Interprofessional Collaborator Assessment Rubric (ICAR)

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

Instrument
Authors: 
Curran, V.
Hollett, A.
Casimiro, L.M.
Mccarthy, P.
Banfield, V.
Hall, P.
Lackie, K.
Oandasan, I.
Simmons, B.
Wagner, S.
Overview: 

The ICAR is a competency-based assessment rubric designed for health and social care students and providers.  Specifically, the tool measures communication, collaboration, roles and responsibilities, a collaborative patient-family-centered approach to care, conflict management/resolution, and team functioning.  Observers rate individuals on 31 IPCP competency statements.  As a formative assessment, ICAR provides learners with constructive feedback on competency areas for further development.  As a summative assessment, ICAR may be used to assess learners’ achievement.  A validity study focusing only on the content of the tool reported high importance for all dimensions.

Link to Resources
Descriptive Elements
Who is Being Assessed or Evaluated?: 
Individuals
Instrument Type: 
Observer-based (e.g., rubric, rating tool, 360 degree feedback)
Notes for Type: 

The authors propose that this tool could be used on site (in situ). 

Source of Data: 
Health care trainees
Health care providers, staff
Notes for Data Sources: 

The authors suggest that the tool can be used by faculty instructors, for summative or formative evaluation, and/or students, for self- or peer-evaluation.

Instrument Content: 
Behaviors / skills
Notes for Content: 

6 dimensions are rated:

  1. Communication
  2. Collaboration
  3. Roles and responsibilities
  4. Collaborative patient-family centered approach
  5. Conflict management/resolution
  6. Team functioning

 

Instrument Length: 

31 competency statement items; the typical time requirement was not specified.

Item Format: 
31 item 4-point scale (minimal, developing, competent, and mastery) each of which include behavioral descriptors. There is also a "not observable" option and a comment field for raters to provide concrete behavioral examples.
Administration: 
The tool was not actually administered to any sample in the original Curran study, which focused on development and content validity for the dimensions used in the tool. In the Hayward study, the ICAR was administered to 16 post-graduate medical students during a 4-week hospital rotation. In order to provide multi-source feedback, three rater groups were employed: physicians, nurses, and allied health care providers. Individual trainees had to be evaluated multiple times, and were blinded as to when they would be assessed. Students also had to have received at least 6 completed assessments from at least two of the three rater groups in order to be included in the analysis.
Scoring: 
Scoring procedures were not described.
Language: 
English, French
Norms: 
None described.
Access: 
Open access (available on this website)
Notes on Access: 

Contact author to confirm permission to use.

Psychometric Elements: Evidence of Validity
Content: 
Rubric dimensions are based on interprofessional collaborator competency statements that were developed and validated through a typological analysis of national and international competency frameworks. A Delphi survey of 21 experts in IPE and IPCP from Medicine, Nursing, and Rehabilitation Sciences rated the content as important. Finally, 12 interprofessional focus groups were held with students and faculty, who reviewed the ICAR for structure, language, utility, fairness, and missing components. Revisions to the ICAR were made to address the focus group reviews.
Response Process: 
None described.
Internal Structure: 
None described.
Relation to Other Variables: 
None described.
Consequential: 
None described.
12