Interprofessional Attitudes Scale (IPAS)

National Center for Interprofessional Practice and Education's picture
Submitted by National Center... on Sep 6, 2016 - 11:12am CDT

Instrument
Authors: 
Norris, J.
Carpenter, M. J. G.
Eaton, M. J.
Guo, J. W.
Lassche, M. M.
Pett, M. A.
Blumenthal, D. K.
Overview: 

This tool was designed to capture healthcare students' self-reported attitudes and beliefs about interprofessional education and interprofessional collaborative practice.  Items were based on an existing tool (the Readiness for Interprofessional Learning, or RIPLS), and the four domains of the 2011 IPEC Core Competencies for Interprofessional Collaborative Practice. Specifically, the 27-item tool measures individual students' agreement with statements regarding teamwork roles and responsibilities; patient centered care; interprofessional biases; diversity and ethics; and community centeredness.  The validity study demonstrated good factor structure and  internal consistency.  Results can be used to allow educators to establish baseline attitudes toward IPE, compare attitudes among different groups, tailor IPE experiences to specific groups, and evaluate / develop optimal IPE programs. 

Link to Resources
Descriptive Elements
Who is Being Assessed or Evaluated?: 
Individuals
Instrument Type: 
Self-report (e.g., survey, questionnaire, self-rating)
Notes for Type: 

This is a self-assessment tool designed for pre-licensure students.

Source of Data: 
Health care trainees
Notes for Data Sources: 

701 students from four schools within the University of Utah Health Sciences Center (Colleges of Health, Medicine, Nursing, and Pharmacy).

Instrument Content: 
Attitudes, values, beliefs regarding IPE, IPCP, professions
Notes for Content: 

The tool measures 5 subscales:

  1. Teamwork roles and responsibilities
  2. Patient centeredness
  3. Interprofessional biases
  4. Diversity and ethics
  5. Community centeredness.
Instrument Length: 

27 items; 10 minutes or less.

Item Format: 
27 item 5-point agreement scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree.
Administration: 
Students were sent an email containing a link to an online form and given three weeks to complete the survey
Scoring: 
Authors imply the use of averages across sub-scale items as scores. No specific scoring instructions are provided.
Language: 
English
Norms: 
None described.
Access: 
Open access (available on this website)
Notes on Access: 

Contact author to confirm access.

Psychometric Elements: Evidence of Validity
Content: 
Four UUHSC students from different disciplines assessed the survey for content coverage and clarity.
Response Process: 
The response rate was moderate (i.e., 701 of 1,549 or 45.3%).
Internal Structure: 
Internal consistency reliability for the sub-scales were good (i.e., Cronbach alpha = 0.62 to 0.92). Exploratory factor analysis revealed that items loaded sufficiently (i.e., loading greater than 0.30) on only one of five factors (i.e., did not cross-load). Confirmatory factor analysis supported the sub-scale structure, Goodness of Fit Index (GFI) = 0.86 and Root Mean Squared Error of Approximation (RMSEA) = 0.90.
Relation to Other Variables: 
None described.
Consequential: 
None described.
12