Development and psychometric assessment of a scale for evaluating healthcare professionals' attitudes toward interprofessional education and collaboration in the United States: a cross-sectional study.

IF 5.5 Q1 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES
Michael Christopher Banks, Ryan Brock Mutcheson, Maedot Ariaya Haymete, Serkan Toy
{"title":"Development and psychometric assessment of a scale for evaluating healthcare professionals' attitudes toward interprofessional education and collaboration in the United States: a cross-sectional study.","authors":"Michael Christopher Banks, Ryan Brock Mutcheson, Maedot Ariaya Haymete, Serkan Toy","doi":"10.3352/jeehp.2025.22.32","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Interprofessional education (IPE) is increasingly recognized as critical to preparing health professionals for collaborative practice, yet rigorous assessment remains limited by a lack of psychometrically sound instruments. Building on a previously developed questionnaire for physicians, this study aimed to expand the scale to include allied health professionals and to evaluate whether the factor structure remained consistent across professions. We hypothesized that a similar factor structure would emerge from the combined dataset, thereby supporting the scale's generalizability.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This observational study included 930 healthcare professionals in the United States (379 physicians, 419 nurses, 76 pharmacists, and others) who completed a 35-item questionnaire addressing IPE competency domains. Data were collected between December 2019 and May 2020. Exploratory factor analysis was employed to examine the factor structure, followed by item response theory (IRT) analyses to assess item fit, reliability, and validity. Raw data are available upon request.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Factor analysis of 22 retained items confirmed a 5-factor solution: teamwork and communication, patient-centered care, roles and responsibilities, ethics and attitudes, and reflective practice, explaining 59% of the variance. Subscale reliabilities ranged from α=0.65 to 0.87. IRT analyses supported construct validity and measurement precision, while identifying areas for refinement in reflective practice.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This study demonstrates that the scale is reliable, valid, and generalizable across diverse health professions. It provides a robust tool for assessing attitudes toward IPE, offering value for curriculum evaluation, institutional benchmarking, and future longitudinal research on professional identity formation and collaborative practice.</p>","PeriodicalId":46098,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions","volume":"22 ","pages":"32"},"PeriodicalIF":5.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12768546/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3352/jeehp.2025.22.32","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/10/20 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: Interprofessional education (IPE) is increasingly recognized as critical to preparing health professionals for collaborative practice, yet rigorous assessment remains limited by a lack of psychometrically sound instruments. Building on a previously developed questionnaire for physicians, this study aimed to expand the scale to include allied health professionals and to evaluate whether the factor structure remained consistent across professions. We hypothesized that a similar factor structure would emerge from the combined dataset, thereby supporting the scale's generalizability.

Methods: This observational study included 930 healthcare professionals in the United States (379 physicians, 419 nurses, 76 pharmacists, and others) who completed a 35-item questionnaire addressing IPE competency domains. Data were collected between December 2019 and May 2020. Exploratory factor analysis was employed to examine the factor structure, followed by item response theory (IRT) analyses to assess item fit, reliability, and validity. Raw data are available upon request.

Results: Factor analysis of 22 retained items confirmed a 5-factor solution: teamwork and communication, patient-centered care, roles and responsibilities, ethics and attitudes, and reflective practice, explaining 59% of the variance. Subscale reliabilities ranged from α=0.65 to 0.87. IRT analyses supported construct validity and measurement precision, while identifying areas for refinement in reflective practice.

Conclusion: This study demonstrates that the scale is reliable, valid, and generalizable across diverse health professions. It provides a robust tool for assessing attitudes toward IPE, offering value for curriculum evaluation, institutional benchmarking, and future longitudinal research on professional identity formation and collaborative practice.

Abstract Image

美国医疗保健专业人员对跨专业教育和合作态度的量表的开发和心理测量评估:一项横断面研究。
目的:跨专业教育(IPE)越来越被认为是为卫生专业人员准备合作实践的关键,但严格的评估仍然受到缺乏心理测量学上健全工具的限制。在先前为医生开发的问卷调查的基础上,本研究旨在扩大规模,包括联合卫生专业人员,并评估因素结构是否在各专业之间保持一致。我们假设从合并的数据集中会出现类似的因素结构,从而支持量表的概括性。方法:本观察性研究包括930名美国医疗保健专业人员(379名医生,419名护士,76名药剂师等),他们完成了一份35项关于IPE能力领域的问卷。数据收集于2019年12月至2020年5月。采用探索性因子分析检验因子结构,然后采用项目反应理论(IRT)分析评估项目契合度、信度和效度。原始数据可应要求提供。结果:对22个保留项目进行因子分析,确定了5个因素的解决方案:团队合作与沟通、以患者为中心的护理、角色与责任、道德与态度、反思性实践,解释了59%的方差。分量表信度α=0.65 ~ 0.87。IRT分析支持结构有效性和测量精度,同时确定在反思实践中需要改进的领域。结论:本研究证明该量表在不同的卫生专业中是可靠的、有效的和可推广的。它为评估人们对国际政治经济学的态度提供了一个强有力的工具,为课程评估、机构基准制定以及未来对专业认同形成和合作实践的纵向研究提供了价值。
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
CiteScore
9.60
自引率
9.10%
发文量
32
审稿时长
5 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions aims to provide readers the state-of-the art practical information on the educational evaluation for health professions so that to increase the quality of undergraduate, graduate, and continuing education. It is specialized in educational evaluation including adoption of measurement theory to medical health education, promotion of high stakes examination such as national licensing examinations, improvement of nationwide or international programs of education, computer-based testing, computerized adaptive testing, and medical health regulatory bodies. Its field comprises a variety of professions that address public medical health as following but not limited to: Care workers Dental hygienists Dental technicians Dentists Dietitians Emergency medical technicians Health educators Medical record technicians Medical technologists Midwives Nurses Nursing aides Occupational therapists Opticians Oriental medical doctors Oriental medicine dispensers Oriental pharmacists Pharmacists Physical therapists Physicians Prosthetists and Orthotists Radiological technologists Rehabilitation counselor Sanitary technicians Speech-language therapists.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书