Abstract
Importance:
Intraprofessional collaboration between occupational therapists and occupational therapy assistants enhances treatment outcomes and ensures coordinated and client-centered care. Although the Intraprofessional Collaborative Practice Survey (ICPS) was developed to assess intraprofessional collaboration, psychometric validation has not been established.
Objective:
To evaluate the psychometric properties of the ICPS among occupational therapy students in the United States.
Design:
Cross-sectional study.
Setting:
Accredited occupational therapy programs across the United States.
Participants:
A total of 389 occupational therapy students (236 in master of occupational therapy [MOT] programs and 153 in occupational therapy doctorate [OTD] programs) completed the ICPS. A subset of 289 students also completed an adapted version of the Interprofessional Collaborative Competency Attainment Survey (ICCAS).
Outcomes and Measures:
The ICPS, occupational therapy version, and an adapted version of the ICCAS.
Results:
Factor analyses supported the hypothesized four-domain structure for both perceived importance and perceived ability modules in the ICPS. Internal consistency was excellent. Evidence of convergent, discriminant, and concurrent validity was found, with moderate to strong correlations with the ICCAS. Measurement invariance was supported across MOT and OTD program students.
Conclusions and Relevance:
The ICPS is a valid and reliable instrument for assessing intraprofessional collaboration competencies. Its alignment with the Accreditation Council for Occupational Therapy Education’s 2023 practice-based standards underscores its value for program evaluation and professional development.
Plain-Language Summary
Collaboration between occupational therapists and occupational therapy assistants is essential for safe, effective client care. This study validated the use of the Intraprofessional Collaborative Practice Survey (ICPS) among occupational therapy students and found it to be reliable and consistent across master’s and doctoral programs. The ICPS can help educators and researchers evaluate student learning, track collaboration competencies, and strengthen training programs.
This study validated the use of the Intraprofessional Collaborative Practice Survey (ICPS) among occupational therapy students and found it to be reliable and consistent across master’s and doctoral programs.
Intraprofessional collaboration, defined as cooperative engagement among professionals within the same discipline, is increasingly recognized as a cornerstone of client-centered care. Its importance lies in ensuring safe, efficient, and high-quality service delivery, as well as in fostering a strong professional identity and effective teamwork. Within occupational therapy, for instance, collaboration between occupational therapists and occupational therapy assistants has been identified as a core competency for the profession (Chun et al., 2020), which played an essential role in achieving effective outcomes (American Occupational Therapy Association [AOTA], 2018; Meijer et al., 2016). Similarly, in physical therapy, program directors have noted that variability in exposure to intraprofessional collaboration underscores the need for structured opportunities to clarify roles and strengthen cooperative practice (Hayward et al., 2025). Comparable challenges have been reported in pharmacy, where insufficient training and role misperceptions hinder pharmacist– technician collaboration, limiting the potential impact on patient safety and workflow efficiency (Jetha et al., 2020). Dentistry has also illustrated this need; practicing dental hygienists report positive collaboration with dentists, but a lack of shared learning experiences during training suggests that preparation for effective intraprofessional teamwork remains inadequate (Henesy et al., 2025; Walker et al., 2024). Across these fields, prior literature underscores a consistent theme: Although collaboration within the same profession is vital to optimizing care, its integration into professional training and practice requires greater emphasis.
To address the need for better preparation of practitioners’ competency in intraprofessional collaboration, educational programs have increasingly integrated learning experiences that enable students across academic levels and scopes of practice to learn with, from, and about each other. Occupational therapy education, for example, has implemented innovations such as virtual synchronous experiences (Brady et al., 2025), paired learning (Fan et al., 2021; Fan & Case, 2025a), immersive learning (Dennehy, 2022), escape room–style activities (Carpenter et al., 2023; Fan & Case, 2025b), and community service (Carson et al., 2018), each aimed to foster teamwork readiness and problem-solving across student cohorts. In medical education, Dutch scholars have developed design principles for intraprofessional learning during hospital placements, emphasizing the importance of psychologically safe environments, explicit teamwork role modeling, and structured reflection to navigate power dynamics between primary and secondary care physicians (Looman et al., 2022). Similarly, nursing education has used simulation-based models pairing undergraduate and graduate nursing students in primary care scenarios using telehealth and standardized patients; these activities improved communication, collaboration, and role appreciation (Martinez et al., 2023). Collectively, these initiatives not only enhance technical competencies but also cultivate the professional attitudes, values, and ethical principles necessary for effective intraprofessional practice.
