The validity and reliability of the Interprofessional Socialization and Valuing Scale for therapy professionals

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

Published in Work, the Interprofessional Socialization and Valuing Scale (ISVS) [1] was initially validated with 124 Canadian health profession students. The authors stated that the ISVS was useful to evaluate beliefs, behaviors, and attitudes about interprofessional practice among health profession students and professionals.

OBJECTIVE:

While the primary purpose of this study was to identify attitudes and behaviors in occupational, physical, and recreational therapists, and speech-language pathologists, the study also evaluated the validity and reliability of the ISVS.

METHODS:

The ISVS was completed by occupational, physical, and recreational therapists, and speech-language pathologists in Michigan, United States of America to examine beliefs, behaviors, and attitudes towards interprofessional collaboration. Kruskal-Wallis one-way analysis of variance by ranks test was used to analyze and compare responses across disciplines. Principle component analysis identified factors from the ISVS related to attitudes and behaviors.

RESULTS:

While no differences were found between therapy discipline and beliefs, behaviors, and attitudes, there was a significant finding related to the validity and reliability of the ISVS for use with health professionals.

CONCLUSIONS:

It was found that the ISVS is valid and reliable to use with health professionals but may yield different factors than with health students.

Keywords

Collaboration teamwork interdisciplinary interprofessional education healthcare

1 Background

Increasingly, health professionals must work in a collaborative and interprofessional manner. Changes in regulatory and accreditation standards, patient demands and complexity, and emerging technology and organizational efficiencies, require the streamlining and lean management of healthcare service delivery. The World Health Organization [2] indicated that partnering with other providers is one of the five core competencies needed when working with clients/patients in the future, further supporting the need for interprofessional collaboration. Yet, limited work has been done to evaluate how certain health professions value interprofessional collaboration.

Interprofessional collaboration involves different health disciplines working together to solve patient problems; it is not just coming together and working side by side (multi-disciplinary), but is the actual teamwork and problem solving that occurs together (interprofessional). It is defined as:

An interprofessional process characterized by healthcare professionals from multiple disciplines with shared objectives, decision-making, responsibility, and power working together to solve patient care problems; the process is best attained through an interprofessional education that promotes an atmosphere of mutual trust and respect, effective and open communication, and awareness and acceptance of the roles, skills, and responsibilities of the participating disciplines. [3, p. 80].

Understanding each other’s roles and responsibilities, acknowledging differences between professionals’, working to resolve conflict, being understanding of problems, and being interdependent are behaviors necessary for effective collaboration [4 –8].

Prior research has focused on the perceptions of certain health professions regarding interprofessional education (IPE), towards other health disciplines, and about collaboration. These studies primarily included physicians and nurses [1 , 9–12]. Despite the overlap of functions, there is little research that compares attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors towards interprofessional collaboration among therapy disciplines. Furthermore, no prior research included recreational therapy (RT) among the rehabilitation therapies of occupational (OT) and physical therapy (PT), and speech-language pathology (SLP).

Because health professionals are commonly educated in single discipline environments and practice is considered protected “turf”, a lack of understanding about roles and responsibilities of other disciplines continues [13 –18]. This has contributed to tension and decreased collaboration between health professions, inhibiting opportunities to learn together and negatively impacting patients, even though evidence continues to support that developing competency and understanding of one’s and others’ roles and responsibilities reduces boundaries and enhances teamwork[18 –20].

This persistent lack of understanding is compounded by differences in how professionals value collaboration which impacts attitudes about teamwork. For some health professionals, teamwork is a way to deliver care, for others it is a means to an end or a way to shift responsibility. Heinemann et al. [21] wrote, “because attitudes often are determinants of behavior, attitudes toward health care teams may have an important influence on professionals’ participation in teams, the quality of team functioning, and ultimately, the quality of care to the patient” (p. 125). Regardless of one’s value of teamwork, attitudes impact the effectiveness of collaboration.

2 Literature review

There is a paucity of literature about various aspects of interprofessional education and collaboration that will not be explored in this discussion. But rather the focus will be on tools to measure attitudes towards interprofessional collaboration.

There are several commonly used and accepted tools for examining interprofessional issues, including the Interdisciplinary Education Preparation Scale, Readiness for Professional Learning Scale, Attitudes Toward Healthcare Teams Scale, Attitudes to Health Professionals Questionnaire, and the Interprofessional Socialization and Valuing Scale. Briefly, each of these tools has a focus on interprofessional interaction and education.

