Assessment for
Interprofessional Learning
Lap Ki Chan
School of Biomedical Sciences
Bau Institute of Medical and Health Sciences Education
Li Ka Shing Faculty of Medicine
The University of Hong Kong
“When students from two or more professions learn
about, from and with each other to enable effective
collaboration and improve health outcomes.” (WHO,
2010)
Interprofessional education
Patients
improves care by increasing the
coordination of services
integrates health care for a wide range of health
needs
empowers patients as active partners in care
results in better patient outcomes
Providers
increases job satisfaction due to
clearer, more consistent goals of care
and improved communication with
other providers
enables the provider to learn new skills and
approaches to care and to work to full scope of
practice
provides an environment for
innovation
allows providers to focus on individual areas of expertise
Students
provides a better understanding of other professions
provides learning on how to communicate
with other professionals and
how to work as part of an
interprofessional team
Health Systems
increases the potential for a more efficient and cost-effective delivery
of care
maximizes resources and
facilities
decreases burden on acute care facilities
3
Canadian Interprofessional Health Collaborative. 2010. CIHC National Interprofessional Competency Framework. Accessed at http://www.cihc.ca/
Benefits of collaborative practice
UK
Interprofessional Capability Framework
Canada
National Interprofessional Competency Framework
USA
Core Competencies for Interprofessional
Collaborative Practice
Australia
Interprofessional Capability Framework
Frameworks
Key thematic areas (Rogers et al., 2016)
Role understanding
Interprofessional communication
Interprofessional values
Coordination and collaborative decision making
Reflexivity
Teamwork
Pedagogies
Small group discussion 48 57.8
Patient case analysis 40 48.2
Large group lecture 31 36.1
Clinical teaching/direct patient interaction 29 34.9
Reflective exercises 29 34.0
Intervention reported as offered for credit 24 28.9
Simulation 22 26.5
Community-based projects 14 16.9
E-learning 13 15.7
Shadowing 12 14.5
Written assignments 11 13.3
Workshops 9 10.8
Other (e.g. interviews, joint lab sessions
and patient/family visits) 13 15.7
Number Percent
Abu-Rish et al. 2012 Current trends in interprofessional education of health sciences students A literature review. Current trends in interprofessional education of health sciences students: A literature review, Journal of Interprofessional Care, 26:6, 444-451
Scheduling 39 47.0
Learner level compatability 15 18.1
Preparation time required 12 14.5
Funding 10 12.0
Outcomes measurement 7 8.4
Negative interdisciplinary interactions 7 8.4
Administrative support 6 7.2
Faculty not prepared for role 4 4.8
Barriers Number Percent
Abu-Rish et al. 2012 Current trends in interprofessional education of health sciences students A literature review. Current trends in interprofessional education of health sciences students: A literature review, Journal of Interprofessional Care, 26:6, 444-451