In the implementation of these pedagogical strategies, educators also require robust outcome measures that can capture changes in intraprofessional collaboration competencies over time. Evaluating the outcomes of such intraprofessional opportunities depends on the availability of valid, reliable tools to measure student growth in collaborative competencies. Despite the growing emphasis on intraprofessional collaboration, validated instruments designed to assess this construct remain relatively scarce across other health professions, including nursing (Kiegaldie et al., 2023; Martinez et al., 2023). Within occupational therapy, emerging work has begun to examine intraprofessional collaborations between occupational therapists and occupational therapy assistants, including the development and initial evaluation of the Intraprofessional Collaborative Practice Survey (ICPS) and its use to evaluate intraprofessional learning activities in occupational therapy education (Fan et al., 2021; Fan & Case, 2025a). This persistent lack of intraprofessional collaboration assessment tools has led many researchers and educators to rely on instruments that were developed for interprofessional contexts (Fan & Case, 2025b; Probst et al., 2024). However, using tools intended for interprofessional collaboration as a substitute overlooks key distinctions between inter- and intraprofessional collaboration, particularly in areas such as team structure, scope of practice, and communication expectations (Fan & Case, 2025b; Probst et al., 2024). Intraprofessional relationships, especially between occupational therapists and occupational therapy assistants, are uniquely shaped by shared disciplinary knowledge, structured supervision, and overlapping clinical roles (AOTA, 2018). These characteristics capture the specific competencies of intraprofessional teamwork, thus highlighting a clear need for an instrument tailored to intraprofessional collaboration.
The Intraprofessional Collaborative Practice Survey (ICPS) was developed to address a critical gap in measuring intraprofessional collaboration. It was grounded in the core competency domains established by the Interprofessional Education Collaborative (IPEC; 2016) and mapped these domains onto the intraprofessional context of collaboration between occupational therapists and occupational therapy assistants. Item wording was adapted from this interprofessional framework to emphasize intraprofessional relationships, scope-of-practice boundaries, and typical occupational therapist–occupational therapy assistant teamwork and role expectations while preserving the underlying competency structure. Using the IPEC core domains as a conceptual foundation acknowledges collaboration skills that overlap across interprofessional and intraprofessional settings, whereas the ICPS item content focuses on competencies that govern occupational therapist and occupational therapy assistant partnerships.
Two parallel versions were created, one for occupational therapists and one for occupational therapy assistants, with identical items but terminology tailored to each role to ensure contextual relevance. The instrument comprises 20 items across four domains that reflect the IPEC framework adapted to an intraprofessional context: Intraprofessional Teamwork; Roles and Responsibilities for Collaborative Practice; Communication for Intraprofessional Practice; and Values and Ethics for Intraprofessional Practice. The survey was originally introduced with a single module assessing the perceived importance of collaborative behaviors (Diamant et al., 2018). It was later refined by Fan et al. (2021) to include the module assessing perceived ability. This dual-module format provides a more comprehensive evaluation by examining both the extent to which participants value collaborative practices and their confidence in enacting them. Prior ICPS studies have emphasized perceived importance and perceived ability as key outcomes because they differentiate learners’ attitudes toward intraprofessional collaboration from their self-perceived competence, both of which are primary targets of intraprofessional education (Fan et al., 2021).
The ICPS has been effectively used in educational research to track longitudinal changes in paired learning (Fan & Case, 2025a), as well as to evaluate the impact of structured educational interventions to learn evidence-based practice (Fan et al., 2021); however, it has not yet undergone rigorous psychometric evaluation to confirm its validity and reliability. Without appropriate psychometric evidence for the ICPS, educators and researchers may risk drawing inaccurate conclusions about intraprofessional learning outcomes and overlooking specific competency gaps. Therefore, validating the ICPS is essential for advancing intraprofessional collaboration.
Furthermore, in occupational therapy education, professional preparation is offered at different entry levels, most commonly the master of occupational therapy (MOT) and the occupational therapy doctorate (OTD) programs. Although both pathways lead to eligibility for the same professional license, they differ in curriculum emphasis: OTD programs often incorporate advanced training in leadership, research, and policy, whereas MOT programs focus more on foundational clinical preparation. These differences in coursework, experiential learning, and leadership expectations may influence how strongly programs emphasize intraprofessional collaboration and how often students have opportunities to practice it during training. Demonstrating that the ICPS operates similarly for occupational therapy students enrolled in MOT and OTD programs is, therefore, essential for making valid cross-program comparisons, monitoring program quality, and interpreting scores meaningfully.
