Korean Medical Education Review (의학교육논단)

Yonsei university college of medicine (연세대학교 의과대학)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

A Validity Study of the Korean Version of the Interprofessional Attitudes Scale

전문직 간 태도에 대한 한국어판 측정도구의 타당화 연구

  • Park, Kwi Hwa (Department of Medical Education, Gachon University College of Medicine) ;
  • Park, Kyung Hye (Department of Medical Education, Yonsei University Wonju College of Medicine) ;
  • Kwon, Oh Young (Department of Medical Education and Medical Humanities, Kyung Hee University School of Medicine) ;
  • Kang, Youngjoon (Department of Medical Education, Jeju National University School of Medicine)
  • 박귀화 (가천대학교 의과대학 의학교육학교실) ;
  • 박경혜 (연세대학교 원주의과대학 의학교육학과) ;
  • 권오영 (경희대학교 의과대학 의학교육학 및 의인문학교실) ;
  • 강영준 (제주대학교 의학전문대학원 의학교육학교실)
  • Received : 2020.01.14
  • Accepted : 2020.03.16
  • Published : 2020.06.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Concern for patient safety underlies the need for interprofessional education (IPE). One way to measure the effectiveness of IPE is by measuring attitude change toward other healthcare professionals; however, there are currently no valid Korean tools to measure such a change in attitudes. Therefore, this study aims to develop and test a Korean version of the Interprofessional Attitudes Scale (IPAS). The original IPAS was translated into Korean according to the World Health Organization's guidelines after obtaining permission from the article's corresponding author. A total of 414 questionnaires were collected from third- and fourth-year medical and nursing students at four Korean institutions in December 2018. To analyze the validity of the Korean IPAS, exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were conducted. Cronbach's α was used to evaluate reliability. Results from the exploratory factor analysis identified four functions: teamwork, community-centeredness, patient-centeredness, and respect for diversity. Significant cross-correlations were found among the four functions (r=0.438-0.631, p<0.001) along with overall reliability (Cronbach's α=0.929) and reliability of each subfactor (Cronbach's α=0.804-0.897). This study verified the validity and reliability of the Korean version of the IPAS, so this scale can be used in the future to measure the effectiveness of IPE in Korea.

