Undergraduate Students’ Perceptions of and Attitudes Toward a Simulation-Based Interprofessional Curriculum
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Existing attitude scales on interprofessional education (IPE) focus on students' attitudes toward the concepts of teamwork and opportunities for IPE but fail to examine student perceptions of the learning modality that also plays an important role in the teaching and learning process. The purpose of this present study was to test the psychometric characteristics of the KidSIM Attitude Towards Teamwork in Training Undergoing Designed Educational Simulation (ATTITUDES) questionnaire developed to measure student perceptions of and attitudes toward IPE, teamwork, and simulation as a learning modality. METHODS: A total of 196 medical, nursing, and respiratory therapy students received a 3-hour IPE curriculum module that focused on 2 simulation-based team training scenarios in emergency and intensive care unit settings. Each multiprofessional group of students completed the 30-item ATTITUDES questionnaire before participating in the IPE curriculum and the same questionnaire again as a posttest on completion of the high-fidelity simulation, team-based learning sessions. RESULTS: The internal reliability of the ATTITUDES questionnaire was α = 0.95. The factor analysis supports a 5-factor solution accounting for 61.6% of the variance: communication (8 items), relevance of IPE (7 items), relevance of simulation (5 items), roles and responsibilities (6 items), and situation awareness (4 items). Aggregated and profession-specific analysis of students' responses using paired sample t tests showed significant differences from the pretest to the posttest for all questionnaire items and subscale measures (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The KidSIM ATTITUDES questionnaire provides a reliable and construct valid measure of student perceptions of and attitudes toward IPE, teamwork, and simulation as a learning modality.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".