ArticlePloS one2019
Development and validation of interprofessional learning assessment tool for health professionals in continuing professional development (CPD).
Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Factor analysis validation of the student feedback questionnaire for the subcutaneous swelling simulation model.Journal of education and health promotion · 2025Article
- Continuing Professional Development Needs Amongst University of Toronto's Department of Radiation Oncology Faculty.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2021Article
- WHIRL Study: Workplace Health Interprofessional Learning in the Construction Industry.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020Article
- Application of a Simulation-Based Interprofessional Teamwork Assessment Tool (SITAT) to Individual Student Performance in a Team-Based Simulation.Journal of medical education and curricular developmentArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionInterprofessional learning (IPL) is increasingly recognized as a promising strategy in addressing the burgeoning challenges in healthcare. Its assessment remains to be perplexing and requires accurate measurements. Thus, this study intended to develop a valid and reliable reflective tool in assessing IPL as a Continuing Professional Development (CPD) outcome.
methodsA one-group post-posttest pre-experimental design with tool development was employed to establish the validity and reliability of the "Inventory of Reflective Vignette-Interprofessional Learning" (IRV-IPL). This tool was developed from an extensive literature review and designed with three segments to assess interprofessional competencies before, after, and what if scenarios using vignettes. After it was validated by education experts (n = 5) and written consent forms were signed by the participants, the IRV-IPL was pilot tested among healthcare professionals (n = 10) for analysis and improvement. During the actual implementation, it was administered to healthcare professionals (n = 45) who participated in a university-provided CPD event. Collected data underwent validity and reliability testing.
resultsIRV-IPL generated excellent internal consistency (α = 0.98), and across all segments of collaboration (α = 0.96), coordination (α = 0.96), cooperation (α = 0.96), communication (α = 0.97), and commendation (α = 0.98). Items exhibited significantly positive large correlations (r > 0.35, p < 0.05) in all segments showing beneficial measures for postdictive validity in recalling prior interprofessional competencies, and predictive validity in estimating interprofessional learning as an outcome of CPD and alternative interventions.
conclusionThis study provided a piece of groundwork evidence on the use of IRV-IPL as a reflective assessment tool for interprofessional learning in CPD contexts. Further studies are essential to explore the educational utility of IRV framework in crafting relevant assessments and to establish construct validity of IRV-IPL using exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.