Collaborative Practice Assessment Tool (CPAT)

National Center for Interprofessional Practice and Education's picture
Submitted by National Center... on Oct 12, 2016 - 10:09am CDT

Instrument
Authors: 
Schroder, C.
Medves, J.
Paterson, M.
Byrnes, V.
Chapman, C.
O'Riordan, A.
Pichora, D.
Kelly, C.
Overview: 

The CPA is a 56-item self-report tool completed by team members.  It was developed as part of several grant-funded projects in Canada under the leadership of the Office of Interprofessional Education and Practice at Queen's University, which maintains a useful website on the tool.  The instrument assesses collaborative practice among care giving team members, patients and clients.  The goal is to foster self-reflection on team strengths and limitations, and to guide education efforts.  In the study described here, the instrument was pilot-tested with two samples involving broadly diverse professions.  Results suggested high internal consistency reliability and excellent model fit for seven factors reflecting collaborative practice.   The instrument has been translated into multiple languages.

Link to Resources
Descriptive Elements
Who is Being Assessed or Evaluated?: 
Teams
Instrument Type: 
Self-report (e.g., survey, questionnaire, self-rating)
Source of Data: 
Health care providers, staff
Notes for Data Sources: 

In the study, the CPAT was first pilot tested with n=42 individuals from a palliative care team, a geriatric assessment team, and two family practice teams based in southeastern Ontario.  Members represented administration, medicine, nursing, nutrition, occupational and physical therapy, social work, spiritual care, and volunteer services. In a second pilot test, n=111 individuals from six health care units from different clinical practice settings completed the survey.  Of this sample (which included 20 different professions), the largest group of respondents was registered nurses.

Instrument Content: 
Reported perceptions, experiences of working relationships, teamwork
Notes for Content: 

After confirmatory factor analysis, the items fit best around seven factors:

  1. Mission, meaningful purpose, goals
  2. General relationships
  3. Team leadership
  4. General role responsibilities, autonomy
  5. Communication and information exchange
  6. Community linkages and coordination of care
  7. Decision-making and conflict management
  8. Patient involvement
Instrument Length: 

56 close-ended items and 3 open-ended items.

Item Format: 
Close-ended items are mostly positively worded statements to which respondents answer using 7-point scales, from "strongly disagree" to "strongly agree."
Administration: 
Not discussed in the article, presumably paper and pencil or online.
Scoring: 
Authors state in the article that the purpose of the instrument was for internal, formative feedback to the team and items did not need to be scored. A scoring guide developed later (see Queen's University website) suggests averaging the items within each domain, after reverse scoring questions 20, 23, 35, 48, 49, and 50.
Language: 
English, French, Taiwanese, Japanese
Norms: 
None.
Access: 
Subscription (can be viewed in journal article)
Notes on Access: 

The journal article shows the eight factors, but the complete instrument is open access and can be viewed from this link:  http:// meds.queensu.ca/oipep/assets/CPAT_Statistical_Analysis.pdf.  Contact the author to confirm permission to use.

 

Psychometric Elements: Evidence of Validity
Content: 
A total of n=57 items were developed after reviewing pertinent literature, collecting "expert opinion" and discussions within the project team. Nine content domains proposed for the test were mapped against collaborative practice and teamwork attributes found in existing instruments developed by Baggs (1994); Way, et al., (2000); Millward & Jeffries, 2001; Temkin-Greener, et al., (2004); Lemieux & Jeffries, (2001); and Sutter, et al. (2009).
Response Process: 
During the first pilot test, after completing the CPAT items, respondents completed 10 addition questions concerning the clarity of statements, time and effort to complete, clarity of instructions, item content, adequacy of scale, and relevance to their practice setting. Modifications, deletions, and additions were made as a result of this feedback, and also based on results from the exploratory factor analysis (see below). The most significant additions were 5 new items that measure the level of patient involvement in the team's practice.
Internal Structure: 
Results of the exploratory factor analysis for the original 57 items found support for 7 domains (factors), each with an eigenvalue of around 3.0, which collectively explained roughly 50% of the variance. Cronbach's alpha estimates were were adequate to very good (between 0.70 and 0.90) for the 7 factors. The confirmatory factor analysis for the revised 56 item instrument reported good results for the Normed Fit Index and the Comparative Fit Index, based on 8 factors. Cronbach's alpha estimates were adequate to good for each factor (0.67 - 0.89). It was unclear what proportion of score variance was accounted for by these 8 factors; nor were their Eigenvalues reported.
Relation to Other Variables: 
None.
Consequential: 
None.
1