Therefore, our primary aim in this study was to evaluate the psychometric properties of the ICPS. Specifically, we sought to ⊪ examine ICPS’s construct validity using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) across both the perceived importance and the perceived ability modules; ⊪ assess internal consistency for the ICPS; ⊪ test measurement invariance across subgroups (MOT vs. OTD) for the ICPS; and ⊪ evaluate convergent, discriminant, and concurrent validity for the ICPS.
Method
Study Procedures and Participants
We recruited study participants using convenience sampling. An invitation to participate in the study by online survey was posted on the AOTA CommunOT forums (https://www.aota.org/community/communot). Data were collected between October 2024 and June 2025. The invitation encouraged students who met the eligibility criteria to share the survey link with peers who might also qualify.
To be eligible, participants were required to meet three inclusion criteria: They had to be at least 18 yr old, be currently enrolled in an occupational therapy program accredited by the Accreditation Council for Occupational Therapy Education (ACOTE®; 2023) in the United States, and have engaged in intraprofessional collaboration within the past 3 yr. For this study, intraprofessional collaboration referred to structured educational experiences in which occupational therapy students engaged in shared planning, communication, and decision-making with occupational therapy assistant students, such as joint coursework activities, simulation-based learning, team projects, and shared fieldwork-related learning activities. On accessing the survey link, prospective participants were first presented with an informed consent form and a series of screening questions. Participants who met all criteria were granted access to the main survey. The survey, hosted by Qualtrics, included a demographic questionnaire and the ICPS. The participants who completed the survey from March to June 2025 were prompted to complete an additional 20 items of the adapted Interprofessional Collaborative Competency Attainment Survey (ICCAS; Probst et al., 2024). All responses were collected anonymously, and participants could not submit their surveys if any answers were missing. Therefore, the present data had no missing values. All participants received a $10 Amazon gift card as a thank-you within 2 wk after the survey submission. This project was approved by the AdventHealth Institutional Review Board (No. 2205595-1).
Measurements
ICPS
We used the Occupational Therapist version of the ICPS (Fan et al., 2024), which has two modules: perceived importance and perceived ability. Each module comprises 20 items categorized into four competency domains: ⊪ Intraprofessional Teamwork (seven items): This domain assesses the application of relationship-building skills and team dynamics to support coordinated care. ⊪ Roles and Responsibilities for Collaborative Practice (four items): This domain evaluates understanding of one’s own and peers’ roles in occupational therapy service delivery. ⊪ Communication for Intraprofessional Practice (five items): This domain captures effective, responsible, and timely communication essential to collaborative care. ⊪ Values and Ethics for Intraprofessional Practice (four items): This domain measures adherence to shared professional values and mutual respect for effective collaboration.
Each item in the ICPS was rated on a 3-point Likert scale. For the perceived importance module, responses range from 1 (less important) to 3 (very important); for the perceived ability module, responses range from 1 (less able) to 3 (very able). Previous studies have established the ICPS’s face and content validity (Diamant et al., 2018) and demonstrated its feasibility as an outcome measure for detecting changes in collaboration competencies among occupational therapist and occupational therapy assistant students (Fan et al., 2021; Fan & Case, 2025a). (See the item details in Table 1.)
Domains and Items of the Intraprofessional Collaborative Practice Survey, Occupational Therapist Version
Note. OT = occupational therapist; OTA = occupational therapy assistant.
ICCAS–Adapted Version
The ICCAS is a 20-item instrument designed to assess participants’ self-perceived competencies in interprofessional collaboration. It was originally developed by MacDonald et al. (2010) and later revised by Schmitz et al. (2017). The ICCAS is grounded in the core competencies defined by the IPEC (2016) and comprises six subscales: Communication, Collaboration, Roles and Responsibilities, Collaborative Patient/Family-Centered Approach, Conflict Management/Resolution, and Team Functioning. Participants rated each item using a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (poor) to 5 (excellent). The ICCAS has been widely used in interprofessional education research (El Said et al., 2025; North et al., 2025) and has demonstrated strong reliability, a unidimensional factor structure, adequate item discrimination, and moderate concurrent validity (Archibald et al., 2014; Violato & King, 2019). These psychometric findings pertain to the original ICCAS used in interprofessional education contexts.
