Cargando…
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 i...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Taylor & Francis
2017
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5508637/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28475438 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10872981.2017.1314751 |
_version_ | 1783249908522811392 |
---|---|
author | Lie, Désirée A. Richter-Lagha, Regina Forest, Christopher P. Walsh, Anne Lohenry, Kevin |
author_facet | Lie, Désirée A. Richter-Lagha, Regina Forest, Christopher P. Walsh, Anne Lohenry, Kevin |
author_sort | Lie, Désirée A. |
collection | PubMed |
description | 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 encounter |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5508637 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2017 |
publisher | Taylor & Francis |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-55086372017-07-24 When less is more: validating a brief scale to rate interprofessional team competencies Lie, Désirée A. Richter-Lagha, Regina Forest, Christopher P. Walsh, Anne Lohenry, Kevin Med Educ Online Research Article 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 encounter Taylor & Francis 2017-05-05 /pmc/articles/PMC5508637/ /pubmed/28475438 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10872981.2017.1314751 Text en © 2017 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Lie, Désirée A. Richter-Lagha, Regina Forest, Christopher P. Walsh, Anne Lohenry, Kevin When less is more: validating a brief scale to rate interprofessional team competencies |
title | When less is more: validating a brief scale to rate interprofessional team competencies |
title_full | When less is more: validating a brief scale to rate interprofessional team competencies |
title_fullStr | When less is more: validating a brief scale to rate interprofessional team competencies |
title_full_unstemmed | When less is more: validating a brief scale to rate interprofessional team competencies |
title_short | When less is more: validating a brief scale to rate interprofessional team competencies |
title_sort | when less is more: validating a brief scale to rate interprofessional team competencies |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5508637/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28475438 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10872981.2017.1314751 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT liedesireea whenlessismorevalidatingabriefscaletorateinterprofessionalteamcompetencies AT richterlagharegina whenlessismorevalidatingabriefscaletorateinterprofessionalteamcompetencies AT forestchristopherp whenlessismorevalidatingabriefscaletorateinterprofessionalteamcompetencies AT walshanne whenlessismorevalidatingabriefscaletorateinterprofessionalteamcompetencies AT lohenrykevin whenlessismorevalidatingabriefscaletorateinterprofessionalteamcompetencies |