The Interdisciplinary Education Perception Scale (IEPS) was published in 1990 by Luecht et al. [23] related to assessing students’ perceptions and attitudes towards collaboration and work with other disciplines. Regarding reliability of the IEPS, Cronbach’s alpha for all items was 0.872 [23].

The Readiness for Interprofessional Learning Scale (RIPLS) (Parsell & Bligh, 1999) focused on attitudes about teamwork and collaboration, professional identity, and professional roles [24]. The alpha coefficient identified was 0.90, indicating strong consistency [24]. The revised RIPLS was proposed in sub-scales included: teamwork and collaboration; negative professional identity; positive professional identity; and roles and responsibilities [25, 26]. Cronbach’s alpha for the RIPLS-R were 0.84 [26] and 0.89 [25].

The Attitudes Toward Healthcare Team Scale (ATHTS) (Heinemann, Schmitt, Farrell, & Brallier, 1999) aimed to measure professionals attitudes about interprofessional healthcare teams in conjunction with clinical training programs [23 , 28]. Cronbach’s alpha measured 0.87, indicating strong validity [21].

Attitudes to Health Professionals Questionnaire (AHPQ) (Lindqvist, Duncan, Shepstone, Watts & Pearce, 2005) is a measurement tool developed to look at attitudes between interprofessional groups and changes in attitude that occur over time [29, 30]. Internal consistent proved to be 0.87, with alpha coefficients for each component at 0.93 and 0.58 [30].

The Interprofessional Socialization and Valuing Scale (ISVS) was created by King, Shaw, Orchard and Miller and validated in 2010. The ISVS is a quantitative tool that examines abilities, values, and beliefs related to collaboration and interprofessional practice. It was validated for use with health professional students. For the three scales as a whole, the coefficient alpha was 0.90, demonstrating strong validity.

Based on the focus of this study to examine beliefs, behaviors, and attitudes, the Interprofessional Socialization and Valuing Scale was selected. This tool measured the beliefs, behaviors, and attitudes that occur with professional and team socialization and collaboration [1]. King et al. [1] indicated that the ISVS provided an understanding of interprofessional socialization and concepts that impact collaboration. The ISVS enables professionals to understand how they perceive their own values and views towards their profession and those they work with as influencers of collaboration.

In their research, King et al. [1] focused on understanding the socio-cultural components of teamwork and collaboration. They developed the ISVS “to be able to evaluate the degree to which practitioners have adopted interprofessional beliefs, behaviors, and attitudes that reflect socialization towards interprofessional collaborative practice” [1, p78]. In order to be effective team players and collaborators, health professionals must understand their individual professional identity and role, as well as their interprofessional identity and role. King et al. [1] wrote that the ISVS scales were reflective of professional interactions and collaboration that are affected by any individual’s perception of their ability, comfort level, and values in working with others. It uses an unbalanced 7-point Likert scale, measuring data at an ordinal level [31, 32]. Responses range from 1 “not at all” to 7 “to a very great extent”, and also include a 0 “non-applicable” response.

The first section of the ISVS examined beliefs, defined as the probability that something is the truth [31]. The section was entitled “Self-Perceived Ability to Work with Others”. The ability to work with others was found in the first nine questions which range from statements about being able to listen to team members (number 6) to valuing open and honest communication among the team (number 9). King et al. [1] stated that these items captured awareness and understanding, or self-perception, of one’s abilities and skills.

In section two, “Value in Working with Others”, captured the construct of attitudes. Attitudes are the consistent positive or negative methods and manner in which individuals respond to people and items in their environment based on learning [31]. Questions 10 to 18 included items about preferring to work on an interprofessional team (number 12) to appreciating clients and families as team members (number 16). These statements reflect understanding and valuing of interprofessional practice [1]. Attitudes and behaviors (found in section three) are often associated with one another; however, the relationship is not causal. One would anticipate consistency between these two variables, but attitudes do not always lead to certain behaviors; yet, behaviors often impact one’s attitude [31].

