Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2019-12
Student Perceptions of Collaboration Skills in an Interprofessional Context: Development and Initial Validation of the Self-Assessed Collaboration Skills Instrument
An integral component of interprofessional education (IPE) is the development of a collaboration-ready health-care workforce. While collaboration is a fundamental element of IPE, there is no existing measure of collaboration skills that is not context specific. This article describes the development and initial validation of the Self-Assessed Collaboration Skills (SACS) measure. Items were initially drawn from the Collaboration Skills Assessment Tool rubric, an educational assessment tool. The SACS measure was piloted in a sample of students in an introductory IPE course. Following scale revision, the SACS was piloted a second time in a sample of students in an IPE health systems course and then validated in a sample of students in an introductory IPE course. Exploratory factor analysis was used to assess scale factor structure in Pilots 1 and 2 and confirmatory factor analysis to confirm factor structure in the validation sample. Convergent and discriminant validity were also assessed. The final SACS measure is an 11-item scale consisting of three dimensions of collaboration: information sharing, learning, and team support. The SACS measure demonstrates high internal consistency and both convergent and discriminant validity as a measure of collaboration. The SACS can be implemented in any setting for assessing collaboration in clinical and nonclinical contexts.
BaggsJ. G. (1994). Development of an instrument to measure collaboration and satisfaction about care decisions. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 20, 176–182. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2648.1994.20010176.x
4.
BarrettP. (2007). Structural equation modelling: Adjusting model fit. Personality and Individual Differences, 42, 815–824.
5.
BarrickM. R.MountM. K. (1991). The big five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1–26.
6.
BronsteinL. R. (2002). Index of interdisciplinary collaboration. Social Work Research, 26, 113–123.
7.
CrockerL.AlginaJ. (1986). Introduction to classical and modern test theory. Orlando, FL: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
8.
CurranV.HollettA.CasimiroL. M.MccarthyP.BanfieldV.HallP.…WagnerS. (2011). Development and validation of the Interprofessional Collaborator Assessment Rubric (ICAR). Journal of Interprofessional Care, 25, 339–344.
9.
CostelloA. B.OsborneJ. W. (2005). Best practices in exloratory factor analysis: Four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Practical Assessment, Research, & Evaluation, 10(7), Available online: http://pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v=10&n=7
10.
DillenbourgP.BakerM.BlayeA.O’MalleyC. (1996). The evolution of research on collaborative learning. In SpadaE.ReimanP. (Eds.), Learning in humans and machines: Towards an interdisciplinary learning science (pp. 189–211). Oxford, England: Elsevier.
11.
Drach-ZahavyA.SomechA. (2001). Understanding team innovation: The role of team processes and structures. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 5, 111–123.
12.
EdmondsonA. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 350–383.
13.
FerrisG. R.TreadwayD. C.KolodinskyR. W.HochwarterW. A.KacmarC. J.DouglasC.FrinkD. D. (2005). Development and validation of the political skill inventory. Journal of Management, 31, 126–152.
14.
GarvinD. A.EdmondsonA. C.GinoF. (2008). Is yours a learning organization?Harvard Business Review, 86, 109–116.
15.
HatcherL. (1994). A step-by-step approach to using SAS system for factor analysis and structural equation modeling. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc.
16.
HuL. T.BentlerP. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6, 1–55.
17.
KingG.ShawL.OrchardC. A.MillerS. (2010). The Interprofessional Socialization and Valuing Scale: A tool for evaluating the shift toward collaborative care approaches in health care settings. Work, 35, 77–85.
18.
KlineP. (1979). Psychometrics and psychology. London, England: Academic Press.
19.
LePineJ. A.PiccoloR. F.JacksonC. L.MathieuJ. E.SaulJ. R. (2008). A meta-analysis of teamwork processes: Tests of a multidimensional model and relationships with team effectiveness criteria. Personnel Psychology, 61, 273–307.
20.
MacCallumR. C.BrowneM. W.SugawaraH. M. (1996). Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychological Methods, 1, 130–149.
21.
MarksM. A.MathieuJ. E.ZaccaroS. J. (2001). A temporally based framework and taxonomy of team processes. Academy of Management Review, 26, 356–376.
22.
