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

IF 1.9 3区 医学 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Journal of Interprofessional Care Pub Date : 2024-05-01 Epub Date: 2023-08-17 DOI:10.1080/13561820.2023.2241505
Renée Allvin, Carl Thompson, Samuel Edelbring
{"title":"Variations in measurement of interprofessional core competencies: a systematic review of self-report instruments in undergraduate health professions education.","authors":"Renée Allvin, Carl Thompson, Samuel Edelbring","doi":"10.1080/13561820.2023.2241505","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>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).</p>","PeriodicalId":50174,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Interprofessional Care","volume":" ","pages":"486-498"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Interprofessional Care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13561820.2023.2241505","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/8/17 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

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).

跨专业核心能力测量的差异:对本科卫生专业教育中自我报告工具的系统回顾。
教育医护专业人员在跨专业团队中工作,是为在现代医疗保健领域发挥作用做好关键准备。跨专业团队要求成员能够胜任各自的角色。衡量跨专业能力(IPC)的自我评估工具在教育准备中被广泛使用,但它们能否准确可靠地衡量能力尚不清楚。我们进行了一项系统性回顾,以确定测量 IPC 的自我报告工具在特点和使用方面的差异。在对电子数据库进行系统性检索并采用资格标准后,共收录了 38 篇文章,其中介绍了 8 种 IPC 自我报告工具。根据跨专业教育合作组织(Interprofessional Education Collaborative)的规定,IPC 核心能力的覆盖范围存在很大差异。每种工具的实证强度、心理测量性能和用途各不相同。它们测量的不是作为 "行为 "的能力,而是能力的间接代用指标,如对跨专业核心能力的态度。教育工作者和研究人员应根据其使用环境,确定最合适、表现最好的跨专业能力工具:开放科学框架 (https://archive.org/details/osf-registrations-vrfjn-v1)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Interprofessional Care
Journal of Interprofessional Care HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES-
CiteScore
5.80
自引率
14.80%
发文量
124
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Interprofessional Care disseminates research and new developments in the field of interprofessional education and practice. We welcome contributions containing an explicit interprofessional focus, and involving a range of settings, professions, and fields. Areas of practice covered include primary, community and hospital care, health education and public health, and beyond health and social care into fields such as criminal justice and primary/elementary education. Papers introducing additional interprofessional views, for example, from a community development or environmental design perspective, are welcome. The Journal is disseminated internationally and encourages submissions from around the world.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信