Adaptation and reliability of the readiness for inter professional learning scale (RIPLS) in the Chinese health care students setting

Li, Zhewei; Sun, Yihan; Zhang, Yang

doi:10.1186/s12909-018-1423-8

Cited by 20 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…However, this low internal consistency is consistent with the findings of Parsell and Bligh, 11 who first reported an α-value of 0.32 for the roles and responsibility subscale. Later validation studies have discussed the same issue, 13 , 19 , 26–28 and the validity of the instrument has been questioned. 29 …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…35 This question belongs to the subscale “roles and responsibilities,” 11 which retained low internal consistency. 11 , 13 , 14 , 19 , 26–28 Interestingly, this was almost the only question with any relevance to measuring change in the Norwegian-language translated version of the RIPLS. By face validity, role awareness should clearly be included in a questionnaire on IPL.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Originally written in English, RIPLS has been translated into different languages, including Swedish, 13 French, 14 German, 15 Danish, 16 Dutch, 17 Japanese, 18 Chinese, 19 and Persian, 20 but not yet into Norwegian. Questionnaires need validation before their use in any new language and culture.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Has “The Ceiling” Rendered the Readiness for Interprofessional Learning Scale (RIPLS) Outdated?

Torsvik¹,

Johnsen²,

Lillebo³

et al. 2021

JMDH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The present study aimed to investigate the preliminary effects of collaborative learning and simulation on readiness to engage in and attitudes toward future interprofessional learning activities. We translated into Norwegian and validated the original Readiness for Interprofessional Learning Scale (RIPLS) (part 1) to measure the efficacy and feasibility of a structured collaborative learning activity (part 2). Materials and Methods Undergraduate social and health care professional students from five Norwegian universities (n = 307) participated in the validation stage of this study (part 1). A Norwegian version of the RIPLS was developed using forward and backward translation. An expert panel discussed discrepancies between the translations and professional concepts. We planned to conduct a principal component analysis to evaluate the structure, reliability, and internal consistency of the Norwegian version of the RIPLS, after investigating the skewness, kurtosis, and range of items included. One hundred fifty students participated in collaborative learning activities; 72 (48%) of these individuals answered the translated RIPLS questionnaire. Results We found a substantial ceiling effect in the majority of items in the RIPLS, making it difficult to use the instrument as a measure of change. We evaluated the efficacy and feasibility of the collaborative activities based on the changes in the single items that had sufficient univariate normality and ultimately confirmed positive changes in two of these items. Conclusion Norwegian students appear ready for interprofessional learning; however, due to significant ceiling effects, the majority of items in the RIPLS no longer seem suitable for measuring and evaluating the effects of interprofessional learning (part 1). Single-item analysis revealed a potential effect of collaborative learning (part 2). A new questionnaire is needed where readiness is instead understood as self-efficacy in areas such as role awareness and interprofessional communication. Researchers should be aware that even previously validated questionnaires may lose their applicability over time and require revision. Demands for interprofessional learning and practice are continuously evolving, and evaluation methods should be adjusted accordingly.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Has “The Ceiling” Rendered the Readiness for Interprofessional Learning Scale (RIPLS) Outdated?

Torsvik¹,

Johnsen²,

Lillebo³

et al. 2021

JMDH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Cronbach's alphas for the coefficients of the subscales TAC, NPI, PPI, and RAR in the Persian and other versions were approximately similar (0.89, 0.60, 0.86 and 0.28). 9,11,18,19 The low value of the RAR subscale could be due to the fact that the number of items is small. The key strength of this study is the high response rate from a convenience sample, and a number of important limitations need to be considered.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reliability and validity of the Persian version of readiness for inter-professional learning scale

