Interprofessional Socialization and Valuing Scale (ISVS-21)

Connie C Schmitz's picture
Submitted by Connie C Schmitz on Dec 2, 2016 - 3:19pm CST

Instrument
Authors: 
King, G.
Orchard, C.
Khalili, H.
Avery, L.
Overview: 

The ISVS-21 represents a refinement of a previous tool (ISVS-24, King et al., 2010); both are self-report instruments designed to measure interprofessional socialization among students and health practitioners and their readiness to function in interprofessional teams.  Items were developed to capture respondent beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors at baseline and at post-intervention time periods.  The original ISVS has been used in multiple studies.  The purpose of the study reported here was to refine the instrument and to create two shorter equivalent forms.  Analyses from a large sample of students and practitioners (n = 695) found that a previous 3-factor model drawing on a pool of 34 items did not fit well with the data.  A unidimensional version with 21 items, however, produced strong reliability estimates and demonstrated excellent agreement across respondent groups, and excellent equivalence between two short (9-item) forms.  Results suggest the tool can be used with both student and practitioner groups, and the equivalent forms can be used for pre-post testing.

Link to Resources
Resource links: 

King, G., Orchard, C., Khalili, H., & Avery, L.  (2016).  Refinement of the Interprofessional Socialization and Valuing Scale (ISVS-21) and development of 9-item equivalent versions.  JCEHP, 36(3):171-177.

King, G., Shaw, L., Orchard, C.A & Miller, S.  (2010).  The Interprofessional Socialization and Valuing Scale; A tool for evaluating the shift toward collaborative care approaches in health care settings.  Work, 35:77-85.

The tool can be accessed through Flintbox: http://www.flintbox.com/public/project/30273/

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

The practitioner group (n=354) consisted of 8 separate respondent samples from Ontario, Canada.  Eleven disciplines were presented in the group, the largest of which were nurses (27.4%), followed by laboratory technicians (26%), personal support workers (8.9%), recreation therapists (5.5%), physicians (5.5%), and physical therapists (4.8%).  The student group (n=341) consisted of 4 separate respondent samples, all from a university setting.  Nine different disciplines were represented, the largest of which were physicians (23.5%), followed by physical therapists (12%), occupational therapists (11.4%), clinical psychologists (9.7%), speech language pathologists (8.2%), and audiologists (6.7%).

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

The item pool consisted of 34 statements reflecting three constructs:

  1. Beliefs (e.g., adopting team member identity, understanding of collaborative roles and responsibilities, and the importance of a collaborative team approach)
  2. Attitudes (e.g., awareness of preconceived ideas, valuing the collaborative team approach)
  3. Behaviors (e.g., comfort in articulating own role, clarifying misconceptions about roles, confidence in displaying collaborative behaviors)

Subscales for the short, 9-item forms reflected three key concepts of IP practice:

  1. Roles (beliefs)
  2. Client-centeredness (attitudes)
  3. Conflict/negotiation (behaviors)

 

 

Instrument Length: 

21 items (long form); 9-items (short form).

Item Format: 
Positively worded statements regarding the extent to which a respondent holds certain beliefs, attitudes, or feels able to demonstrate certain behaviors. About half the items are worded in the past tense to reflect change from an educational intervention (e.g., "I have gained an enhanced perception of myself as someone who engages in interprofessional practice." All items are scored via a 7-point Likert-type scale: 7 = "To a very great extent," 1 = "Not at all" or NA.
Administration: 
The instrument was administered via online or on paper. Data were collected over a 4-year period (2010-2014). Surveys were administered to all samples before they took part in a 2-week IPE workshop structured around the Canadian Interprofessional Health Collaborative (CIHC) Interprofessional Competency Framework. Thus, all data were baseline data.
Scoring: 
For the long version, item scores (0-7) are added together and divided by 21 to obtain an overall total score. For the short version, item scores (0-7) are added together and divided by 9 to obtain an overall total score.
Language: 
English
Norms: 
No information available.
Access: 
Copyrighted (needs permission of author)
Notes on Access: 

The authors request users access the tool via the Flintbox repository so they can manage permissions and track usage.  As shown above, the URL is: http://www.flintbox.com/public/project/30273/

Psychometric Elements: Evidence of Validity
Content: 
The original 34-item questionnaire (which led to the ISVS-24) reflected constructs from the interprofessional socialization and teamwork literature (see King, 2010).
Response Process: 
No information.
Internal Structure: 
Advanced measurement techniques (e.g., graded response modeling, based in item response theory) were used to examine the dimensionality of the data sets, assess measure invariability (concordance) between practitioner and student responses, and ascertain equivalence between the two 9-item short forms. The practitioner data set was used for model fitting and the student data set was used for validation; both data sets were combined for the final model fitting. The 21-item ISVS had a Cronbach alpha of 0.988. Agreement between practitioner and student data was exceptionally high: 0.999. The two 9-item forms were highly correlated with student and practitioner data (ICC = 0.970). In total, 11 items from the previous ISVS-24 form were eliminated, and 8 new items from the ISVS-34 were added.
Relation to Other Variables: 
Not addressed in this study.
Consequential: 
Not addressed in this study.
Vote
22
  • 15,439
    Views
  • Likes
  • 0
    Collections
  • 0
    Comments
Related Resources
User Collections