Team Evaluation and Assessment Measure (TEAM)

Submitted by National Center... on Sep 6, 2016 - 11:12am CDT

Instrument

Authors:

Taylor, C.

Brown, K

Lamb, B.

Harris, J

Sevdalis, N

Green, J.S.A.

Overview:

This tool was designed to collect individuals' perceptions of multidisciplinary teamwork (MDT) performance in cancer care teams during meetings. Specifically, perceptions of the team, infrastructure for team meetings, meeting organization and administration, patient-centered clinical decision making, and clinical governance are measured in a 47-item self-report survey. The content is based on recommendations from a large-scale survey about effectiveness in MDT in the UK. A validation study was conducted via online surveys emailed to 637 team members representing 23 teams; findings supported the internal structure and the validity of the domain content. The results are meant to be used foster team development and performance.

Link to Resources

Resource links:

Taylor, C., Brown, K., Lamb, B., Harris, J., Sevdalis, N., & Green, J. S. A. (2012). Developing and testing TEAM (team evaluation and assessment measure), a self-assessment tool to improve cancer multidisciplinary teamwork. Annals of Surgical Oncology, 19, 4019-4027

Descriptive Elements

Who is Being Assessed or Evaluated?:

Teams

Organizations

Instrument Type:

Self-report (e.g., survey, questionnaire, self-rating)

Source of Data:

Health care providers, staff

Notes for Data Sources:

Tool is meant for medical, nursing, and clerical multidisciplinary team members in the cancer specialty, but no cancer-specific information is part of the instrument. It could be adapted for any MDT.

Instrument Content:

Reported perceptions, experiences of working relationships, teamwork

Notes for Content:

The scale is composed of 5 domains with 17 subdomains:

The Team
1. Membership
2. Attendance
3. Leadership & Chairing
4. Teamwork & Culture
5. Personal development & Training
Infrastructure for meetings
1. Physical environment of venue
2. Technology & Equipment
Organization and administration for meetings
1. Scheduling of MDT meetings
2. Preparation prior to MDT meetings
3. Organization/administration during MDT meetings
4. Post-MDT meeting coordination of service
Patient-centered clinical decision making
1. Who to discuss?
2. Patient-centered care
3. Clinical decision-making process
Team governance
1. Organizational support
2. Data collection, analysis, & audit of outcomes
3. Clinical governance

There are also five questions target at assessing general perceptions of effectiveness, and two free-response questions targeted at identifying strengths and weaknesses of the team.

Instrument Length:

47 Likert-type items plus two free-response questions; 17 minutes on average.

Item Format:

47 5-point Likert-type questions ranging from completely disagree (1) to completely agree (5) with an additional option for I don’t know; 2 free-response questions.

Administration:

An online survey was emailed to 637 team members representing 23 teams.

Scoring:

Average ratings for each subdomain were calculated.

Language:

English

Norms:

None described.

Access:

Copyrighted (needs permission of author)

Notes on Access:

Publication rights for TEAM are held by the National Cancer Action Team (NCAT). Sample items are provided in the article.

Psychometric Elements: Evidence of Validity

Content:

The item content is informed by the results of a national survey completed by over 2000 cancer multidisciplinary team members (MDTs) on effectiveness in MDTs.

Response Process:

Fifty-two percent of team members responded to the survey. Of those, 77% completed the entire survey. Follow-up interviews were conducted with 74 representing all professional groups. The majority of team members had a positive reaction.

Internal Structure:

Of the 10 domains that contain more than one item, all domains had an internal consistency reliability (i.e., alpha) of greater than or equal to 0.52. The Leadership & Chairing and Teamwork & Culture domains had the highest alpha reliability (0.76 and 0.81, respectively). The majority of items had weak inter-correlations (r < .20), which is evidence that items measure discrete aspects of teamwork.

Relation to Other Variables:

A questionnaire was developed targeting the 5 domains using the recommendation from the national survey. The TEAM domain sores had moderate to strong correlations with the targeted domain questionnaire (r > 0.67, p < .01).

Consequential:

None described.

Assessment & Evaluation

Team Evaluation and Assessment Measure (TEAM)

Related Resources

User Collections

Start the Conversation