Large number of students
-Chinese medicine 24
-medical 235
-nursing 190
-pharmacy 25
-social work 46
-total = 520
Other barriers at HKU
Interprofessional
Team-Based Learning
(IPTBL)
Our solutions
IPTBL = IPE + TBL
IPTBL: 11 programmes
HKU HKU Chinese Medicine
HKU Medicine
HKU Nursing
HKU Pharmacy
HKU Social Work
PolyU Medical Laboratory Science
Nursing
Occupational Therapy
Physiotherapy
Radiography
Social work
Total number of students per year: 1060
Six instructional units (IUs)
Six clinical issues:
1. Anticoagulation Therapy
2. Depression
3. Fracture
4. Multiple Drugs and Complementary Therapies
5. Developmental Delay
6. Cancer
Number of students in each IU
HK
U C
hin
ese
me
dic
ine
HK
U m
ed
icin
e
HK
U n
urs
ing
HK
U p
ha
rma
cy
HK
U s
ocia
l wo
rk
Po
lyU
me
dic
al l
ab
ora
tory
scie
nce
Po
lyU
nu
rsin
g
Po
lyU
occu
pa
tion
al t
he
rap
y
Po
lyU
ph
ysio
the
rap
y
Po
lyU
Rad
iog
rap
hy
Po
lyU
so
cia
l wo
rk
To
tal
1. Anticoagulation therapy 10 100 106 31 247
2. Depression 19 103 107 31 11 15 24 310
3. Fracture 13 100 31 90 15 102 83 12 448
4. Multiple Drugs and Complementary Therapies 103 213 31 346
5. Developmental Delay 100 11 90 201
6. Cancer 16 103 31 11 41 240 100 541
Small interprofessional Team
IU Fracture
Number of students 448
Team size 5-7
No. of teams 75
Team composition:
Chin Med, Pharmacy, or Soc Work 1
MBBS 1
Nursing 1
Occupational Therapy 1
Physiotherapy 1
Radiography 1
Learning outcomes
-recognize the need to work collaboratively -collaborate with students in other professions -compare roles, responsibilities, expertise, and limitations -recognize that views held by other health care workers are
equally valid and important -recognize the stereotypical views of other health workers held
by themselves and others -communicate opinions to other professionals and listen
respectfully to others’ opinions -critically reflect on their relationships within a team
Pre-Class Study
-on approaches of different health professions to a clinical problem
Team Application Exercise
-clinical scenarios
-multiple-choice questions tackled in teams
-within-team discussion and across-team debate
Ph
ase
1
Ph
ase
2
Ph
ase
3
Individual Readiness Assurance Test (iRAT)
-multiple-choice questions tackled individually
Team Readiness Assurance Test (tRAT)
-same multiple-choice questions tackled in teams
Team Appeals
Feedback
Team-based learning (TBL)
Implementation of the
IPTBL programme of
HKU+PolyU
Venue: 2016 Cheung Kung Hai Lecture Theatres 2-4
Venue: 2017 Lee Shau Kee Lecture Center
-large, flat open area (capacity >500)
-movable chairs
-good wifi support
e-Platform: LAMS LAMS: Learning Activities Management System
-teacher’s view: real time progress of students
e-Platform: LAMS
Individual readiness assurance test
Application
Exercises
Feedback
iRAT
tRAT
Appeal
Team formation
Team selection
Application
Exercises
Feedback
iRAT
tRAT
Appeal
Team formation
Team leader selection
Application
Exercises
Feedback
iRAT
tRAT
Appeal
Team formation
Ice-breaking game for students (demo by facilitators)
