Development of a questionnaire to assess student behavioral confidence to undertake interprofessional education activities

Abstract

Measurement of the impact of interprofessional education (IPE) is the golden chalice educationalists chase. We undertook the development of a scale to measure IPE Academic Behavioral Confidence (IPE-ABC) in allied health, nursing, and social work pre-registration students. This work formed part of the evaluation of a large IPE framework embedded across two Scottish universities. General ABC has been shown to influence student perceptions of study experiences and it is thus reasonable to postulate that ABC could influence student perceptions of IPE. This research developed a questionnaire to ascertain health and social care students' confidence to engage in IPE, utilizing a mixed method approach. Fifteen different professional groups of pre-registration students (n = 565) participated in the assessment of the 38 item questionnaire. Exploratory factor analysis identified three factors: 1/interprofessional teamwork, 2/behaviors underpinning collaboration, and 3/interprofessional communication collectively accounting for 38.2% of the variance. Internal consistency of the overall scale (Cronbach's α = .93) was very good with subscales demonstrating very good internal consistency, 1 (α = .89), or respectable consistency 2 (α = .78) and 3 (α = .79). We conclude the IPE-ABC questionnaire could be utilized to enhance and assess the success of IPE related activities.

The Acceptability of Traditional Culture under the Background of Deep Learning

“…(ii) If D is less than 3% or T is greater than 70%, it means that the option design is unreasonable and has to be modified. On the contrary, it means that the options of the questionnaire are quite different, which can reflect the different situations of most people [ 24 ].…”

“…It means that when there are not many evaluation items, they should be corrected. If the number of evaluation items in the two parts is equal, the Spearman–Brown correction method [ 24 ] is adopted and is expressed as follows: where R XX is the simple correlation coefficient of the total score. If the number of evaluation items in the two parts is inconsistent, then the definition of R XX should be as follows from the perspective of variance: where S 2 is the total variance of the two parts, S 1 2 is the variance of the total score of the first part, and S 2 2 shows the variance of the total score of the second part [ 25 ].…”

“…It means that when there are not many evaluation items, they should be corrected. If the number of evaluation items in the two parts is equal, the Spearman–Brown correction method [ 24 ] is adopted and is expressed as follows:…”