↓ Skip to main content

Characteristics of two questionnaires used to assess interprofessional learning: psychometrics and expert panel evaluations

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Education, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (68th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
9 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
48 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Characteristics of two questionnaires used to assess interprofessional learning: psychometrics and expert panel evaluations
Published in
BMC Medical Education, March 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12909-018-1153-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Samuel Edelbring, Madeleine Abrandt Dahlgren, Desiree Wiegleb Edström

Abstract

Interprofessional learning activities are included in many curricula but are difficult to assess. For languages that are not widely spoken such as Swedish, few validated questionnaires exist that relate to interprofessional outcomes. Therefore, the aim was to examine two such questionnaires in relation to interprofessional competence domains. Psychometric characteristics, such as homogeneity of items and internal consistency, were assessed for the Swedish versions of the Jefferson Scale of Attitudes Towards Physician-Nurse Collaboration (JSAPNC) and the Readiness for Interprofessional Learning Scale (RIPLS). The questionnaires were distributed directly following IPL activities. Mokken scale analysis based on Loevinger's coefficient for homogeneity and Cronbach's alpha were used to evaluate the scales. Two expert panels performed a qualitative analysis of items in relation to four internationally defined interprofessional competences. In total, 88 and 84 responded to the JSAPNC and RIPLS questionnaires, respectively. Estimates of homogeneity were low for both the JSAPNC (H = 0.16) and the RIPLS (H = 0.21). Reliabilities were weak (0.62 and 0.66, respectively) for the total scales. The expert panels categorised 68% of items into similar competence domains. However, their discussion revealed ambiguous wordings and imbalances in the two questionnaires in relation to domains. Interprofessional competence domains are defined but few validated tools exist to assess them. Examined tools relating to interprofessional learning in Swedish do not qualify for assessing overarching IPL outcomes, and summed scores from these tools should be used with caution.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 48 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 48 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 8 17%
Student > Master 5 10%
Lecturer 5 10%
Other 3 6%
Student > Postgraduate 3 6%
Other 12 25%
Unknown 12 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 31%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 27%
Psychology 2 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 2%
Computer Science 1 2%
Other 3 6%
Unknown 13 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 24 March 2018.
All research outputs
#5,919,174
of 23,028,364 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#928
of 3,370 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#105,069
of 332,278 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#24
of 71 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,028,364 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,370 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 332,278 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 71 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.