Interprofessional team of teachers
Team readiness assurance test Without teacher’s intervention
Team readiness assurance test
Application
Exercises
Feedback
iRAT
tRAT
Appeal
Team formation
Team readiness assurance test
Application
Exercises
Feedback
iRAT
tRAT
Appeal
Team formation
Team readiness assurance test
Application
Exercises
Feedback
iRAT
tRAT
Appeal
Team formation
Team readiness assurance test
Application
Exercises
Feedback
iRAT
tRAT
Appeal
Team formation
Team readiness assurance test
Application
Exercises
Feedback
iRAT
tRAT
Appeal
Team formation
Appeal
Application
Exercises
Feedback
iRAT
tRAT
Appeal
Team formation
Application exercise
Application
Exercises
Feedback
iRAT
tRAT
Appeal
Team formation
Application exercise
Application
Exercises
Feedback
iRAT
tRAT
Appeal
Team formation
Simultaneous reporting
Application exercise
Interteam discussion facilitated by content experts
Application exercise
Evaluation of IPTBL
Self-perceived attainment of learning outcomes
Learning outcomes
Scores
Mean Standard Deviation
• Collaborate with students in other professions in
solving clinical problems. 3.88 .74
• Compare roles, responsibilities, and limitations of
different health professions 3.80 .76
• Communicate opinions to other professionals
and listen respectfully to others’ opinions. 3.92 .70
• Critically review personal skills to enhance
relationship within a team. 3.85 .74
• Recognize the need to work collaboratively in the
best interest of patient. 3.90 .73
• Recognize the stereotypical views of other
health workers held by themselves and others. 3.76 .80
• Recognize that views held by other health care
workers are equally valid and important. 3.92 .72
Grand mean 3.86 0.74
Readiness for Interprofessional Learning Scale
(RIPLS) 1 2 3 4 5
1. Learning with other students will help me become a more effective member of a health care team.
1 2 3 4 5
2. Patients would ultimately benefit if health-care students worked together to
solve patient problems. 1 2 3 4 5
3. Shared learning with other health-care students will increase my ability to
understand clinical problems. 1 2 3 4 5
4. Learning with health-care students before qualification would improve
relationships after qualification. 1 2 3 4 5
5. Communication skills should be learned with other health-care students. 1 2 3 4 5
6. Shared learning will help me to think positively about other professionals. 1 2 3 4 5
7. For small group learning to work, students need to trust and respect each
other. 1 2 3 4 5
8. Team-working skills are essential for all health care students to learn. 1 2 3 4 5
9. Shared learning will help me to understand my own limitations. 1 2 3 4 5
10. I don’t want to waste my time learning with other health-care students. 1 2 3 4 5
11. It is not necessary for undergraduate health-care students to learn together. 1 2 3 4 5
12. Clinical problem-solving skills can only be learned with students from my own department.
1 2 3 4 5
13. Shared learning with other health-care students will help me to communicate
better with patients and other professionals. 1 2 3 4 5
14. I would welcome the opportunity to work on small-group projects with other
health-care students. 1 2 3 4 5
15. Shared learning will help to clarify the nature of patient problems 1 2 3 4 5
16. Shared learning before qualification will help me become a better team
worker. 1 2 3 4 5
17. The function of nurses and therapists is mainly to provide support for
doctors. 1 2 3 4 5
18. I’m not sure what my professional role will be. 1 2 3 4 5
19. I have to acquire much more knowledge and skills than other health-care students.
1 2 3 4 5
RIPLS subscales Pre Post N df t
M SD M SD • Teamwork and collaboration 4.00 .56 4.09 .59 721 720 -4.406***
• Negative professional identity 2.77 1.15 2.70 1.18 727 726 3.279***
• Positive professional identity 3.87 .63 3.95 .63 728 727 -3.566***
• Roles and responsibilities 3.11 .90 3.18 .89 729 728 -2.948**
Readiness for Interprofessional Learning Scale
(RIPLS)
Assessment in IPTBL
IPE Assessment (Rogers et al., 2016)
Conventional assessment of health professions literacy
Team-based project
Observation in simulation
Observation in practice
Reflective journaling
Team-based critique
An interprofessional portfolio
Self and peer assessment
Rogers et al. 2016 International consensus statement on the assessment of interprofessional learning outcomes. Medical Teacher. DOI: 10.1080/0142159X.2017.1270441
Assessment in IPTBL - iRAT - tRAT - AE - Peer assessment
iRAT vs. tRAT scores
iRAT
tRAT iRAT
tRAT
iRAT
tRAT
-tRAT > iRAT average of team members, consistently
-the interprofessional teams members are collaborating
Rubric:
Values/Ethics competency: The student: recognizes that views held by other
healthcare professionals are equally valid and important in taking care of
patients; respects the unique cultures, values, roles/responsibilities and
expertise of other professions
Roles/Responsibilities competency: The student: recognizes his or her
roles, responsibilities, and limitations in the team; engages diverse
professionals who complement one’s own professional expertise.
Communication competency: The student: expresses one's knowledge and
opinions to team members; listens respectfully.
Team and teamwork competency: The student: collaborates with students in
other professions; manages disagreement constructively.
Peer assessment
Peer assessment
46
Names of OTHER students
Give 10 points in total to other team members. No maximum or minimum.
47
Names of OTHER students
Example:
Peer assessment
2 1 1
1 3 2
48
Names of OTHER students
Example:
Peer assessment
2 1 1
1 3 2
Give another 10 points to team members for the other competency.
