The development and psychometric evaluation of an interprofessional identity measure: Extended Professional Identity Scale (EPIS)

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to develop and evaluate an interprofessional identity measurement instrument based on Extended Professional Identity Theory (EPIT). The latter states that interprofessional identity is a social identity superordinate to a professional identity consisting of three interrelated interprofessional identity characteristics: belonging, commitment and beliefs. Scale development was based on five stages: 1) construct clarification, 2) item pool generation, 3) review of initial item pool, 4) shortening scale length (EFA to determine top four highest factor loadings per subscale; 97 dental and dental hygiene students), and 5) cross-validation and construct validity confirmation (CFA; 152 students and 48 teachers from six curricula). Explained variance of the EPIS was 65%. Internal consistency of the subscales was 0.79, 0.81 and 0.80 respectively and 0.89 of the overall scale. CFA confirmed threedimensionality as theorized by EPIT. Several goodness-of-fit indexes showed positive results: CFI = 0.968 > 0.90, RMSEA = 0.039 < 0.05, and SRMR = 0.056 ≤ 0.08. The factor loadings of the CFA ranged from 0.58 to 0.80 and factors were interrelated. The Extended Professional Identity Scale (EPIS) is a 12-item measurement instrument with high explained variance, high internal consistency and high construct validity with strong evidence for three-dimensionality.

Junior doctors' experiences with interprofessional collaboration: Wandering the landscape

“…The landscape identity is an interprofessional identity, a complementary social identity to their professional physician identity. 40 Nurturing both identities is essential, as professional identity formation is conditional to interprofessional identity formation and can enhance IPC by creating a feeling of ‘unity’ and belonging. 41 If the doctor's professional identity develops in insolation inside CoPP, junior doctors risk centring their identity on being self‐sufficient and ‘in power’, culminating in loneliness and feeling ‘out’ of the group.…”

Interprofessional Identity in Health and Social Care: Analysis and Synthesis of the Assumptions and Conceptions in the Literature

“…The majority of included articles ( n = 25) explicitly mention IPI, most often in combination with the concept dual identity ( n = 11) [ 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 77 , 78 ], but also in combination with roles ( n = 4) such as: change agent [ 79 ], team player [ 80 , 81 ], boundary spanner [ 82 , 83 ] and interprofessional [ 84 ]. Furthermore, IPI was described as a flexible ( n = 1) [ 85 ], integrated ( n = 1) [ 86 ] or an extended ( n = 2) [ 87 , 88 ] professional identity. Additionally, team identity ( n = 8) was described as a standalone concept in the remainder of the articles focusing on IPC and IPE [ 65 , 66 , 89 , 90 , 91 , 92 , 93 , 94 ].…”

“…Other relevant identified concepts were: collective identity ( n = 2) [ 95 , 96 , 97 ], superordinate identity ( n = 2) [ 98 , 99 ], health care professional identity ( n = 1) [ 100 ], group identity ( n = 1) [ 101 ], and collaborative identity ( n = 1) [ 82 , 102 ]. The most widely adopted theoretical perspective ( n = 25) was Social Identity Theory (SIT), which approaches IPI as a dual role and/or a flexible/integrated/extended professional identity [ 65 , 66 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 76 , 77 , 78 , 80 , 81 , 84 , 85 , 86 , 87 , 88 , 92 , 94 , 98 , 99 , 100 , 103 ]. A theoretical perspective on identity was absent in six articles [ 67 , 89 , 91 , 93 , 95 , 101 ], while other articles made reference to social learning theories, such as Communities of Practice ( n = 3) [ 82 , 96 , 97 , 102 ], Role Identity Theory ( n = 1) [ 80 , 81 ], Organizational Learning Theory ( n = 1, e.g., double-loop learning) […”

Interprofessional Treatment of Malnutrition and Sarcopenia by Dietitians and Physiotherapists: Exploring Attitudes, Interprofessional Identity, Facilitators, Barriers, and Occurrence

“…A confirmatory factor analysis confirmed its three-dimensionality and several goodness-of-fit indexes showed positive results. 37 Examples of items are as follows: “I like learning about other health professions” (interprofessional belonging), “I prefer working with others in an interprofessional team” (interprofessional commitment), and “All members of an interprofessional team should be involved in goal setting for each patient” (interprofessional beliefs). The response format consists of a 5-point Likert scale: 1 = strongly disagree; 2 = disagree; 3 = neutral/no opinion; 4 = agree; 5 = strongly agree.…”