Student Perceptions of Physician-Pharmacist Interprofessional Clinical Education (SPICE-2)

Joseph Zorek's picture
Submitted by Joseph Zorek on Oct 20, 2016 - 2:08pm CDT

Instrument
Authors: 
Zorek, J.A.
Fike, D.S.
Eickhoff, J.C.
Engle, J.A.
MacLaughlin, E.J.
Dominguez, D.G.
Seibert, C.S.
Overview: 

The SPICE instrument was designed to measure medical and pharmacy students’ perceptions of interprofessional education experiences in experiential education settings. Specifically, the tool measures interprofessional teamwork and team-based practice, roles/responsibilities for collaborative practice, and patient outcomes from collaborative practice in a 10-item self-report questionnaire. The results of the tool are meant to promote a consistent IPE experience across multiple institutions through evaluating students’ attitudes toward IPE.  This second version of SPICE was developed to overcome certain limitations of the original.  The validation study of 1,708 medical and pharmacy students in several institutions demonstrated good factor structure and internal reliability. 

Link to Resources
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
Notes for Data Sources: 

The tool is intended for use with medical and pharmacy students in their second or third year.

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

The tool contains items pertaining to three factors:

  1. Interprofessional teamwork and team-based practice
  2. Roles/responsibilities for collaborative practice
  3. Patient outcomes from collaborative practice
Instrument Length: 

10-items; no time length specified

Item Format: 
5-point likert-type scale ranging from Strongly Agree (5) to Strongly Disagree (1)
Administration: 
Contacts within each school of medicine or pharmacy were consulted to determine the best time to distribute paper forms. Forms were distributed after a mandatory meeting or lecture to second and third year students. Forms with incomplete data were discarded.
Scoring: 
Items can be averaged across the full form or within factor. No specific scoring instructions are provided.
Language: 
English
Norms: 
None described.
Access: 
Subscription (can be viewed in journal article)
Notes on Access: 

This instrument was developed for and validated with medical and pharmacy students.  Contact the author (Joseph Zorek) for a copy of the tool, and for more information on a parallel tool the team has developed, called "SPICE Revised 2" (SPICE-R2), which is appropriate for a broad range of health professions students.

Psychometric Elements: Evidence of Validity
Content: 
Version 2 of the SPICE instrument is based on 10 items from the original tool (see Fike et al., 2013) and 4 pilot items. The 10 original items were adopted from existing tools or developed by the authors, and then validated via expert faculty review and confirmatory factor analysis. The four pilot items were generated from (a) cognitive interviews of 14 pharmacy and medical students as they reviewed the original SPICE instrument's items and underlying model, and from (b) concepts aligned with the Institute of Healthcare Improvement's Triple Aim Initiative.
Response Process: 
Once the pilot items were generated, the authors administered the original 10 SPICE items and the 4 pilot items (14 items total) to 2,977 students at 5 institutions. A total of 1,708 students responded (57%).
Internal Structure: 
Exploratory factors analysis was conducted on 1,708 responses. A three-factor model based on 10 items emerged, generally supporting the underlying model. Three of the original 10 items were removed (2 from the Teamwork factor, 1 from the Patient outcomes factor), and only 3 of the 4 pilot items were added (2 to the Patient outcomes factor, 1 to the Roles/responsibilities factor). The composition of each factor was altered from Version 1 to Version 2: Teamwork was reduced from 6 items to 4 items, Roles/responsibilities was increased from 2 items to 3 items, and Patient outcomes was increased from 2 items to 3 items. Factor-specific reliability estimates for the three factors were: Teamwork = 0.85; Roles/responsibilities = 0.68; and Patient outcomes = 0.74. The overall internal reliability (Cronbach's alpha = 0.79) was good. Factor intercorrelations were all positive and non-redundant (i.e., below 0.85).
Relation to Other Variables: 
None described.
Consequential: 
None described.
1