Finally, the last component of the ISVS reflected behaviors and was called “Comfort in Working with Others”. Six statements were included in this reflecting comfort and ability. This section captured how comfortable one is in interacting with the interprofessional team [1]. Statement ranged from being comfortable to be a team leader (number 20) to speaking out when conflicts occur (number 23).

3 Objective

The primary research question guiding this study was: How does therapy discipline (SLP, OT, PT, and RT) affect the perception of beliefs, behaviors, and attitudes towards interprofessional collaboration? Beliefs examined self-perceived ability to work with others; attitude looked at the value in working with others; and behavior measured by one’s self-perceived comfort in working with others. The research question investigated whether occupational, physical, and recreational therapists and speech-language pathologists held beliefs, behaviors, and attitudes to work together in a collaborative, interprofessional manner. It analyzed the independent variable of therapy discipline against the dependent variables of perceived value of interprofessional collaboration based on beliefs, behaviors, and attitudes. Using self-reflection, the ISVS captured these concepts to create the dependent variable.

Though the primary objective of the study was to identify beliefs, behaviors, and attitudes of therapists; a secondary objective was to test the validity and reliability of the ISVS with professional rehabilitative therapy professionals.

4 Methodology and findings

Therapists completed the Interprofessional Socialization and Valuing Scale via Survey Monkey. The survey provided an opportunity for individual’s to examine their own perceptions of interprofessional practice, teamwork, and collaboration indicating the degree to which they hold specific beliefs, behaviors, and attitudes [33].

The ISVS is a quantitative measure that looks at self-perceived abilities, values, and beliefs related to collaborative and interprofessional practice. The ISVS is a self-administered 24-item questionnaire that assesses three constructs: self-perceived ability to work with others, value in working with others, and comfort in working with others. These three factors accounted for approximately 49% of response variance when principle component analysis was conducted [1]. To date, no other published studies have used the ISVS with professional therapists, and no studies on IPE focus exclusively on OT, PT, RT, and SLP.

In addition to responses on the ISVS, general demographic information was collected and analyzed to identify participants’ background and relevant experiences. Prior to data collection, Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval was obtained from Central Michigan University’s IRB through expedited review.

To conduct data analysis, Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS v. 19) [34] was used to analyze the data. Data review and cleanup was undertaken, and responses were coded. Review of the data resulted in removal of 10 participants; three indicated that their highest level of education was an associate’s degree, and seven indicated that they were currently students. Since this study focused on professional therapists, these individuals did not meet inclusion criteria.

Viewing the data distribution, responses to each of the 24 questions displayed a negatively skewed distribution. Therapists frequently agreed with the statements, most often utilizing responses 5 (fairly great extent), 6 (great extent), and 7 (very great extent). Therefore, use of a parametric test such as MANOVA would calculate invalid results, leading to the selection of the non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis (K-W) for testing. Prior to conducting the K-W, general characteristics of the respondents were analyzed, and reported using frequencies, mean, range, mode and median.

Tests of normality and homogeneity were conducted. When the Kolmogorov-Smirnov (K-S) test was run separating each item by discipline, significance levels ranged from p = 0.000 to p = 0.011; all of which were less than the critical alpha level of p < 0.05, indicating a significant difference from normal distribution [32]. Additionally, the Shapiro-Wilk (S-W) test was also conducted to evaluate distribution, displaying significance levels ranging from p = 0.000 to p = 0.001. These tests confirmed that the data were not normally distributed and therefore, non-parametric tests were appropriate to identify if there are differences betweendisciplines.

Levene’s test was used to test for homogeneity of variance testing the null hypothesis that the variances of the different groups are equal [32]. When Levene’s test was run against each ISVS item, 16 ISVS statements had a p≥0.05 and six had a p≤0.05. This indicated that for the majority of ISVS statements there is homogeneity of variance, supporting the results of the K-S and S-W tests. Since the data were not normally distributed and were negatively skewed, it is difficult to generalize the data outside of the sample used.

5 Results

5.1 Sample

Table 1 displays important characteristics of the sample, including number and percent of the sample for each profession, level of education, and practice setting.

In examining the gender of respondents, 315 (89.7%) were female, 36 (10.3%) were male (n = 351). The gender statistic appears to be slightly different than general health care professionals in the United States where 74.3% are female, which could impact results from this study [35].