2
1 1
1
3
2
49
Peer assessment
A student’s score page (adjusted to team of six):
Student performance -mean score always close to 2
-does NOT indicate average performance
Mean score of all students (all disciplines) in the 4 competencies; IU Depression
1.9795 1.9787 1.9799 1.9789
0.0000
0.5000
1.0000
1.5000
2.0000
2.5000
Values/ethics Competency Roles/responsibilities
Competency
Communication Competency Team and Teamwork
Competency
Total Score(n=284)
Student performance
12
0
53
119
79
4 1
11
0 2
0 3
12
0
54
116
83
4
0
10
0 2
0 3
13
0
44
112
93
5
0
14
0 0 0 3
12
1
48
114
88
5
0
13
0 0 0 3
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
0.00-0.50 0.51-1.00 1.01-1.50 1.51-2.00 2.01-2.50 2.51-3.00 3.01-3.50 3.51-4.00 4.01-4.50 4.51-5.00 5.01-5.50 5.51-6.00
Values/ethics Roles/responsibilities Communication Team and teamwork
Score distribution of all students (all disciplines) in the 4 competencies; IU Depression
Within-team scoring 19
0
6
9
3 3
5
17
3
7
4
5
4
5
18
5
4
5 5
3
5
17
3
6 6
3
2
8
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
0 0.1001 - 0.20 0.2001 - 0.30 0.3001 - 0.40 0.4001 - 0.50 0.5001 - 0.60 >0.06
Values/ethics Roles/responsibilities Communication Team and teamwork
Distribution of within-team variance of all teams in the 4 competencies; IU Depression
1.8
0
2.2
2
2.1
6
1.4
5
1.8
5
1.7
2
1.8
1
2.2
1
2.1
6
1.4
5
1.8
3
1.9
0
1.8
0
2.2
1
2.1
9
1.3
7
1.8
9
1.7
8
1.7
6
2.2
6
2.1
6
1.4
3
1.8
5
1.6
7
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
MBBS (n=94) Nursing(n=104)
Pharmacy(n=31)
Chinese Med(n=15)
Social work(n=32)
OccupationalTherapy (n=8)
Values/ethics Competency Values/ethics Competency
Values/ethics Competency Values/ethics Competency
Discipline performance
Discipline mean score in the 4 competencies; IU Depression
Pharmacy
Occupational therapy
Social Work
Chinese
Medicine
MBBS
Nursing
Discipline performance
Comparison of how students of one discipline assess students of other disciplines;
IU Depression
Pharmacy
Occupational therapy
Social Work
Chinese
Medicine
MBBS
Nursing
*** p < 0.001
** 0.001 < p < 0.05
Discipline performance
Advantages of peer
assessment in IPTBL -Done efficiently
-Provide early feedback
-Perceived as feedback rather than punishment
-Make learning outcomes very clear to students
-Encourage student involvement and responsibility
-Promote reflection of their own performance
-Relevant to teamwork
-Promote cooperation rather than competition
-Considered to be fair by students
Disadvantages of peer
assessment in IPTBL
-Collaborative assessment may occur
-No direct observations by educators
-Risk of low reliability of score
-Students not confident or reluctant to assess others
-Victimization
-Friend/foe bias
-Additional briefing time
Conclusions
-IPTBL is a practical implementation of IPE for a large number
of pre-licensure health and social care students
-Peer assessment in IPTBL offers early and relevant feedback
to students, but richness of the data is still being explored
Acknowledgement: -UGC
-HKU Technology Enhanced Learning Initiative
IPTBL promotional video produced by HKU Technology-enriched Learning initiative, TELI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G04YWHjNfxU
IPTBL promotional video produced by HKU Technology-enriched Learning initiative, TELI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G04YWHjNfxU
Issues Does one profession consistently assess another profession
better or worse?
