Who is Being Assessed or Evaluated?:
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.
Notes for Content:
6 dimensions are rated:
- Roles and responsibilities
- Collaborative patient-family centered approach
- Conflict management/resolution
- Team functioning
31 competency statement items; the typical time requirement was not specified.
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.
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 procedures were not described.
Open access (available on this website)
Notes on Access:
Contact author to confirm permission to use.