In looking at which disciplines were provided at the organization of respondents (n = 353), there were a range of services with some offering all four therapies and others providing only one. In this study, 33.7% (n = 119) of the facilities offered recreational therapy, 79% (n = 279) included speech-language pathology, 81.6% (n = 288) provided physical therapy, 83% (n = 293) offered occupational therapy. This professional exposure and direct experience to other disciplines may impact perception of interprofessional collaboration, teamwork and understanding of roles.

With regard to respondents’ experience with interprofessional education, 68.7% (n = 244) obtained interprofessional experience through professional continuing education; 36.6% (n = 130) participated in IPE during their graduate programs; 34.1% (n = 131) gained experience at the undergraduate level; 15.2% (n = 54) stated that they had no experience with interprofessional education; and 8.7% (n = 8.7%) indicated that they had obtained interprofessional experience through “Other” means.

5.2 Principle component analysis

Further data analysis on the ISVS included principle component analysis. Since the ISVS is a fairly new instrument, principle component analysis was run to ensure that the latent variables measured the intended concepts. The resulting factors, which grouped the items into subcategories, were compared to those reported in King et al. [1] to identify any commonalities between the samples, and to determine the validity of the ISVS.

Principle component analysis allowed the loading of a particular variable on certain factor, grouping responses to create factors for analyzing beliefs, behaviors, and attitudes. This helped identify correlations between variables derived from their relationship to one or more variables [32]. With the identification of underlying factors that are common within the data, one can identify new commonalities among the variables showing the multiple correlations between the extracted factors and the variables used [32]. Additionally, in reviewing the eigenvalues which show the dimensions of the data and how evenly the variances are spread out [32], a scree plot was generated revealing six factors that explained 64.769% of the variance in the variables.

Orthogonal rotation was used for factor rotation allowing the variables to load as much as possible onto one factor allowing the factors to be independent and therefore uncorrelated. Varimax rotation was performed using data from all 387 original respondents to maximize distribution of the loadings throughout the factors, allowing for variable clusters. In evaluating the statistical significance of factor loading, Steven’s criterion of loading being greater than 0.298 was used since the sample was over 300 [32].

Principle component analysis requires 10–15 participants per variable to ensure reliability, meaning 240–360 participants were required to conduct an acceptable analysis on the ISVS [32]. This criterion was met with 376 participants in this study. In addition, Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin’s measure of sampling adequacy (KMO) was calculated as 0.893 indicating the sample size is adequate to perform factor analysis.

Following this step, the correlation matrix was visually reviewed to check for correlation between the variables. Correlations below 0.3 were considered a lack of correlation. Bartlett’s test was run to determine if the correlations were significant and greater than 0.3. Bartlett’s test indicated a significance of 0.000, meaning the correlations between variables were significantly different than zero, thus, showing relationships between variables. Data was also checked for multi-collinearity by searching for variables greater than 0.8; none were found. The calculated determinant was 6.16E-006, or 0.00000616, which is less than the 0.00001 value, further indicating multi-collinearity.

To assess the fit of the model, the reproduced correlations were examined. In looking at the differences between the actual correlations and those based on the model, 82 (29%) are greater than 0.05, indicating a good fit between the model and the actual data.

The Rotated Component Matrix looked at the relationships between factors, revealing six factors. The Component Transformation Matrix indicated some interrelatedness between the constructs measured by the various factors, indicating possible interdependence. However, it was expected that there would be some interdependence as the variables address perceived abilities, values and beliefs regarding interprofessional practice.

ISVS items were reviewed according to the new factors to identify common themes. Following King et al.’s [1] criteria, items were retained: a) where the factor loading was at least 0.30 and b) if a variable loaded on more than one factor and the difference was more than 0.10, it was retained in the highest loaded factor, otherwise it was removed. It was also decided that items that did not correspond with any others would be disregarded. Since factor analysis is aimed at finding common underlying dimensions to variables, several items were removed. The remaining factors, as well as the items within that factor, are displayed in Table 2.

The resulting principle component analysis yielded the same five factors. Principal component analysis included 22 items with Varimax rotation. The KMO measure was 0.892, 0.001 less than the previous analysis. Bartlett’s test of sphericity indicated a significance of < 0.001. Following SPSS factor analysis calculations, comparison was made to King et al.’s [1] principle component analysis to determine validity and reliability of the scale.

