Interdisciplinary Team Process and Performance Survey (ITPPS)

National Center for Interprofessional Practice and Education's picture
Submitted by National Center... on Oct 21, 2016 - 10:23am CDT

Instrument
Authors: 
Temkin-Greener, H.
Gross, D.,
Kunitz, S.J.
Mukamel, D.
Overview: 

The ITPPS was designed to assess interdisciplinary team process and performance in long-term care settings, particularly those of the Program of All-Inclusive Care for the Elderly (PACE). Specifically, the tool measures team processes (i.e., leadership, communication, coordination, and conflict management) and team outcomes (i.e., team cohesion and perceived unit effectiveness) in a 59-item self-report instrument. The results are meant to identify weaknesses in team processes that can be improved. A validation study of 1220 healthcare professionals and paraprofessionals demonstrated good internal reliability. Furthermore, all four team process measures predicted both team outcomes after controlling for working conditions and perceived resources and staffing. 

Link to Resources
Resource links: 

Temkin-Greener, H., Gross, D., Kunitz, S. J., & Mukamel, D. (2004). Measuring interdisciplinary team performance in a long-term care setting. Medical Care, 42(5), 472-481.

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: 

Team members of Program of All-Inclusive Care for the Elderly (PACE) programs were surveyed.

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

The scale measures four team processes and two team outcomes:

Team processes:

  1. Leadership
  2. Communication
  3. Coordination
  4. Conflict management

Team outcomes:

  1. Team cohesion
  2. Perceived unit effectiveness

Demographic and work experience questions were also included.

Instrument Length: 

59 items; 30 minutes

Item Format: 
5-point likert-type scale ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5)
Administration: 
Participants were distributed a letter from the program administrator regarding participation and the survey. Surveys were returned via mail.
Scoring: 
The average of the non-missing responses in each domain is taken to score the individual members. The average of individual members is taken to score the team as a whole.
Language: 
English
Norms: 
None described.
Access: 
Copyrighted (needs permission of author)
Notes on Access: 

Sample items are available in the article; a complete copy of the survey is available by request from the author.

Psychometric Elements: Evidence of Validity
Content: 
The content was based on a model of performance in nurse–physician interdisciplinary intensive care teams. Items were mainly taken from a tool for intensive care units and modified for use with long-term care teams. The items in the tool were reviewed by 12 experts for content validity, which resulted in revisions to the scale.
Response Process: 
The tool was reviewed by a specialist in education and English as a second language to ensure a 5th grade reading level. The response rate was 65%.
Internal Structure: 
The internal reliability was good (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.76-0.89).
Relation to Other Variables: 
All four team processes (i.e., leadership, communication, coordination, and conflict management) were significantly related (p < 0.05) to both team outcomes (i.e., team cohesion and perceived unit effectiveness) after controlling for workplace conditions and perceived level of resources and staffing. Perceived unit effectiveness is significantly positively related (p < 0.05) to age, years of professional work experience, diverseness of ethnic composition, resource availability, age of program, and ethnic concordance between the participants and population. Perceived unit effectiveness is significantly negatively (p < 0.05) related to years of work experience within PACE.
Consequential: 
None described.
Vote
21
  • 6,479
    Views
  • Likes
  • 0
    Collections
  • 0
    Comments
Related Resources
User Collections