Premium
Constructing a Communication Scale to Measure the Effectiveness of Interprofessional Communication
Author(s) -
Selvakumaran Kohilan,
Selvakumaran Kaesavan,
Norman Geoffrey,
Palombella Andrew,
Rockarts Jasmine,
Wainman Bruce
Publication year - 2019
Publication title -
the faseb journal
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.709
H-Index - 277
eISSN - 1530-6860
pISSN - 0892-6638
DOI - 10.1096/fasebj.2019.33.1_supplement.439.4
Subject(s) - scale (ratio) , context (archaeology) , health care , focus group , psychology , rating scale , pearson product moment correlation coefficient , medical education , reliability (semiconductor) , medicine , statistics , mathematics , developmental psychology , paleontology , power (physics) , physics , business , quantum mechanics , marketing , economics , biology , economic growth
In our modern healthcare, healthcare teams are becoming increasingly multidisplinary which brings upon the need for them to be effective in order to have better patient outcomes. Communication failures can occur in interprofessional healthcare teams which leads to negative health outcomes. In order to evaluate communication in interprofessional groups, a communication scale is needed. Aim Given that there is currently no validated communication scale for interprofessional groups, the study's goal was to create and validate a communication scale in the context of an interprofessional based dissection course. Methods Observations of the 34 students in the dissection study (N = 34) were conducted for the first 3 classes. With the use of these observations and prior qualitative analysis of focus group interviews from the course, a communication scale was constructed. The question items were then vetted by coordinators of the dissection course and research experts which led to the communication scale being shortened from 54 questions to 28 questions. The communication scale was used by each student in the class to assess themselves and two of their peers in their group resulting in 3 scores altogether. This procedure was repeated one week later to evaluate the reliability of the scale. Results There is a 0.331 Pearson's Correlation between peer rater 1 and the self‐rater, a 0.139 Pearson's Correlation between peer rater 2 and the self‐rater and a 0.279 Pearson's Correlation between peer rater 1 and 2. These results indicate a significant difference between self and peer rating, and only a moderate correlation between any two of the three raters. Also, the large standard deviation associated with each of the 3 scores is indicative of large variability of scores around the mean total score. Discussion and Conclusion Overall, it is clear from the results that the constructed communication scale is not sufficiently reliable. Therefore, the next steps of the study is to improve reliability of the scale. This is by performing factor analysis to see whether question items can be decreased and grouped together to create subscales. Then, the subscales will be tested to see whether they are effective in measuring changes in communication skills of interprofessional groups over the duration of the course. Student feedback on the communication scale will also be used to improve on the effectiveness and reliability of the scale. Support or Funding Information N/A This abstract is from the Experimental Biology 2019 Meeting. There is no full text article associated with this abstract published in The FASEB Journal .