To determine scale reliability, Cronbach’s alpha was used and included the variables grouped according to the five factors. Cronbach’s alpha for the factors yielded: 0.877 (Factor 1), 0.863 (Factor 2), 0.762 (Factor 3), 0.802 (Factor 4), and 0.657 (Factor 5), indicating good reliability for Factors 1, 2, and 4, while Factors 3 and 5 had lower reliability.

5.3 Discussion

Comparing therapists’ responses to those of King et al. [1], the principle component analysis resulted in significant differences and limited reliability between the two samples. In this study, five factors were identified with only one factors matching closely to King et al. [1]. Table 2 displays the resulting five factors and the items associated with each of these factors.

Three factors in the King et al. study were retained: self-perceived ability to work with others, value in working with others, and comfort in working with others. Two additional factors were added: self-perception of team responsibility, underscoring the commonality of responsibility and accountability within the group; and valuing of patient-centered care with client and family involvement emphasized.

Since this study yielded five factors versus the original study’s three factors, it was obvious that there were differences between King et al.’s [1] analysis of the ISVS, and that of this researcher. Differences may be attributed to the fact that King et al. [1] used a sample composed mostly of undergraduate students in health and social service professions including students in dietetics, nursing, OT, PT, SLP, social work, medicine, psychology, kinesiology, and other professions; whereas, this study which included professional therapists in the fields of OT, PT, RT, and SLP. The additional factors identified in this study, “Self-Perception of Team Responsibility” and “Valuing of Patient-Centered Care”, may reflect experiences of professionals that students have yet to encounter as a primary component of practice. Additionally, the broader range of disciplines represented in King et al. [1] may have impacted the factors.

Another reason for differences may be that King et al.’s [1] sample contained 124 respondents in Canada. Of these, 53% were students, 46% were students with practice experience, and only 4% were professionals in practice. In contrast, this study contained 376 respondents in Michigan, 100% of whom had practice experience. Students and professionals have different perspectives on their roles and responsibilities. In another study, Bradby [36] found that professional role identity occurs between 6 and 10 months following the start of clinical practice. This could account for differences between the student and professional samples and provides a future research focus identifying varying opinions between these two groups. The fact that the participants in King et al. study were in Canada could also contribute to differences in perception due to variations in health systems. The Canadian health care system is administered by the federal and provincial governments through non-profits health organizations and insured individuals are entitled to a full range of medical and health services [37]. Furthermore, 97% of the population is covered by the country’s universal health care program [37]. The Canadian health care system provides a socialist or collective approach to health care in contrast to the United States’ system which is more individualistic and competitive [38]. Participants’ perspective of the national health system and societal norms could impact their perception of the need for collaboration and what is necessary to achieve interprofessional practice.

Another potential reason for the differences is that King et al.’s [1] respondents completed the ISVS following nine educational workshops focusing on inter-professionalism within the scope of mental health practice. The group had undergone interprofessional training together and the survey was conducted to determine if the interprofessional education had impacted beliefs, behaviors, and attitudes. In contrast, this study examined professional therapists in practice settings ranging from physical rehabilitation to acute care to schools. The study emphasized the individual’s beliefs, behaviors, and attitudes about actual practice, rather than if interprofessional education had changed their perception.

Regardless of the reasons for differences between the study by King et al. and this study, it is apparent that the ISVS can be used with professionals who are active in practice settings. Consideration must be given to the fact that the resulting factors for professionals may align differently than the factors for students who have little to no professional experience.

The validity and reliability of any survey is an important aspect of its usefulness and value as a research tool. Validity refers to whether a tool measures what it is intended to measure [32]. Due to the similarity of some factors in King et al.’s study and this study, the ISVS demonstrated criterion validity in three factors and 18 items. On the other hand, reliability indicates whether a survey is able to produce the same results in the same situations [32]. The reliability of the ISVS could not be determined in this study since different populations were used with differing sample characteristics and conditions.

An interesting finding in this study demonstrated that this sample of therapists did not prefer to work in silos as a result of their professional socialization. Therapists indicated high levels of agreement with the items, reflecting a willingness to collaborate, belief in ability to do so, and comfort in working on a team. Based on the literature review, personal practice experience, and qualitative evidence and feedback from therapists in this study, one would anticipate some type of differences related to these factors. Through this study, the respondents communicated an understanding and appreciation of other therapists’ roles, demonstrating a level of cross-professional competency that was not expected.