LOs remain ill-defined
Rogers et al. 2016 International consensus statement on the assessment of interprofessional learning outcomes. Medical Teacher. DOI: 10.1080/0142159X.2017.1270441
Perceived Collective Efficacy Scale
Pre Post N df t
M SD M SD • Collective team efficacy 3.85 .60 3.97 .61 720 719 -5.698***
Student reflection: log book
Student reflection: log book
Student reflection: log book
Scheduling
Learner level compatability
Preparation time required
Funding
Outcomes measurement
Negative interdisciplinary interactions
Administrative support
Faculty not prepared for role
Professional identity
Large number of students
Barriers and solutions Saturdays
Senior years
1.5 years
UGC >5M HKD
Validated instrument
Role models
With UGC funding
Dedicated faculty members
Senior years
TBL
http://radiopaedia.org/cases/femoral-neck-fracture
-teacher’s view: real time progress of students
IPTBL e-Platform: LAMS
Pharmacy
Occupational therapy
Social Work
Chinese
Medicine
MBBS
Nursing
Score: comparison of disciplines
Peer assessment -anonymous
Student 2
Student 5
Student 4
Student 3
Student 6
Student 1
Pharmacy
Occupational therapy
Social Work
Chinese
Medicine
MBBS
Nursing
Discipline performance
-iRAT vs. tRAT scores
-self reporting of attainment of learning outcomes
-pre-post survey using RIPLS
-student reflections
-peer assessment
Multiple sources
Chin Med, Pharmacy, or Social Work 1
MBBS 1-2
Nursing 2-3
Occupational Therapy 1
Team size 5-7
No. of teams 87
Number of students 520
Interprofessional Education Collaborative
Competency 1: Values/Ethics for Interprofessional Practice
Competency 2: Roles/Responsibilities
Competency 3: Interprofessional Communication
Competency 4: Teams and Teamwork
Core competencies
Core competencies
Competency 1: Values/Ethics for Interprofessional Practice
Work with individuals of other professions to maintain a climate of mutual
respect and shared values.
Competency 2: Roles/Responsibilities
Use the knowledge of one’s own role and those of other professions to
appropriately assess and address the health care needs of patients and to
promote and advance the health of populations.
Competency 3: Interprofessional Communication
Communicate with patients, families, communities, and professionals in
health and other fields in a responsive and responsible manner that
supports a team approach to the promotion and maintenance of health and
the prevention and treatment of disease.
Competency 4: Teams and Teamwork
Apply relationship-building values and the principles of team dynamics to
perform effectively in different team roles to plan, deliver, and evaluate patient
population centered care and population health programs and policies that are
safe, timely, efficient, effective, and equitable.
Interprofessional Education Collaborative
Competency 1: Values/Ethics for Interprofessional Practice
Work with individuals of other professions to maintain a climate of mutual
respect and shared values.
Competency 2: Roles/Responsibilities
Use the knowledge of one’s own role and those of other professions to
appropriately assess and address the health care needs of patients and to
promote and advance the health of populations.
Competency 3: Interprofessional Communication
Communicate with patients, families, communities, and professionals in
health and other fields in a responsive and responsible manner that
supports a team approach to the promotion and maintenance of health and
the prevention and treatment of disease.
Competency 4: Teams and Teamwork
Apply relationship-building values and the principles of team dynamics to
perform effectively in different team roles to plan, deliver, and evaluate patient
population centered care and population health programs and policies that are
safe, timely, efficient, effective, and equitable.
Abu-Rish 2012 Current trends in interprofessional education of health sciences students A literature review
Paper 339
LAMS 170 (26)
Paper 170
LAMS 312 (46)
LAMS 340
(340)
509 students 482 students 340 students
Anticoagulation Multiple Drugs and Complimentary
therapies
Developmental Delay
Paper vs LAMS
Further development -autosubmission in iRAT, tRAT, AE -interface enhancement (remove multiple horzontal lines in appeal page; hide MCQs without appeals in the appeal page; remove the (a), (b), (c), and (d) in AE MCQ, etc)
-real time statistics (e.g., tRAT, AE answers of all teams)
-iRAT at home -purchase of server
https://www.pinterest.com/pin/104075441362130408/
- Using appropriate language when speaking to other healthcare providers or patients/family
- Understanding that all healthcare providers contribute to the team or collaborative unit
- Showing respect and building trust among team members
- Introducing new members of the team in a way that is welcoming and gives them the information they need in order to be a contributing member
- Turning to colleagues for answers
- Supporting each other when mistakes are made, and celebrating together when success is achieved.
