprofessional Student-Run Clinic? An Educational Framework for Team-Based Care

Background: The student-run clinic (SRC) has the potential to address interprofessional learning among health professions students. Purpose: To derive a framework for understanding student learning during team-based care provided in an interprofessional SRC serving underserved patients. Methods: The authors recruited students for a focus group study by purposive sampling and snowballing. They constructed two sets of semi-structured questions for uniprofessional and multiprofessional groups. Sessions were audiotaped, and transcripts were independently coded and adjudicated. Major themes about learning content and processes were extracted. Grounded theory was followed after data synthesis and interpretation to establish a framework for interprofessional learning. Results: Thirty-six students from four professions (medicine, physician assistant, occupational therapy, and pharmacy) participated in eight uniprofessional groups; 14 students participated in three multiprofessional groups (N50). Theme saturation was achieved. Six common themes about learning content from uniprofessional groups were role recognition, team-based care appreciation, patient experience, advocacy-/systemsbased models, personal skills, and career choices. Occupational therapy students expressed self-advocacy, and medical students expressed humility and self-discovery. Synthesis of themes from all groups suggests a learning continuum that begins with the team huddle and continues with shared patient care and social interactions. Opportunity to observe and interact with other professions in action is key to the learning process. Discussion: Interprofessional SRC participation promotes learning ‘with, from, and about’ each other. Participation challenges misconceptions and sensitizes students to patient experiences, health systems, advocacy, and social responsibility. Learning involves interprofessional interactions in the patient encounter, reinforced by formal and informal communications. Participation is associated with interest in serving the underserved and in primary care careers. The authors proposed a framework for interprofessional learning with implications for optimal learning environments to promote team-based care. Future research is suggested to identify core faculty functions and best settings to advance and enhance student preparation for future collaborative team practice

When Less is More: Validating a Brief Scale to Rate Interprofessional Team Competencies

Background: There is a need for validated and easy-to-apply behavior-based tools for assessing interprofessional team competencies in clinical settings. The seven-item observerbased Modified McMaster-Ottawa scale was developed for the Team Objective Structured Clinical Encounter (TOSCE) to assess individual and team performance in interprofessional patient encounters. Objective: We aimed to improve scale usability for clinical settings by reducing item numbers while maintaining generalizability; and to explore the minimum number of observed cases required to achieve modest generalizability for giving feedback. Design: We administered a two-station TOSCE in April 2016 to 63 students split into 16 newly-formed teams, each consisting of four professions. The stations were of similar difficulty. We trained sixteen faculty to rate two teams each. We examined individual and team performance scores using generalizability (G) theory and principal component analysis (PCA). Results: The seven-item scale shows modest generalizability (.75) with individual scores. PCA revealed multicollinearity and singularity among scale items and we identified three potential items for removal. Reducing items for individual scores from seven to four (measuring Collaboration, Roles, Patient/Family-centeredness, and Conflict Management) changed scale generalizability from .75 to .73. Performance assessment with two cases is associated with reasonable generalizability (.73). Students in newly-formed interprofessional teams show a learning curve after one patient encounter. Team scores from a two-station TOSCE demonstrate low generalizability whether the scale consisted of four (.53) or seven items (.55). Conclusion: The four-item Modified McMaster-Ottawa scale for assessing individual performance in interprofessional teams retains the generalizability and validity of the seven-item scale. Observation of students in teams interacting with two different patients provides reasonably reliable ratings for giving feedback. The four-item scale has potential for assessing individual student skills and the impact of IPE curricula in clinical practice settings

What and how do students learn in an interprofessional student-run clinic? An educational framework for team-based care

Background: The student-run clinic (SRC) has the potential to address interprofessional learning among health professions students. Purpose: To derive a framework for understanding student learning during team-based care provided in an interprofessional SRC serving underserved patients. Methods: The authors recruited students for a focus group study by purposive sampling and snowballing. They constructed two sets of semi-structured questions for uniprofessional and multiprofessional groups. Sessions were audiotaped, and transcripts were independently coded and adjudicated. Major themes about learning content and processes were extracted. Grounded theory was followed after data synthesis and interpretation to establish a framework for interprofessional learning. Results: Thirty-six students from four professions (medicine, physician assistant, occupational therapy, and pharmacy) participated in eight uniprofessional groups; 14 students participated in three multiprofessional groups (N = 50). Theme saturation was achieved. Six common themes about learning content from uniprofessional groups were role recognition, team-based care appreciation, patient experience, advocacy-/systems-based models, personal skills, and career choices. Occupational therapy students expressed self-advocacy, and medical students expressed humility and self-discovery. Synthesis of themes from all groups suggests a learning continuum that begins with the team huddle and continues with shared patient care and social interactions. Opportunity to observe and interact with other professions in action is key to the learning process. Discussion: Interprofessional SRC participation promotes learning ‘with, from, and about’ each other. Participation challenges misconceptions and sensitizes students to patient experiences, health systems, advocacy, and social responsibility. Learning involves interprofessional interactions in the patient encounter, reinforced by formal and informal communications. Participation is associated with interest in serving the underserved and in primary care careers. The authors proposed a framework for interprofessional learning with implications for optimal learning environments to promote team-based care. Future research is suggested to identify core faculty functions and best settings to advance and enhance student preparation for future collaborative team practice

Interprofessional education: What measurable learning outcomes are realistic for the physician assistant profession?