To adapt this instrument for use in an intraprofessional context, Probst et al. (2024) obtained permission from the original authors and developed a modified version by systematically substituting key terminology (e.g., replacing “interprofessional” with “intraprofessional”). In the present study, we used this adapted version of the ICCAS to assess the concurrent validity of the ICPS. To date, the psychometric properties of this adapted intraprofessional version have not been comprehensively evaluated. Therefore, as part of the present study, we examined its internal consistency to provide preliminary evidence of reliability when used with occupational therapy students.
Statistical Analysis
The descriptive statistics for demographic characteristics are presented as mean (SD) or median (Quartile 1–Quartile 3) for continuous characteristics and n (%) for the categorical characteristics. To examine the construct validity, we used CFA with a weighted least squares mean- and variance-adjusted estimator to assess the four-factor structure of the ICPS for the perceived importance and perceived ability modules, respectively. Factor loadings were calculated, and items were retained if they loaded solely on a factor with a loading greater than .4 (Stevens, 2001). We evaluated model fit in CFA, using the comparative fit index (CFI), Tucker–Lewis Index (TLI), root-mean-square error of approximation (RMSEA) with a 90% confidence interval, and standardized root-mean-square residual (SRMR). CFI and TLI values greater than .9, and RMSEA and SRMR values less than .08, indicated a good CFA model fit (Schermelleh-Engel et al., 2003). We calculated item-rest correlations for each item; correlations greater than .4 were considered acceptable (Streiner et al., 2024). We also used Cronbach’s α and McDonald’s ω coefficients to evaluate the internal consistency in the ICPS; an internal consistency coefficient greater than .7 indicated acceptable reliability (Kalkbrenner, 2023).
To test measurement invariance across OTD and MOT program students, we used multigroup CFA (MGCFA) for perceived importance and perceived ability separately, which involved four nested models: ⊪ Model 1: structural invariance model (the baseline model, which is based on the four-factor structure of the ICPS), ⊪ Model 2: metric invariance model (the model added constraint for factor loadings, based on Model 1), ⊪ Model 3: scalar invariance model (the model added constraint for item intercepts, based on Model 2), and ⊪ Model 4: residual invariance model (the model added constraint for residuals, based on Model 3).
Measurement invariance was evaluated by calculating the differences in CFI (ΔCFI), RMSEA (ΔRMSEA), and SRMR (ΔSRMR) between each pair of nested models. Measurement invariance was supported if ΔCFI was greater than −.01, ΔRMSEA was less than .015, and ΔSRMR was less than .01, according to Chen’s recommendations (Chen, 2007).
We used the average variance extracted (AVE) to examine convergent validity, and we used composite reliability (CR) to evaluate internal consistency. AVE values greater than .5 and CR values greater than .7 were identified as good indicators of convergent validity and internal validity, respectively (Cheung et al., 2024). Moreover, discriminant validity was assessed by the heterotrait:monotrait (HTMT) ratio. Specifically, an HTMT ratio less than .9 was identified as a good discriminant validity (Cheung et al., 2024).
We used Pearson’s correlation between ICPS and ICCAS scores (including total, domain, and subscale scores) to evaluate concurrent validity. The correlation coefficients were identified as follows: .12, .24, and .41 indicate small, moderate, and large levels of correlation, respectively (Lovakov & Agadullina, 2021). We used the R package (Version 4.4.1) for statistical analysis, with the psych package used to determine internal consistency, the lavaan package to determine CFA (including MGCFA), and the semTools package to determine convergent and discriminant validity. A summary table mapping each analytic procedure to its purpose, sample, and key indices is presented (see Table 2).
Overview of Analytic Procedures and Corresponding Psychometric Questions
Note. χ2 = chi-square analysis; CFA = confirmatory factor analysis; CFI = comparative fit index; ICCAS = Interprofessional Collaborative Competency Attainment Survey–adapted version; ICPS = Intraprofessional Collaborative Practice Survey, Occupational Therapist version; MOT = master of occupational therapy; OTD = occupational therapy doctorate; RMSEA = root-mean-square error of approximation; SRMR = standardized root-mean-square residual; TLI = Tucker–Lewis index.