Benefits of collaborative Practice
Canadian Interprofessional Health Collaboration, 2010
Developmental delay Coffee, tea, chocolate were very welcomed
Students’ achievement in interprofessional
team-based learning: A cross-discipline comparison involving
biomedical sciences, Chinese medicine, medicine, nursing, pharmacy, and social work students in Hong Kong
Fred Ganotice Lap Ki Chan
too many words of the same size, the essence did not stand out, now better
Add affiliations
12 participating programmes
HKU HKU Biomedical Sciences HKU Chinese Medicine HKU Medicine HKU Nursing HKU Pharmacy HKU Social Work PolyU
Medical Laboratory Science Nursing Occupational Therapy Physiotherapy Radiography Social work
Maybe we should include here the programmes that took part in 2016, i.e. 7, not all 12 Depends on how you are describing our programme
Objectives 1.Examine if there are significant iRAT and tRAT score differences
in three instructional units: anticoagulation therapy, multiple drugs and complementary therapies, and developmental delay;
2.Identify if there are significant differences in pretest and posttest scores of the disciplines involved along the following affective dimensions:
a. teamwork and collaboration; b. negative professional identity; c. positive professional identity; d. roles and responsibilities; e. overall satisfaction with team experience; f. team impact on quality of learning; g. team impact on critical reasoning ability; h. professional development; and i. collective efficacy?
Too many words, need to simplify, see next page
Objectives 1.Differences between iRAT and tRAT? 2.Differences among disciplines in pretest and posttest: a. teamwork and collaboration; b. negative professional identity; c. positive professional identity; d. roles and responsibilities; e. overall satisfaction with team experience; f. team impact on quality of learning; g. team impact on critical reasoning ability; h. professional development; and i. collective efficacy?
Too many words, need to simplify
Design - Pretest-posttest single group design - Self-report measures were administered before and after
Participants
- 802 students from HKU and PolyU - average age was 21.32 years old (SD = 1.30) - second year (n=222 or 27.68%), third year (n=94 or 11.72%),
and fourth year (n=486 or 60.59%). - from seven health and social care programmes of The Hong
Kong University (HKU) and The Polytechnic University of Hong Kong (PolyU)
Measures -Cognitive measures: Readiness Assurance Test (10 multiple-choice questions) Application Exercise (5 MCQs for the face-to-face application exercise,
-Affective measures: Readiness for interprofessional learning scale (RIPLS, Parsell & Bligh, 1999), students’ team experience questionnaire (TEQ, as cited by Currey et al., 2015), and generalized self-efficacy questionnaire (GSEA, Schwarzer, 1999).
Each bullet point has too many words, see next page
Measures -Cognitive measures:
RAT (10 MCQs) AE (5 MCQs)
-Affective measures: Readiness for interprofessional learning scale (RIPLS) Students’ team experience questionnaire (TEQ) Generalized self-efficacy questionnaire (GSEA)
You orally elaborate them
Measures Readiness for Interprofessional Learning Scale: Subscales
HKU Teamwork and collaboration (9 items) Negative professional identity (3 items) Positive professional identity (4 items) Roles and responsibilities (3 items)
Students’ team experience questionnaire: Subscales Overall satisfaction with team experience (5 items) Team impact on quality of learning (3 questions) Team impact on clinical reasoning ability (3 items) Professional development (4 items)