© 2016 Physician Assistant Education Association. Purpose To compare physician assistant (PA) students’ attitudes regarding interprofessional education by students’ seniority, gender, age, and previous experience with interprofessional education. Methods The validated 19-item Readiness for Interprofessional Learning Scale and the 12-item Interdisciplinary Education Perception Scale were administered to matriculating and graduating PA students from 2 US institutions (N = 186). Primary outcomes were score differences by subgroup and institution using independent sample t-tests. We also examined scale validity measured by Cronbach’s alpha (internal consistency) and Pearson correlation coefficients (concurrent validity). Results Student demographics at both institutions were similar. Initial comparisons did not demonstrate significant institutional differences. Consequently, data were combined for subsequent analyses. Matriculating students had significantly higher mean Readiness for Interprofessional Learning Scale scores than did graduating students. No significant differences were found by gender, age, or previous interprofessional education exposure for either scale. Both scales demonstrated high internal consistency (Readiness for Interprofessional Learning Scale α = 0.93; Interdisciplinary Education Perception Scale α = 0.84). Conclusions Physician assistant student attitudes regarding interprofessional education are very positive at matriculation and are less positive at graduation. Physician assistant student attitudes do not vary by gender, age, or previous interprofessional education exposure. Physician assistant educators should ensure that students’ interprofessional education exposure makes full use of the students’ initial positive attitudes and focuses on skill development for interprofessional education competencies

When less is more: validating a brief scale to rate interprofessional team competencies

Background: There is a need for validated and easy-to-apply behavior-based tools for assessing interprofessional team competencies in clinical settings. The seven-item observer-based Modified McMaster-Ottawa scale was developed for the Team Objective Structured Clinical Encounter (TOSCE) to assess individual and team performance in interprofessional patient encounters. Objective: We aimed to improve scale usability for clinical settings by reducing item numbers while maintaining generalizability; and to explore the minimum number of observed cases required to achieve modest generalizability for giving feedback. Design: We administered a two-station TOSCE in April 2016 to 63 students split into 16 newly-formed teams, each consisting of four professions. The stations were of similar difficulty. We trained sixteen faculty to rate two teams each. We examined individual and team performance scores using generalizability (G) theory and principal component analysis (PCA). Results: The seven-item scale shows modest generalizability (.75) with individual scores. PCA revealed multicollinearity and singularity among scale items and we identified three potential items for removal. Reducing items for individual scores from seven to four (measuring Collaboration, Roles, Patient/Family-centeredness, and Conflict Management) changed scale generalizability from .75 to .73. Performance assessment with two cases is associated with reasonable generalizability (.73). Students in newly-formed interprofessional teams show a learning curve after one patient encounter. Team scores from a two-station TOSCE demonstrate low generalizability whether the scale consisted of four (.53) or seven items (.55). Conclusion: The four-item Modified McMaster-Ottawa scale for assessing individual performance in interprofessional teams retains the generalizability and validity of the seven-item scale. Observation of students in teams interacting with two different patients provides reasonably reliable ratings for giving feedback. The four-item scale has potential for assessing individual student skills and the impact of IPE curricula in clinical practice settings. Abbreviations: IPE: Interprofessional education; SP: Standardized patient; TOSCE: Team objective structured clinical encounte

Adapting the McMaster-Ottawa scale and developing behavioral anchors for assessing performance in an interprofessional Team Observed Structured Clinical Encounter

Background: Current scales for interprofessional team performance do not provide adequate behavioral anchors for performance evaluation. The Team Observed Structured Clinical Encounter (TOSCE) provides an opportunity to adapt and develop an existing scale for this purpose. We aimed to test the feasibility of using a retooled scale to rate performance in a standardized patient encounter and to assess faculty ability to accurately rate both individual students and teams. Methods: The 9-point McMaster-Ottawa Scale developed for a TOSCE was converted to a 3-point scale with behavioral anchors. Students from four professions were trained a priori to perform in teams of four at three different levels as individuals and teams. Blinded faculty raters were trained to use the scale to evaluate individual and team performances. G-theory was used to analyze ability of faculty to accurately rate individual students and teams using the retooled scale. Results: Sixteen faculty, in groups of four, rated four student teams, each participating in the same TOSCE station. Faculty expressed comfort rating up to four students in a team within a 35-min timeframe. Accuracy of faculty raters varied (38–81% individuals, 50–100% teams), with errors in the direction of over-rating individual, but not team performance. There was no consistent pattern of error for raters. Conclusion: The TOSCE can be administered as an evaluation method for interprofessional teams. However, faculty demonstrate a ‘leniency error’ in rating students, even with prior training using behavioral anchors. To improve consistency, we recommend two trained faculty raters per station