Measuring attitudes related to interdisciplinary training: revisiting the Heinemann, Schmitt and Farrell attitudes toward health care teams scale

Abstract

Findings from an exploratory factor analysis on the 21 item`attitudes towards health care teams ' (Heinemann et al., 1999) are reported. Using data collected as part of an innovative educational program on geriatric team training program in the United States we report an exploratory factor analyses for 913 student trainees. The geriatric interdisciplinary team training (GITT) program funded by a United States philanthropic foundation, The John A. Hartford Foundation of New York City, requires medicine, nursing, and social work students to learn about geriatric teams. A 3-factor solution with all 21-items is obtained. These factors are labeled to re¯ect normative team constructs: team value, team ef® ciency and shared leadership. Though conceptually these factors map onto those identi® ed by Heinemann et al. (1999), some important philosophical and methodological differences are noted. Implications for interdisciplinary education and for the construct validity of this scale are discussed.

Development and Validation of the Primary Care Team Dynamics Survey

“…When team members act and feel like a team, the literature suggests that group members will perceive a higher level of team effectiveness (Millward and Jeffries 2001;Kozlowski and Ilgen 2006;Lemieux-Charles and McGuire 2006;Brennan et al 2013). According to our conceptual model, team members may perceive a team to be successful in delivering highly effective and efficient care for patients and enhancing enthusiasm and interest among the professionals on the team (Heinemann et al 1999;Hyer et al 2000;Leipzig et al 2002). Our model suggests that the conditions, understanding, processes, actions/ feelings, and perceptions we have described will be positively associated with perceived team effectiveness (and ultimately with objective measures of team effectiveness) in primary care.…”

“…Based on research about effective teaming in a variety of health care settings (Toseland, Palmer-Ganeles, and Chapman 1986;Heinemann et al 1999;Hyer et al 2000;Millward and Jeffries 2001;Gittell 2002;Leipzig et al 2002;Lemieux-Charles and McGuire 2006;Nagpal et al 2010;Schroder et al 2011;Jesmin, Thind, and Sarma 2012), we developed a framework for team dynamics in primary care, which applies to ambulatory settings in general. We define effective team dynamics according to the following criteria: (1) team performance (i.e., the product of teamwork meets the expectations of those who use it); (2) member satisfaction (i.e., each team member's experience contributes to his or her personal well-being and development); and (3) team adaptation (i.e., the team experience enhances each member's capability to work and learn together in the future) (Nadler, Hackman, and Lawler 1979).…”

“…We also studied the proposed learning collaborative curriculum. In addition, we examined a variety of survey instruments, including those discussed in a recent systematic review of teamwork surveys in health care settings (Valentine, Nembhard, and Edmondson in press) and others suggested by investigators and learning collaborative members (Heinemann et al 1999;Hyer et al 2000;Leipzig et al 2002;Mahoney and Turkovich 2010; National Committee for Quality Assurance 2011; Schroder et al 2011). Of these, we selected 10 survey instruments whose content best reflected the constructs in our conceptual model.…”

Interprofessional Education for Pre-Service School-Based Professionals: Faculty and Student Collaboration

“…The ATHCT was developed by Heinemann and colleagues (1999) and is free to use. Hyer, Fairchild, Abraham, Mezey and Fulmer (2000) used this survey in examining health professional students learning about team care. Their 21-item scale assessed three domains important to effective collaboration; including Value of Team, a measure reflecting attitudes towards teams; Team Efficiency, a measure of team efficiency; and Shared Leadership, a measure of shared leadership and equality among team members.…”

“…Their 21-item scale assessed three domains important to effective collaboration; including Value of Team, a measure reflecting attitudes towards teams; Team Efficiency, a measure of team efficiency; and Shared Leadership, a measure of shared leadership and equality among team members. Hyer et al (2000) reported an internal consistency of = .87.…”