Results
We recruited 389 participants (age: M = 24.5, SD = 2.9), 7.5% of whom self-identified as male. The demographic characteristics of participants are presented in Table 3. Most participants were MOT students (60.7%), followed by OTD students (39.3%).
Demographic Characteristics of Participants
Note. N = 389. MOT = master of occupational therapy; OTD = occupational therapy doctorate.
The distribution of ICPS item scores is shown in Table 4. All factor loadings of items and the item-rest correlations were greater than .40 in CFA results, indicating that the ICPS had good construct validity (Table 4). The overall scale and domains of the ICPS demonstrated good internal consistency with Cronbach’s α and McDonald’s ω coefficients (both α and ω were >.80). Taken together, these results indicate that the ICPS items cluster as expected into the four intended domains and that the overall model provides a good representation of students’ responses.
Factor Structure and Internal Consistency for the Intraprofessional Collaborative Practice Survey (ICPS), Occupational Therapist Version
Note. Factor loadings were derived from confirmatory factor analysis using weighted least squares with mean and variance estimation. α/ω = Cronbach’s α/McDonald’s ω.
The four-factor structure of the ICPS shown in Table 5 is supported on the basis of an acceptable CFA model fit in both the perceived importance module—χ2(164) = 251.765, CFI = .992, TLI = .991, RMSEA = .037 (range = .028–.046), and SRMR = .047—and the perceived ability module—χ2(164) = 474.679, CFI = .981, TLI = .978, RMSEA = .070 (range = .063–.077), and SRMR = .050. Table 4 also summarizes the comparison of the nested models to test measurement invariance across OTD and MOT students. The ΔCFI, ΔRMSEA, and ΔSRMR values are acceptable for supporting metric, scalar, and residual invariance, respectively, of ICPS across OTD and MOT students. In practical terms, this suggests that MOT and OTD students interpreted the ICPS items similarly, so their scores can be compared directly across programs.
Confirmatory Factor Analysis and Tests of Invariance on the Intraprofessional Collaborative Practice Survey (ICPS), Occupational Therapist Version
Note. Δ = change in value compared with the preceding model; 90% CI = 90% confidence interval of the RMSEA; CFI = comparative fit index; Comp. = comparison; M = model; MOT = master of occupational therapy; OTD = occupational therapy doctorate; RMSEA = root-mean-square error of approximation; TLI = Tucker–Lewis Index; WLSMV = weighted least squares mean- and variance-adjusted estimator.
Table 6 presents CR, AVE, and HTMT. CR values for all factors were greater than .80, indicating good internal consistency; AVE values for all factors were above .50, indicating good convergent validity. The HTMT ratios (Table 6, upper triangular matrix) are lower than the threshold (.9), which also demonstrates good discriminant validity. Taken together, these indices indicate that items within each ICPS domain hang together well while still capturing related but distinct aspects of intraprofessional collaboration.
Convergent and Discriminant Validity for the Intraprofessional Collaborative Practice Survey (ICPS), Occupational Therapist Version
Note. The square root of the average variance extracted (AVE) is presented diagonally, in parentheses. The lower triangular matrix reports the estimated correlations between pairs of factors in the confirmatory factor analysis model. The upper triangular matrix reports the heterotrait:monotrait ratio. CR = composite reliability.
*p < .001.
We used Cronbach’s α to evaluate the internal consistency of the adapted ICCAS, which demonstrated satisfactory reliability with an α of .96. In the perceived importance module (Table 7), ICPS scores on both the total measure and the four domains (Intraprofessional Teamwork, Roles and Responsibilities for Collaborative Practice, Communication for Intraprofessional Practice, and Values and Ethics for Intraprofessional Practice) showed moderate to high correlations (ranging from .301 to .433) with the ICCAS scores on the total measure and its subscales (Communication, Collaboration, Roles and Responsibilities, Collaborative Patient/Family-Centered Approach, Conflict Management/Resolution, and Team Functioning). In the perceived ability module, the correlations were even higher, ranging from .505 to .721. These reliability and correlation findings suggest that the ICPS provides stable scores and aligns with an established measure of collaboration competencies in expected ways.
Concurrent Validity for the ICPS
Note. N = 289. All ps < .001. ICCAS = Interprofessional Collaborative Competency Attainment Survey–adapted version; ICPS = Intraprofessional Collaborative Practice Survey, Occupational Therapist Version.