Perceived Collective Efficacy Scale Collective efficacy (4 items)
Statistical Analyses -Paired t-test -Analysis of variance (ANOVA)
Results and Discussion
iRAT, tRAT, and Application Exercise scores
74.58
92.27
81.84
0
10
20
30
4050
60
70
8090
100
Anticoagulationtherapy (n=466)
Multiple drugs andcomplementary
therapies (n=357)
Developmental delay(n=167)
Teams’ average score in tRAT
45.70
73.80
55.60
0.00
10.00
20.00
30.00
40.0050.00
60.00
70.00
80.0090.00
100.00
Anticoagulationtherapy (n=466)
Multiple drugs andcomplementary
therapies (n=357)
Developmental delay(n=167)
Students' average score in iRAT
55.6
69.6 76.2
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Anticoagulation therapy(n=466)
Multiple drugs andcomplementary therapies
(n=357)
Developmental delay(n=167)
Teams' average score in AE
Differences between tRAT and averaged iRAT scores
Instructional Units tRAT iRAT
df t M SD M SD
1. Anticoagulation
therapy (n=464) 74.82 9.61 45.64 7.19 463 74.856***
2. Multiple drugs and
complementary
therapies (n=359)
92.39 6.86 73.15 12.90 358 28.547***
3. Developmental
delay (n=167) 82.06 8.48 55.81 6.78 166 33.285***
Total (n=990) 82.42 11.64 57.33 15.74 989 69.224***
*** p < 0.001 iRAT and tRAT should swap position (being on the left indicates earlier in time)
Mean comparisons of students’ scores on Readiness for Interprofessional Learning Scale (RIPLS)
RIPLS subscales Pretest Posttest
N df t M SD M SD
1. Teamwork and
collaboration 3.89 .52 4.02 .56 676 675 7.687***
2. Negative professional
identity 2.33 .79 2.27 .86 691 690 -2.178**
3. Positive professional
identity 3.74 .57 3.87 .60 692 691 6.409***
4. Roles and
responsibilities 2.24 .50 3.31 .51 695 694 3.503***
** p <0.01, *** p < 0.001
Comparisons of pretest-posttest difference in RIPLS subscales by discipline
RIPLS subscales
Pretest-posttest
difference df F
M SD 1. Teamwork and collaboration
1. Biomedical Sciences (n=10) -.0667 .34
(5, 670) .895
2. Chinese Medicine (n=13) .2308 .43
3. MBBS (n=185) .1069 .51
4. Nursing (n=412) .1459 .42
5. Pharmacy (n=21) .1746 .35
6. Social Work (n=35) .0730 .34
2. Negative professional identity
1. Biomedical Sciences (n=10) -.2000 .83
(5, 685) 1.643
2. Chinese Medicine (n=13) -.2308 .49
3. MBBS (n=187) -.0553 .63
4. Nursing (n=412) -.0705 .64
5. Pharmacy (n=21) .0000 .66
6. Social Work (n=39) .2051 .67
Comparisons of pretest-posttest difference in RIPLS subscales by discipline
RIPLS subscales
Pretest-
posttest
difference df F
M SD 3. Positive professional identity
1. Biomedical Sciences (n=10) -.0500 .52
(5, 686) .273
2. Chinese Medicine (n=13) .1346 .33
3. MBBS (n=189) .1402 .61
4. Nursing (n=422) .1262 .51
5. Pharmacy (n=21) .1667 .50
6. Social Work (n=37) .1486 .41
4. Roles and responsibilities
1. Biomedical Sciences (n=10) .0167 .34
(5, 689) .275
2. Chinese Medicine (n=13) .0128 .26
3. MBBS (n=189) .0476 .28
4. Nursing (n=424) .0346 .26
5. Pharmacy (n=21) .0714 .23
6. Social Work (n=38) .0132 .33
Comparison of posttest-pretest differences in RIPLS by discipline
-0.07
0.23
0.11
0.15
0.17
0.07
-0.20
-0.23
-0.06
-0.07
0.00
0.21
-0.05
0.13
0.14
0.13
0.17
0.15
0.02
0.01
0.05
0.03
0.07
0.01
-0.30 -0.20 -0.10 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30
Biomedical Sciences (n=10)
Chinese Medicine (n=14)
MBBS (n=212)
Nursing (n=443)
Pharmacy (n=22)
Social Work (n=39)
Roles and responsibilities Positive professional identity
Negative professional identity Teamwork and collaboration
Why is this “posttest-pretest” while the earlier ones are “pretest-posttest”?
