The Interprofessional Socialization and Valuing Scale: A tool for evaluating the shift toward collaborative care approaches in health care settings
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is a need for tools by which to evaluate the beliefs, behaviors, and attitudes that underlie interprofessional socialization and collaborative practice in health care settings. METHOD: This paper introduces the Interprofessional Socialization and Valuing Scale (ISVS), a 24-item self-report measure based on concepts in the interprofessional literature concerning shifts in beliefs, behaviors, and attitudes that underlie interprofessional socialization. The ISVS was designed to measure the degree to which transformative learning takes place, as evidenced by changed assumptions and worldviews, enhanced knowledge and skills concerning interprofessional collaborative teamwork, and shifts in values and identities. The scales of the ISVS were determined using principal components analysis. RESULTS: The principal components analysis revealed three scales accounting for approximately 49% of the variance in responses: (a) Self-Perceived Ability to Work with Others, (b) Value in Working with Others, and (c) Comfort in Working with Others. These empirically derived scales showed good fit with the conceptual basis of the measure. CONCLUSION: The ISVS provides insight into the abilities, values, and beliefs underlying socio-cultural aspects of collaborative and authentic interprofessional care in the workplace, and can be used to evaluate the impact of interprofessional education efforts, in house team training, and workshops.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it