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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Lie, Désirée A., Richter-Lagha, Regina, Forest, Christopher P., Walsh, Anne, Lohenry, Kevin
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