Mean comparison of students’ scores in their Attitudes towards various aspects of team learning
Subscales Pretest Posttest
N df t M SD M SD
1. Overall satisfaction
with team experience 3.66 .53 3.88 .57 683 682 10.307***
2. Team impact on
quality of learning 3.45 .63 3.75 .66 682 681 11.836***
3. Team impact on
clinical reasoning
ability
3.64 .57 3.85 .63 686 685 9.061***
4. Professional
development 3.69 .53 3.84 .60 685 684 7.152***
*** p < 0.001
Comparisons of pretest-posttest difference in Attitudes towards various aspects of team learning
* p <0.05
Subscales
Pretest-posttest
difference df F
M SD 1. Overall satisfaction with team experience
1. Biomedical Sciences (n=10) -.1000 .50
(5, 677) 1.410
2. Chinese Medicine (n=13) .4923 .63
3. MBBS (n=183) .2142 .65
4. Nursing (n=417) .2187 .48
5. Pharmacy (n=21) .1619 .45
6. Social Work (n=39) .1897 .56
2. Team impact on quality of learning
1. Biomedical Sciences (n=10) .0667 .96
(5, 676) 2.623*
2. Chinese Medicine (n=13) .4359 .53
3. MBBS (n=184) .3442 .80
4. Nursing (n=418) .2735 .57
5. Pharmacy (n=21) .6667a .64
6. Social Work (n=36) .1111b .54
Comparisons of pretest-posttest difference in Attitudes towards various aspects of team learning
* p <0.05
Subscales
Pretest-posttest
difference df F
M SD 3. Team impact on clinical reasoning ability
1. Biomedical Sciences (n=10) .0333 .32
(5, 680) .543
2. Chinese Medicine (n=13) .4359 .51
3. MBBS (n=185) .1964 .75
4. Nursing (n=420) .2175 .53
5. Pharmacy (n=21) .2222 .66
6. Social Work (n=37) .2342 .52
4. Professional development
1. Biomedical Sciences (n=10) -.4500a .67
(5, 679) 2.793*
2. Chinese Medicine (n=13) .2500b .47
3. MBBS (n=185) .1595b .65
4. Nursing (n=419) .1730b .51
5. Pharmacy (n=21) .1310 .62
6. Social Work (n=37) .0473 .46
Comparison of posttest-pretest differences in Attitudes towards various aspects of team learning by discipline
-0.6000 -0.4000 -0.2000 0.0000 0.2000 0.4000 0.6000 0.8000
Biomedical Sciences (n=10)
Chinese Medicine (n=13)
MBBS (n=183)
Nursing (n=417)
Pharmacy (n=21)
Social Work (n=39)
-0.1000
0.4923
0.2142
0.2187
0.1619
0.1897
0.0667
0.4359
0.3442
0.2735
0.6667
0.1111
0.0333
0.4359
0.1964
0.2175
0.2222
0.2342
-0.4500
0.2500
0.1595
0.1730
0.1310
0.0473
Professional Development Team impact on clinical reasoning ability
Team impact on quality of learning Overall satisfaction with team experience
* *
Why is this pink bar of pharmacy so much longer?
Why is this “posttest-pretest” while the earlier ones are “pretest-posttest”?
Perceived Collective Efficacy Scale
Pretest Posttest N df t
M SD M SD
Collective team efficacy 3.65 .54 3.88 .58 681 680 10.433***
*** p < 0.001
Comparison of pretest-posttest differences in collective team efficacy by discipline
0
0.3654
0.2296
0.2236
0.1786
0.2703
0 0.2 0.4
Biomedical Sciences (n=9)
Chinese Medicine (n=13)
MBBS (n=184)
Nursing (n=417)
Pharmacy (n=21)
Social Work (n=37)
Conclusions -IPTBL yielded positive results in cognitive outcomes among
various disciplines; -Similarly, IPTBL has positive impacts on affective outcomes of student learning across students from various disciplines;
-Similar pattern of results was indicated among various disciplines except for Biomedical Sciences.
Simplify the points, see next
Conclusions -positive results in cognitive outcomes -positive impacts on affective outcomes -Similar among disciplines except Biomedical Sciences
What about Chinese medicine
What is the difference between “results” and “impact”