This study has led to several recommendations for future study related to the ISVS instrument as well as professional collaboration. First, the ISVS should continue to be researched and used with other groups of healthcare professionals throughout the United States to evaluate its validity and reliability. Due to the differences found with King et al. [1], further research must explore the factors used in this scale. Rewording of statements, particularly items 8 and 24, may be necessary to improve the value of the tool. Additionally, a comparative analysis of students versus professionals with and without IPE intervention would be beneficial to determine the uses of the ISVS. An implication for continuing education is that training can move beyond discussing the benefits and implementation of interprofessional practice, and focus on improving communication, involving clients in decision making, and sharing roles within the team.

There were several limitations to this study. The first being that the Interprofessional Socialization and Valuing Scale (ISVS) has not been extensively used in research to determine its validity and reliability. As indicated within this study, the results of factor analysis concluded a different number of factors between professionals and the students in the original study, thus indicating a potential lack of reliability between groups.

Another limitation of this study was the reliance on respondents to self-report their personal beliefs, behaviors, and actions. Reliance on self-report can yield inconsistent results as individuals may change their mind or have a different understanding depending on the situation and conditions around them. In addition, people have the tendency to report higher scores or more agreement with items than they display in their behavior. Furthermore, visual review of the data demonstrated that the further participants progressed in completion of the ISVS, the more items were missed. This could have resulted from time limitations or interruptions of participants, or due to the loss of interest to the arrangement, appearance, or length of the survey.

The last demographic question asking respondents about their experience with interprofessional education may have contributed to misunderstanding of the question. In hindsight, this question should have asked at what point therapists had their first IPE exposure. Additionally, clearly stated definitions of interprofessional collaboration and education may have provided further clarity and information for reflection, as the study only mentions that the ISVS was designed to help the respondent explore their own perceptions of what they have learned about working with other professionals from other disciplines.

A final limitation to this study was that the sample only reflects a small number of therapists from each discipline from one particular state. Because of this, the sample is not representative of the entire population, and therefore, results cannot be generalized across other groups. Contributing to this is the fact that, Michigan is one of four states that do not allow patients to directly access physical therapy services provided by a Doctor of Physical Therapy (DPT). Physical therapists work under the supervision of a physician, the same as OT, RT and SLP, and therefore, Michigan therapists may have forced opportunities to work together under a physician. Thus, results may not apply to other states.

Delimitations identify how this study was narrowed in scope and focus. One of the obvious delimitations was the limited focus to OTs, PTs, RTs and SLPs, rather than looking at all therapy or health professions. This occurred for time and interest reasons, as well as the practicality of an appropriate sample size.

Another delimitation was the focus on therapists in the state of Michigan. This too was done for practical reasons, including scope, time, and costs. It would be difficult to obtain a large sample and returned responses to make the study statistically significant if a national population and sample had been used. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics [35] indicates that there are 104,500 occupational therapists, 185,500 physical therapists, 23,300 recreational therapists, and 119,300 speech-language pathologists, totaling 432,600 therapists.

Other delimitations included a limited focus in the literature to interprofessional collaboration, teamwork, interprofessional education, and cross professional competency. Additionally, there are extensive numbers of potential co-variants that could affect therapists’ self-perceived value of collaboration that cannot entirely be controlled for or removed to understand individuals’ beliefs, behaviors, and attitudes.

This study has led to several recommendations for future study on the ISVS instrument as well as professional collaboration. First, the ISVS should continue to be researched and used with other groups of healthcare professionals to evaluate its validity and reliability. Due to the differences found with King et al. [1], further research must explore the factors used in this scale. Rewording of statements, particularly items 8 and 24, may be necessary to improve the value of the tool. Additionally, a comparative analysis of students versus professionals with and without IPE intervention would be beneficial to determine uses of the ISVS. An implication for professional continuing education is that training can move beyond discussing the benefits and implementation of interprofessional practice, and focus on improving communication, involving clients in decision making, and sharing roles within the team.

