A Validity Study of the Interprofessional Collaborative Competency Attainment Survey: An Interprofessional Collaborative Competency Measure

Abstract

Background: In health care, there is a shift toward competency assessment, including in interprofessional collaboration and education. The Interprofessional Collaborative Competency Attainment Survey (ICCAS) has been designed to assess self-reported change in interprofessional competency. Method: The current study collects validity evidence for the ICCAS by replicating and expanding previous research, examining internal structure, item functioning, concurrent validity, response process, and consequential validity, including theoretical interpretation of the instrument's application and outcomes. Results: The ICCAS shows good reliability, a single-factor structure, adequate item discrimination, and a moderate concurrent validity. Insight was gained to response process and potential consequences that lend caution to the interpretation of ICCAS results dependent on learner populations. Conclusion: The ICCAS has shown stability, making it a potentially useful instrument in assessing self-reported competency but one that should be applied over multiple time points with an awareness of the specific characteristics and knowledge of the sample. [ J Nurs Educ. 2019;58(8):454–462.]

Evidence of validity for the Norwegian version of the interprofessional collaborative competency attainment survey (ICCAS)

“…As with previous studies (Archibald et al, 2014;Schmitz et al, 2017;Violato & King, 2019), the factors emerging in our study did not support the theoretical five-factor construction of communication, collaboration, roles, and responsibility, patient/family-centered care, conflict management/resolution, and team functioning (Canadian Interprofessional Health Collaborative, 2010). We extracted one factor from the prescores and one factor for post-scores.…”

“…Schmitz et al (2017) version was used, and retrospective pre-/posttest measurement format was chosen for collection of data. The study provided additional validity evidence for ICCAS, supporting a single-factor structure for pre-scores (Cronbach's alpha .97) and post-scores (Cronbach's alpha .95; Violato & King, 2019). ICCAS has been used as an evaluation tool in multiple different settings in recent years such as interactive case-based IPE sessions for pre-licensure health science students (Langford et al, 2019), academic day devoted to introductory IPE experiences for first-year healthcare students (Singer et al, 2018) and IPE clinical simulations for students from non-clinical disciplines and health-care disciplines (Champagne-Langabeer et al, 2019).…”

“…In a Canadian validation study, 991 students from various health programs participated after completing a mandatory three-hour IPE course during their first weeks of education (Violato & King, 2019). Schmitz et al (2017) version was used, and retrospective pre-/posttest measurement format was chosen for collection of data.…”

“…One way to assess students' competencies in IPC and consequently evaluate, and compare educational courses is to use a validated self-reported questionnaire that allows comparison across various courses. We chose to translate The Interprofessional Collaborative Competency Attainment Survey (ICCAS) to Norwegian as it has been deemed valid and reliable in a variety of IPE settings (Archibald et al, 2014;Schmitz et al, 2017;Violato & King, 2019). Use of existing questionnaires does not guarantee validity after translation and cultural modification.…”

Social Work Students’ Attitudes and Skills Self-Efficacy Toward Collaborative Practice Improve After Interprofessional Opioid Use Disorder Case Discussion

“…The amount of pre-test to post-test change appears to be slightly greater for the remaining health professions students than for the medical students. Violato and King (2019) suggest that effect sizes using the ICCAS are likely to be greater in students without interprofessional experience than those who have interprofessional experience during their training prior to using the tool. Our study seems to reveal the opposite.…”