Students Perceptions of Interprofessional Clinical Education Revised (SPICE-R)

Joseph Zorek's picture
Submitted by Joseph Zorek on Nov 30, 2016 - 6:04pm CST

Instrument
Authors: 
Dominquez, D.G.
Fike, D.S.
MacLaughlin, E. J.
Zorek, J.A.
Overview: 

The SPICE-R is a short (10-item) self-report survey designed to measure health professions students' perceptions of interprofessional education and interprofessional collaborative practice.  It represents a variation of an earlier instrument (SPICE-1), which was developed specifically for medical and pharmacy students. Items reflect a 3-factor model capturing interprofessional teamwork and team-based practice; roles and responsibilities for collaborative practice; and patient outcomes from collaborative practice.  In the study reported here, SPICE-R is compared with a revised version of the Attitudes Towards Health Care Teams Scale (ATHCT-R, Hyer et al, 2000) in terms of reliability and construct validity.  Both instruments were administered simulataneously to the same student population.  Results of confirmatory factor analyses suggested that SPICE-R was a stronger instrument in terms of goodness-of-fit and average variance explained.

Link to Resources
Resource links: 

Dominquez, D.G., Fike, D.S., MacLaughlin, E.J., & Zorek, J.A.  (2015).  A comparison of the validity of two instruments assessing health professional student perceptions of interprofessional education and practice.  J Interprof Care, 29(2): 144-149.

Attachment: 
PDF icon SPICE-R2 Instrument FINAL.pdf
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 student sample consisted of 221 health professions students seeking undergraduate or graduate degrees in their first year of training at a single institution.  Professions represented in the sample included nursing, optometry, pharmacy, physical therapy, and health administration.

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

The underlying model for the instrument contains three factors:

  • Interprofessional teamwork and team-based practice (n = 6 items)
  • Roles/responsibilities for collaborative practice (n = 2 items)
  • Patient outcomes of collaborative practice (n = 2 items)
Instrument Length: 

10 items.  In the study, a separate tool collected demographic data.

Item Format: 
5-point Likert scales: 1 = "strongly disagree," 5 = "strongly agree."
Administration: 
Three tools were administered online currently to 277 students in September; a demographic survey, the 21-item ATHCT-R, and the 10-item SPICE-R.
Scoring: 
No information provided.
Language: 
English
Norms: 
No information provided.
Access: 
Open access (available on this website)
Notes on Access: 

Contact the senior author, Joseph Zorek (zorek@uthscsa.edu), to confirm permission to use and to obtain additional information regarding administration.

Psychometric Elements: Evidence of Validity
Content: 
SPICE-R was developed on the same underlying model of SPICE-1. For purposes of broadening the items to a more general population of health professions students (rather than just medical and pharmacy students), the authors revised item wording and adopted a new name.
Response Process: 
The response rate to the survey was 221/277 (80%).
Internal Structure: 
The comparative fit index of the 3-factor SPICE-R model was excellent (0.946). Eighty percent of the items (8 of 10) showed squared regression weights above the desired 0.60 level, and half were above 0.70. The overall reliability was very good (Cronbach's alpha = 0.86). Factor reliability estimates of the SPICE-R were calculated, and results were acceptable to good for two of the three: Teamwork = 0.82; Roles/responsibilities = 0.53; and Patient outcomes = 0.78.
Relation to Other Variables: 
The two instruments were compared in terms of their individual psychometric findings, that is, their respective estimates of reliability and construct validity. Their data were not merged; neither was the relationship between the two instruments' data sets analyzed quantitatively.
Consequential: 
No information available.
Vote
17
  • 14,329
    Views
  • Likes
  • 0
    Collections
  • 0
    Comments
Related Resources
User Collections