Measuring Behaviour as Outcome of Interprofessional Interventions: A Review of a Recent Tool Inventory.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: This article discusses a recently developed inventory of questionnaires by a former working group of the Canadian Interprofessional Health Collaborative (CIHC) to promote interprofessional (IP) intervention (education and practice) and program evaluation. The classification of questionnaires into six outcome levels revealed an unusually large number focusing on behavioural outcomes. Behavioural outcomes are key measures for evaluating IP interventions, and we decided to further explore the design of questionnaires in this inventory.Methods and Findings: The data presented in this article are based on a systematic search and review of questionnaires published in peer-reviewed journals between 2000 and 2010 that evaluate outcomes related to interprofessional education and collaborative practice. The review was used to construct an inventory that placed questionnaires into six outcome levels: attitudes; knowledge, skills, and abilities; collaborative behaviour of providers at the workplace; collaboration as part of organizational practice; patient satisfaction with collaboration, and provider satisfaction with collaboration. We took a closer look at the subgroup of measures on collaborative behaviour of providers (Level 3 Outcome). We found that the questionnaires included in Level 3 measure a range of competencies. The wording of the subscale items was at times difficult to interpret. While some statements can be clearly attributed to measuring behaviour, others could be seen as measuring some sort of attitudes, beliefs, or knowledge. Since subscale items tended to be a combination of indicators, it was difficult to attribute questionnaires to one particular level.Conclusions: Designing questionnaires for evaluating outcomes from IP interventions is a challenge, especially when behavioural competencies are of interest. We would welcome more attention paid to the input of potential users in questionnaire construction, who are mostly left with little guidance on how to interpret the questions. Triangulation of methods to supplement the current focus on subjective outcome evaluations from IP interventions would also enhance this research.
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 | 0.056 | 0.094 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.019 | 0.019 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".