Keywords

References

  1. Kim S. Perceptions and attitudes towards interprofessional education in medical schools. Korean Med Educ Rev. 2017;19(1):10-7. https://doi.org/10.17496/kmer.2017.19.1.10
  2. Kim KH, Hwang E, Shin S. Current status and future direction of interprofessional education in nursing education. Korean Med Educ Rev. 2017;19(1):18-24. https://doi.org/10.17496/kmer.2017.19.1.18
  3. Kwon OY, Park KH, Park KH, Kang Y. Validity of the self-efficacy for interprofessional experimental learning scale in Korea. Korean Med Educ Rev. 2019;21(3):155-61.
  4. Schmitt MH, Gilbert JH, Brandt BF, Weinstein RS. The coming of age for interprofessional education and practice. Am J Med. 2013;126(4):284-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjmed.2012.10.015
  5. Centre for the Advancement of Interprofessional Education. Interprofessional education: a definition. London: Centre for the Advancement of Interprofessional Education; 2016.
  6. Curran VR, Sharpe D, Flynn K, Button P. A longitudinal study of the effect of an interprofessional education curriculum on student satisfaction and attitudes towards interprofessional teamwork and education. J Interprof Care. 2010;24(1):41-52. https://doi.org/10.3109/13561820903011927
  7. Aston SJ, Rheault W, Arenson C, Tappert SK, Stoecker J, Orzoff J, et al. Interprofessional education: a review and analysis of programs from three academic health centers. Acad Med. 2012;87(7):949-55. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0b013e3182583374
  8. Barr H, Koppel I, Reeves S, Hammick M, Freeth D. Effective interprofessional education: argument, assumption and evidence. Oxford: Blackwell; 2005.
  9. Pollard KC, Miers ME, Gilchrist M. Collaborative learning for collaborative working?: initial findings from a longitudinal study of health and social care students. Health Soc Care Community. 2004;12(4):346-58. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2524.2004.00504.x
  10. Thistlethwaite J, Moran M; World Health Organization Study Group on Interprofessional Education and Collaborative Practice. Learning outcomes for interprofessional education (IPE): literature review and synthesis. J Interprof Care. 2010;24(5):503-13. https://doi.org/10.3109/13561820.2010.483366
  11. Thistlethwaite J. Interprofessional education: a review of context, learning and the research agenda. Med Educ. 2012;46(1):58-70. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.2011.04143.x
  12. Blue AV, Zoller J, Stratton TD, Elam CL, Gilbert J. Interprofessional education in US medical schools. J Interprof Care. 2010;24(2):204-6. https://doi.org/10.3109/13561820903442887
  13. West C, Graham L, Palmer RT, Miller MF, Thayer EK, Stuber ML, et al. Implementation of interprofessional education (IPE) in 16 U.S. medical schools: common practices, barriers and facilitators. J Interprof Educ Pract. 2016;4:41-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.xjep.2016.05.002
  14. Interprofessional Education Collaborative Expert Panel. Core competencies for interprofessional collaborative practice: report of an expert panel. Washington (DC): Interprofessional Education Collaborative; 2011.
  15. Remington TL, Foulk MA, Williams BC. Evaluation of evidence for interprofessional education. Am J Pharm Educ. 2006;70(3):66. https://doi.org/10.5688/aj700366
  16. Edelbring S, Dahlgren MA, Wiegleb Edstrom D. Characteristics of two questionnaires used to assess interprofessional learning: psychometrics and expert panel evaluations. BMC Med Educ. 2018;18(1):40. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-018-1153-y
  17. Gillan C, Lovrics E, Halpern E, Wiljer D, Harnett N. The evaluation of learner outcomes in interprofessional continuing education: a literature review and an analysis of survey instruments. Med Teach. 2011;33(9):e461-70. https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2011.587915
  18. Mann K, McFetridge-Durdle J, Breau L, Clovis J, Martin-Misener R, Matheson T, et al. Development of a scale to measure health professions students' self-efficacy beliefs in interprofessional learning. J Interprof Care. 2012;26(2):92-9. https://doi.org/10.3109/13561820.2011.640759
  19. Parsell G, Bligh J. The development of a questionnaire to assess the readiness of health care students for interprofessional learning (RIPLS). Med Educ. 1999;33(2):95-100. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2923.1999.00298.x
  20. Reid R, Bruce D, Allstaff K, McLernon D. Validating the Readiness for Interprofessional Learning Scale (RIPLS) in the postgraduate context: are health care professionals ready for IPL? Med Educ. 2006;40(5):415-22. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2929.2006.02442.x
  21. Norris J, Carpenter JG, Eaton J, Guo JW, Lassche M, Pett MA, et al. The Development and Validation of the Interprofessional Attitudes Scale: assessing the interprofessional attitudes of students in the health professions. Acad Med. 2015;90(10):1394-400. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000000764
  22. Dow AW, DiazGranados D, Mazmanian PE, Retchin SM. An exploratory study of an assessment tool derived from the competencies of the interprofessional education collaborative. J Interprof Care. 2014;28(4):299-304. https://doi.org/10.3109/13561820.2014.891573
  23. Kim YJ, Radloff JC, Stokes CK, Lysaght CR. Interprofessional education for health science students' attitudes and readiness to work interprofessionally: a prospective cohort study. Braz J Phys Ther. 2019;23(4):337-45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjpt.2018.09.003
  24. Boland D, White T, Adams E. Experiences of pharmacy trainees from an interprofessional immersion training. Pharmacy (Basel). 2018;6(2):37. https://doi.org/10.3390/pharmacy6020037
  25. World Health Organization. Process of translation and adaptation of instruments [Internet]. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2018 [cited 2019 Dec 23]. Available from: http://www.who.int/substance_abuse/research_tools/translation/en/.
  26. DeVellis RF. Scale development: theory and applications. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage Publications; 2012.
  27. Byrne BM. Structural equation modeling with AMOS, EQS, and LISREL: comparative approaches to testing for the factorial validity of a measuring instrument. Int J Test. 2001;1(1):55-86. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327574IJT0101_4
  28. Nunnally JC, Bernstein IH. Psychometric theory. New York (NY): McGraw-Hill; 1994.
  29. Hu LT, Bentler PM. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equat Model Multidiscip J. 1999;6(1):1-55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
  30. Kim GS. AMOS 18.0 structural equation model analysis. Seoul: Hannarae Academy; 2010.
  31. Hong S. The criteria for selecting appropriate fit indices in structural equation modeling and their rationales. Korean J Clin Psychol. 2000;19(1):161-77.
  32. Frenk J, Chen L, Bhutta ZA, Cohen J, Crisp N, Evans T, et al. Health professionals for a new century: transforming education to strengthen health systems in an interdependent world. Lancet. 2010;376(9756):1923-58. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(10)61854-5
  33. Canadian Interprofessional Health Collaborative. A National Interprofessional Competency Framework. Vancouver: University of British Columbia; 2010.
  34. Woo JS. Differences in patients cognition according to positive or negative questioning pattern [master's thesis]. Seoul: Yonsei University; 2005.
  35. Jeong GH, Nam KA, Kim YS, Park HS, Kim SK. Transcultural nursing. Chuncheon: XmlArchive; 2012.
  36. Rogers GD, Thistlethwaite JE, Anderson ES, Abrandt Dahlgren M, Grymonpre RE, et al. International consensus statement on the assessment of interprofessional learning outcomes. Med Teach. 2017;39(4):347-59. https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159x.2017.1270441