6 Conclusions

This study identified no significant differences between the therapy disciplines of occupational, physical, recreational therapists, and speech-language pathologists regarding their beliefs, behaviors and attitudes about interprofessional collaboration. This may be due to increased interprofessional education exposure in higher education and continuing professional education, the increased need for collaboration and interaction in the provision of services, or increased support by leadership for more efficient and effective service delivery. It is also possible that therapy curricula overlap more than originally believed, creating an opportunity for future study.

Additionally, the study provided further testing of the Interprofessional Socialization and Valuing Scale. This time it was tested with professional therapists working in a variety of practice settings. The ISVS has had limited testing and therefore validity and reliability were undetermined. The factor analysis that resulted from this study displayed five factors and lead to the removal of two ISVS statements that did not correspond with other items. This indicated that the statements and factors originally presented by King et al. [1] are not reliable across different samples. Furthermore, there were discrepancies between the view of health students and therapy professionals on what items compose interprofessional practice.

The study confirmed that therapists from different disciplines value interprofessional collaboration and teamwork. It supported that therapists believe that they can work with other team members, that they value this teamwork, and that they are comfortable in doing so. OTs, PTs, RTs, and SLPs may be more prepared to function in an interprofessional manner than the literature demonstrates.

While there were no significant differences between professionals, differences were found in factors that related to the sample characteristics of age, experience, and practice setting. These differences lead to a finding of significance in these characteristics and the five ISVS factors, meaning that there is a significant difference in factors based on age, years of experience, and practice settings. The differences demonstrated that interprofessional practice and collaboration in different practice settings, as well as support or understanding of age and experience upon teamwork, may impact a therapist’s willingness, comfort, and ability to collaborate with other team members.

This study was also significant in that it is the first of its kind to evaluate therapists’ self-perception of interprofessional collaboration using the ISVS. It expanded the use of the ISVS, showing it is usable with practicing therapists in different settings but that it may yield different factors with other samples.

References

King

, Shaw

, Orchard

, Miller

. The Interprofessional Socialization and Valuing Scale: A tool for evaluating the shift toward collaborative care approaches in health care settings. Work 2010;35:77–85.

World Health Organization [Internet]. [Geneva, Switzerland]: World Health Organization; 2005. Available from: http://www.who.int/chp/knowledge/publications/workforce_report.pdf

Petri

. Concept analysis of interdisciplinary collaboration. Nurs Forum 2010;45(2):73–82.

Banfield

, Lackie

. Performance-based competencies for culturally responsive interprofessional collaborative practice. J Interprof Care 2009;23(6):611–20.

Barr

. Interprofessional education: 1997-2000. Oxford, United Kingdom: Blackwell Publishing; 1998.

Oandasan

, Reeves

. Key elements for interprofessional education – Part Factors, processes and outcomes. J Interprof Care 2005;Supplement 1:39–48.

Pecukonis

, Doyle

, Bliss

. Reducing barriers to interprofessional training: Promoting interprofessional cultural competence. J Interprof Care 2008;22(4):417–28.

Vyt

. Interprofessional and transdisciplinary teamwork in health care. Diabetes-Metab Res. 2008;24(Supplement 1):S106–S109.

Baker

, Egan-Lee

, Athina

, Reeves

. Relationships of power, implications for interprofessional education. J Interprof Care 2011;25:98–104.

10.

Larson

. The impact of physician-nurse interaction on patient care. Holistic Nursing Practitioner 1999;13(2):38–46.

11.

Ryan

. Doctor-nurse relations: A review of the literature. Social Sciences in Health 1996;2(2):93–106.

12.

Ryan

, McKenna

. A comparative study of the attitudes of nursing and medical students to aspects of patient care and the nurse’s role in organizing that care. J Adv Nurs 1994;19:114–23.

13.

Ateah

, Snow

, Wener

, MacDonald

, Metge

, Davis

, et al. Stereotyping as a barrier to collaboration: Does interprofessional education make a difference? Nurse Educ Today 2011;31:208–13.

14.

Barr

, Koppel

, Reeves

, Hammick

, Freeth

. Effective interprofessional education: Argument, assumption & evidence. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing; 2005.

15.

D’Amour

, Oandasan

. Interprofessionality as the field of interprofessional practice and interprofessional education: An emerging concept. J Interprof Care 2005;Suppl 1:8–20.

16.

Hall

. Interprofessional teamwork: Professional cultures as barriers. J Interprof Care 2005;Suppl 1:188–96.

17.

