2017
DOI: 10.5688/ajpe816119
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A Systematic Review of Assessment Tools Measuring Interprofessional Education Outcomes Relevant to Pharmacy Education

Abstract: Objective. To identify and describe the available quantitative tools that assess interprofessional education (IPE) relevant to pharmacy education. Methods. A systematic approach was used to identify quantitative IPE assessment tools relevant to pharmacy education. The search strategy included the National Center for Interprofessional Practice and Education Resource Exchange (Nexus) website, a systematic search of the literature, and a manual search of journals deemed likely to include relevant tools. Results. … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

0
50
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
1
1
1

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 76 publications
(50 citation statements)
references
References 52 publications
0
50
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The KMO index was 0.895, indicating sampling adequacy, while the Bartlett sphericity chi-square index was 2295.118, with p = 0.000 (<0.001) indicating that the correlation matrix was an identity matrix and therefore suitable for factor analysis. Exploratory factor analysis yielded three subscales which differed from the original questionnaire's subscales by Shrader et al 52 Items of "communication" subscale converged with several items of the "mutual support" subscale, while all items of the "leadership" subscale converged with the items of the "team structure" subscale. Because the factorial analysis resulted in a different structure from the original questionnaire, the authors chose to rename the subscales as follows: subscale (a) "communication and mutual support" (13 items), subscale (b) "team structure and leadership" (7 items) and subscale (c) "situation monitoring" (3 items) with Cronbach's alpha scores of 0.924, 0.853 and 0.712, respectively (Table 3).…”
Section: Factorial Analysis Of the Questionnairementioning
confidence: 75%
“…The KMO index was 0.895, indicating sampling adequacy, while the Bartlett sphericity chi-square index was 2295.118, with p = 0.000 (<0.001) indicating that the correlation matrix was an identity matrix and therefore suitable for factor analysis. Exploratory factor analysis yielded three subscales which differed from the original questionnaire's subscales by Shrader et al 52 Items of "communication" subscale converged with several items of the "mutual support" subscale, while all items of the "leadership" subscale converged with the items of the "team structure" subscale. Because the factorial analysis resulted in a different structure from the original questionnaire, the authors chose to rename the subscales as follows: subscale (a) "communication and mutual support" (13 items), subscale (b) "team structure and leadership" (7 items) and subscale (c) "situation monitoring" (3 items) with Cronbach's alpha scores of 0.924, 0.853 and 0.712, respectively (Table 3).…”
Section: Factorial Analysis Of the Questionnairementioning
confidence: 75%
“…The IRV integrated a six-point Likert scale for reflective measurement of desired competencies (a) prior CPD, (b) upon CPD completion, and (c) during a vignette situation. Following the tool development process, the content design involves literature reviews ( Shrader et al., 2017 ) in identifying key constructs of KT and corresponding items. The designed tool went through expert review ( n = 5) for face validation.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The outcomes of our IPE event, the product, map to levels 1 and 2 of Kirkpatrick's educational outcomes model [41,52]. We evaluated the participants' reaction to the workshops, assessing their views on the content, teaching methods and organisation (Kirkpatrick Level 1).…”
Section: P Framework and Kirkpatrick's Educational Outcomes Modelmentioning
confidence: 99%