Discussion
This study provided the first comprehensive psychometric evaluation of the ICPS, Occupational Therapist version (Fan et al., 2024). It addressed the critical need for a discipline-specific tool to assess intraprofessional collaboration in the occupational therapist and occupational therapy assistant context. The findings demonstrated strong construct validity for the four-factor structure comprising the domains Intraprofessional Teamwork, Roles and Responsibilities for Collaborative Practice, Communication for Intraprofessional Practice, and Values and Ethics for Intraprofessional Practice, for both the perceived importance and perceived ability modules. Additionally, internal consistency was excellent across the total scale of the ICPS and its domains across the two modules. Convergent and discriminant validity were also supported. Moreover, the ICPS was found to be measurement invariant between MOT program and OTD program students. Also, the concurrent validity of the ICPS was satisfactory, with moderate to strong correlations with the adapted ICCAS in both the perceived importance and perceived ability modules.
Although both modules of ICPS demonstrated good concurrent validity, as evidenced by their correlations with the adapted ICCAS, the perceived ability module showed a higher correlation than the perceived importance module. Thus, we compared the conceptual alignment between the ICPS and the adapted ICCAS to better understand the observed differences in the concurrent validity findings. Although the items on the adapted ICCAS encompass both behaviors and values-related expectations (e.g., respectful, patient-centered teamwork), the instrument instructed participants to “rate your ability” for each item statement. As such, the adapted ICCAS operated primarily as a self-efficacy performance measure, aligning more closely with the ICPS perceived ability module than with the perceived importance module (Schmitz et al., 2017; Violato & King, 2019). Furthermore, prior studies have shown that most participants endorsed ICPS importance items as “important” or “very important,” which resulted in ceiling effects that may compress score variance (Diamant et al., 2018; Fan et al., 2021; Fan & Case, 2025a); therefore, it could potentially reduce correlations with a performance-oriented assessment such as the adapted ICCAS.
The hypothesized four-factor structure in ICPS was supported. Its four domains (Intraprofessional Teamwork, Roles and Responsibilities for Collaborative Practice, Communication for Intraprofessional Practice, and Values and Ethics for Intraprofessional Practice) were originally articulated in the IPEC framework as the foundation for collaborative practice (IPEC, 2016), and their relevance has since been affirmed within occupational therapy through professional guidelines and accreditation standards (ACOTE, 2023; AOTA, 2018). Although developed for interprofessional contexts, these domains are equally central to intraprofessional practice, where coordinated task execution, role clarity, open communication, and shared professional values are necessary for effective occupational therapist–occupational therapy assistant partnerships. At the same time, intraprofessional collaboration in occupational therapy also involves nuanced expectations that extend beyond the IPEC framework, including formal supervisory mandates, discipline-specific legal and ethical responsibilities, and reciprocal skill competencies for occupational therapists and occupational therapy assistants. In the present study, the ICPS successfully captured both perceived importance and perceived ability of these competencies.
The need for intraprofessional collaboration instruments is not unique to occupational therapy. Similar gaps have been identified in other health care professions, prompting the development of new intraprofessional measures. For example, in nursing education, a longitudinal protocol explicitly acknowledged the lack of validated intraprofessional tools and recommended adapting existing interprofessional instruments for intraprofessional use (Kiegaldie et al., 2023). In the medicine field, the recently developed Intraprofessional Collaborative Practices self-assessment for residents demonstrated six collaboration constructs with robust internal structure and reliability (Anwar et al., 2024). These parallel efforts across health care disciplines underscored the broader relevance of the present study’s work and reinforced the timeliness of validating the ICPS for occupational therapy education and practice.
Limitations and Future Study Suggestions
Several limitations should be considered when interpreting these findings. First, the use of convenience sampling through AOTA CommuOT forums may limit generalizability to the broader population of occupational therapy students. Second, the sample consisted of occupational therapy students rather than practicing clinicians. Although all participants reported at least one intraprofessional collaboration experience within the past 3 yr, their perceptions are likely shaped by structured educational activities and supervised fieldwork encounters rather than routine clinical practice. As such, ICPS scores in this study may not fully capture how intraprofessional collaboration is enacted in day-to-day clinical settings. In addition, students’ academic levels and types of exposure to intraprofessional collaboration through coursework and fieldwork may influence how they rate both the importance of these competencies and their perceived ability in them. Because we did not systematically assess these exposure characteristics, we were unable to examine their potential moderating effects on ICPS scores, which should be addressed in future research.