Sargeant

. Theories to aid understanding and implementation of interprofessional education. J Cont Educ Health Prof 2009;29(3):178–84.

18.

Whelan

, Thomas

, Cooper

, Hilton

, Jones

, Newton

, et al. Interprofessional education in undergraduate healthcare programmes: The reaction of student dietitians. J Hum Nutr Diet 2005;18:461–66.

19.

Margalit

, Thompson

, Visovsky

, Geske

, Collier

, Birk

, et al. From professional silos to interprofessional education: Campuswide focus on quality of care. Manage Health Care 2009;18(3):165–73.

20.

Purden

. Cultural considerations in interprofessional education and practice. J Interprof Care 2005;Suppl 1:224–34.

21.

Heinemann

, Schmitt

, Farrell

, Brallier

. Development of an attitudes toward health care teams scale. Eval Health Prof 1999;22(1):123–42.

22.

Wellmon

, Gilin

, Knauss

, Linn

. Changes in student attitudes toward interprofessional learning and collaboration arising from a case-based educational experience. J Allied Health 2012;41(1):26–34.

23.

Luecht

, Madsen

, Taugher

, Petterson

. Assessing professional perceptions: Design and validation of an Interdisciplinary Education Perception Scale. J Allied Health 1990;19(2):181–91.

24.

Parsell

, Bligh

. The development of a questionnaire to assess the readiness of health care students for interprofessional learning (RIPLS). Med Educ 1999;33:95–100.

25.

McFadyen

, Webster

, Maclaren

. The test-retest reliability of a revised version of the readiness for interprofessional learning scale (RIPLS). J Interprof Care 2006;20(6):633–39.

26.

McFadyen

, Webster

, Strachan

, Figgins

, Brown

, McKechnie

. The readiness for interprofessional learning scale: A possible more stable sub-scale model for the original version of RIPLS. J Interprof Care 2005;19(6):595–603.

27.

Zucchero

, Hooker

, Harland

, Larkin

, Tunningley

. Maximizing the impact of a symposium to facilitate change in student attitudes about interdisciplinary teamwork. Clinl Gerontol 2011;34:399–411.

28.

Makino

, Shinozaki

, Hayashi

, Lee

, Matsui

, Kururi

, et al. Attitudes towards interprofessional healthcare teams: A comparison between undergraduate students and alumni. J Interprof Care 2013;27:261–68.

29.

Jacobsen

, Lindqvist

. A two-week stay in an Interprofessional Training Unit changes students’ attitudes to health professions. J Interprof Care 2009;23(3):242–50.

30.

Lindqvist

, Duncan

, Shepstone

, Watts

, Pearce

. Development of the ‘Attitudes to Health Professionals Questionnaire’ (AHPQ): A measure to assess interprofessional attitudes. J Interprof Care 2005;19(3):269–79.

31.

Cooper

, Schindler

. Business research methods. 10th ed. Boston: McGraw-Hill/Irwin; 2008.

32.

Field

. Discovering statistics using SPSS. 3rd ed. Los Angeles: Sage Publishers; 2009.

33.

Forchuk

, Vingilis

. Creating interprofessional collaborative teams for comprehensive mental health services [Internet]. [London, Ontario]: Health Canada; 2008 June. Available from: http://www.ipe.uwo.ca/Administration/poster/CIPHER%20Final%20Report%20June%202008.pdf.

34.

IBM. IBM SPSS Statistics Base 19. United States of America: SPSS, Inc; 2010.

35.

U.S. Department of Labor – Bureau of Labor Statistics. Occupational Employment Statistics: May 2010 state occupational employment and wage estimates Michigan [Internet]. [Washington DC]: U.S. Depart of Labor; 2011. Available from: http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_mi.htm#29-0000.

36.

Bradby

. Status passage into nursing: Another view of the process of socialization into nursing. J Adv Nurs 1990;15:1220–5.

37.

Duncan

, Morris

, McCarey

. Canada. In: Johnson

, Stoskpf

. Comparative health systems: Global perspectives. Boston: Jones and Bartlett Publishers; 2010, p. 59–82.

38.

Shi

, Singh

, Tsai

. The changing U.S. health system. In: Johnson

, Stoskpf

. Comparative health systems: Global perspectives. Boston: Jones and Bartlett Publishers; 2010, p.367–86.