Italian version of the Assessment of Interprofessional Team Collaboration Scale II (I-AITCS II): a multiphase study of validity and reliability amongst healthcare providers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To develop and validate an Italian version of the Assessment of Interprofessional Team Collaboration Scale II (I-AITCS II). METHODS: A multiphase validation study was conducted. The first phase was the AITCS-II translation from English into Italian to develop the first version of I-AITCS II for practitioners. The second phase was the study of I-AITCS II face and content validity, and the third phase was a cross-sectional data collection to provide evidence of construct validity using the psychometrics testing and the reliability assessment through the internal consistency study. RESULTS: The agreement for the forward-translation among researchers was high. The face and content validity were satisfactory. The underlying constructs of I-AITCS II were partnership, cooperation and coordination. Internal consistency was good for both scale and domains level. There were significant differences related to partnership in the comparison between settings. CONCLUSIONS: I-AITCS II showed evidence of validity and reliability. It will be useful to gather data to address programs aimed to enhance interprofessional team collaboration within the Italian healthcare contexts, and it could be used for cross-national researches.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".