Third, as self-report instruments, the ICPS and the adapted ICCAS are both subject to response biases, including social desirability and overestimation of ability (Schmitz et al., 2017; Tona et al., 2021). To address these possibilities, future studies should pair self- reported ICPS scores with objective assessments of collaboration behaviors, such as faculty or fieldwork educator ratings, structured observations, or simulation-based evaluations, to provide stronger validity evidence and reduce the risk of bias.
Finally, although the original ICPS was piloted and tested with occupational therapists and occupational therapy clinicians (Diamant et al., 2018), the perceived ability module was added later (Fan et al., 2021) and has not yet been tested with practicing clinicians. In addition, although the ICPS was developed with parallel versions for occupational therapists and occupational therapy assistants, in this study we focused on validating the occupational therapist version. This decision reflected the aim of obtaining initial psychometric evidence in a sufficiently large, relatively homogeneous occupational therapy student sample. Future research should extend validation to the occupational therapy assistant version and examine whether ICPS scores can be interpreted and compared in a similar way for occupational therapist and occupational therapy assistant students. The present study included only MOT and OTD students; therefore, future research should extend validation to occupational therapy assistant students and clinicians to examine the tool’s utility across educational and practice contexts.
Implications for Occupational Therapy Education and Practice
The study results have the following clinical implications for occupational therapy practice.
By establishing the psychometric properties of the ICPS, this study’s findings filled a long-standing gap in occupational therapy education and practice. The ICPS captures the unique relational and supervisory dynamics of the occupational therapist–occupational therapy assistant partnership, enabling valid assessment of intraprofessional collaboration competencies. Measurement invariance across academic levels supports its use across both MOT and OTD program students, providing a foundation for fair comparisons, programwide benchmarking, and outcome evaluation. Beyond measurement, these findings highlight the need for the profession to continue refining occupational therapy–specific intraprofessional competencies that build on, but are not limited to, interprofessional frameworks by more explicitly articulating supervisory structures, legal and ethical responsibilities, and reciprocal skill expectations within occupational therapist and occupational therapy assistant teams.
From an educational perspective, the ICPS offers strong utility for program evaluation and research. Educators and researchers can use the tool to track progression in collaboration competencies across training, evaluate the effectiveness of intraprofessional learning experiences, identify domain-specific strengths and weaknesses, and tailor targeted educational interventions. The domains of the ICPS also align with ACOTE’s 2023 practice-based competencies, which facilitate curriculum mapping and documentation for accreditation: Intraprofessional Teamwork (Standards B.3.6, B.3.7, and B.4.6; shared planning, intervention implementation, and care coordination), Roles and Responsibilities for Collaborative Practice (Standard B.3.3; delegation and documentation of occupational therapy assistant service competency), Communication for Intraprofessional Practice (Standards B.3.10 and B.3.21; communication with intraprofessional team members and collaborative discharge planning), and Values and Ethics for Intraprofessional Practice (Standard B.3.22; mutual respect and effective team functioning; ACOTE, 2023).
In clinical practice, the ICPS can serve as a structured framework for onboarding new clinicians, verifying their competencies, and planning their professional development. Health care organizations and supervisors could use the instrument to identify specific areas for role clarification, facilitate targeted mentorship, and monitor collaborative performance over time. These features and benefits could enhance intraprofessional communication, support clear determination and distribution of work and caseloads, and strengthen the quality and efficiency of client-centered care. Within collaborative relationships between occupational therapists and occupational therapy assistants, where educational preparation, roles, responsibilities, and levels of autonomy differ, using ICPS data requires attention to potential power dynamics and intentional efforts to support more equitable teaming.
Conclusion
This study provided a comprehensive psychometric validation of the ICPS, Occupational Therapist version. The ICPS demonstrated strong construct validity, excellent internal consistency, and evidence of convergent, discriminant, and concurrent validity, with measurement invariance established across MOT and OTD program students. These findings confirmed that the ICPS is a reliable and valid instrument for assessing intraprofessional collaboration competencies. The ICPS holds promise for use in educational and clinical practice, thereby supporting effective occupational therapist–occupational therapy assistant partnerships and enhancing client-centered care.
Footnotes
Acknowledgments
This research was supported by the AdventHealth University Faculty Seeds Grant (Grant No. OT9024). Chia-Wei Fan and Yen-Chun Wang contributed equally to this article.