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: To assess the validity and reliability of the Persian version of the Readiness for Inter-Professional Learning Scale (RIPLS). Methods: A cross-sectional study was performed among final-year medical students in Iran. A total of 200 students completed the Persian versions of the RIPLS questionnaire using convenience sampling. To evaluate the construct validity of the RIPLS questionnaire, data were subjected to confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Some goodness-of-fit indicators were used to assess the hypothesized model. The hypothesised models were tested with LISREL 7.8. Results: Cronbach's alphas for 9 teamwork and collaboration (TAC), 3 negative professional identity (NPI), 4 positive professional identity (PPI) and 3 Roles and responsibilities (RAR) items were 0.89, 0.60, 0.86 and 0.28 respectively. The whole RIPLS was found to be highly reliable (19 items; α= 0.94). The set of fit statistics show that the hypothesised four-factor model fits the sample data. Conclusions:The results of the study show that the Persian version of the RIPLS may be a valid and reliable scale. In addition, the results of CFA show that the hypothesised four-factor model appears to be a good fit to the data. However, the Persian version of the subscales of NPI and RAR needs to be developed. The implications and limitations of the study are discussed.

show abstract

“…The lack of interprofessional teamwork was found to be an important reason leading to medical errors in China. 16 The ATIHCTS has been widely used in many countries. However, its application in China is still in its initial stage, and no Chinese version has been developed.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Validity of Chinese Version of Attitudes Toward Interprofessional Health Care Teams Scale

Li¹,

Wang²,

Gu³

et al. 2021

JMDH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective Effective teamwork can provide safe and effective care in various medical systems. Thus, there is increasing recognition of the value of interprofessional collaborative practice. The Attitudes Toward Interprofessional Health Care Teams Scale (ATIHCTS) has been applied to a wide variety of health professions for evaluating attitudes toward health care teams. The ATIHCTS has been widely used internationally, but no Chinese version has been developed. The aim of this study was to adapt a Chinese version of the ATIHCTS among Chinese health care professionals and to test its validity. Methods The English version of the ATIHCTS was translated into Chinese, back-translated, and modified for cultural adaptation according to Brislin’s guideline. A total of 306 health professionals in a Shanghai tertiary hospital were investigated using the Chinese version of the ATIHCTS to test its validity. Results The Chinese version of the ATIHCTS was adjusted based on expert review and pilot testing. According to expert opinions, the text that did not conform to the Chinese language habits and the Chinese medical environment was adjusted. A total of five adjustments were made. After the pilot testing, minor corrections were made to improve the sentence structure of the scale instructions to make it easier to understand. Factor analysis was subsequently conducted with 306 respondents. The Chinese version of the ATIHCTS had 14 items. Exploratory factor analysis extracted two common factors, quality of care and time constraints, with the cumulative variance contribution rate reaching 70.011% and the load value of each entry on its common factor > 0.4. In addition, for scale confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), the chi-square/degrees of freedom ratio (X 2 /df) was 1.46, the normed fit index (NFI) was 0.97, the Tucker-Lewis index (TLI) was 0.99, the incremental fit index (IFI) was 0.99, the comparative fit index (CFI) was 0.99, and the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) was 0.04. The fitting values all met the judgment criteria, and the scale had good structural validity. Cronbach’s α of the Chinese version of the ATIHCTS was 0.861, and the Cronbach’s α values of each factor were 0.949 and 0.838, respectively. The split-half reliability was 0.644, and the Guttman split-half coefficients of each factor were 0.904 and 0.779, respectively. Conclusion The Chinese version of the ATIHCTS has good validity. It is a valuable tool for evaluating attitudes toward interprofessional health care teams among the health care professionals in China.

show abstract

Adaptation and reliability of the readiness for inter professional learning scale (RIPLS) in the Chinese health care students setting

Cited by 20 publications

References 23 publications

Has “The Ceiling” Rendered the Readiness for Interprofessional Learning Scale (RIPLS) Outdated?

Has “The Ceiling” Rendered the Readiness for Interprofessional Learning Scale (RIPLS) Outdated?

Reliability and validity of the Persian version of readiness for inter-professional learning scale

Validity of Chinese Version of Attitudes Toward Interprofessional Health Care Teams Scale

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About