McFadyenA. K.WebsterV.StrachanK.FigginsE.BrownH.MckechnieJ. (2005). The Readiness for Interprofessional Learning Scale: A possible more stable sub-scale model for the original version of RIPLS. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 19, 595–603.
23.
MedskerG. J.WilliamsL. J.HolahanP. J. (1994). A review of current practices for evaluating causal models in organizational behavior and human resources management research. Journal of Management, 20, 439–464.
24.
MillerM. J.WoehrD. J.HudspethN. (2002). The meaning and measurement of work ethic: Construction and initial validation of a multidimensional inventory. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 60, 451–489.
25.
MoormanR. H.BlakelyG. L. (1995). Individualism-collectivism as an individual difference predictor of organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16, 127–142.
26.
MorgesonF. P.ReiderM. H.CampionM. A. (2005). Selecting individuals in team settings: The importance of social skills, personality characteristics, and teamwork knowledge. Personnel Psychology, 58, 583–611.
27.
MulaikS. A.JamesL. R.ValnalstineJ.BennettN.LindS.StilwellC. D. (1989). Evaluation of goodness-of-fit indices for structural equation models. Psychological Bulletin, 105, 248–292.
28.
NunnallyJ. C.BernsteinI. H. (1994). The assessment of reliability. Psychometric Theory, 3, 248–292.
29.
OfstedalK. K.DahlbergK. (2009). Collaboration in student teaching: Introducing the collaboration self-assessment tool. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 30, 37–48. doi:10.1080/10901020802668043
30.
OrchardC. A.KingG. A.KhaliliH.BezzinaM. B. (2012). Assessment of Interprofessional Team Collaboration Scale (AITCS): Development and testing of the instrument. Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions, 32, 58–67.
31.
ParsellG.BlighJ. (1999). The develoopment of a questionaire to assess the readiness of health care students for interprofessional learning (RIPLS). Medical Education, 33, 95–100.
32.
ReevesS.LewinS.EspinS.ZwarensteinM. (2011). Interprofessional teamwork for health and social care (Vol. 8). Oxford, England: John Wiley.
33.
RiggioR. E.RiggioH. R. (2001). Self-report measurement of interpersonal sensitivity. In HallJ. A.BernieriF. J. (Eds.), The LEA series in personality and clinical psychology. Interpersonal sensitivity: Theory and measurement (pp. 127–142). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
34.
RosseelY. (2012). lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48, 1–36.
35.
SalasE.SimsD. E.BurkeC. S. (2005). Is there a “Big Five” in teamwork?Small Group Research, 36, 555–599.
36.
ShawR. B.PerkinsD. N. T. (1992). Teaching organizations to learn: The power of productive failures. In NadlerD.GersteinM.ShawR. (Eds). Organization Architecture (pp. 175–192). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
37.
SpectorP. E.BauerJ. A.FoxS. (2010). Measurement artifacts in the assessment of counterproductive work behavior and organizational citizenship behavior: Do we know what we think we know?Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 781–790.
38.
SpectorP. E.FoxS. (2005). The stressor-emotion model of counterproductive work behavior. In FoxS.SpectorP. E. (Eds.), Counterproductive work behavior: Investigations of actors and targets (pp. 151–174). Washington, DC: American Pyschological Association.
39.
TasaK.SearsG. J.SchatA. C. (2011). Personality and teamwork behavior in context: The cross-level moderating role of collective efficacy. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32, 65–85.
40.
ThistlethwaiteJ. (2012). Interprofessional education: A review of context, learning, and the research agenda. Medical Education, 46, 58–70.
41.
ThistlethwaiteJ.DallestK. (2014). Interprofessional teamwork: Still haven’t decided what we are education for. Medical Education, 48, 556–558.
42.
ThistlethwaiteJ.FormanD.MatthewL. R.RogersG. D.SteketeeC.YassineT. (2014). Competencies and frameworks in interprofessional education: A comparative analysis. Academic Medicine, 89, 869–875.
43.
Van DyneL.LePineJ. A. (1998). Helping and voice extra-role behaviors: Evidence of construct and predictive validity. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 108–119.
44.
WestM. A.WallaceM. (1991). Innovation in health care teams. European Journal of Social Psychology, 21, 303–315.
45.
World Health Organization. (2010). Framework for action on interprofessional education and collaborative practice. Geneva, Switzerland: Author.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
