ArticleBMC medical education2024
A psychometric evaluation of inter-professional education competency tool in nursing and medicine students.
Article in BMC medical education, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Interprofessional training for undergraduate rehabilitation therapy students at the University of the Witwatersrand enhancing cancer rehabilitation in South Africa.The South African journal of physiotherapy · 2026Article
- The Effect of the Case-Based Learning Method on the Achievement Motivation of Medical Students.Medical journal of the Islamic Republic of Iran · 2025Article
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
introductionCollaboration between nurses and doctors is necessary for offering care to patients. Using team performance assessment tools and surveying them can be effective in promoting inter-professional collaboration, and the lack of a credible tool to assess inter-professional collaboration competency between the two groups is a major challenge in the healthcare sector. The present study aimed to translate and conduct a psychometric investigation on the inter-professional education collaboration (IPEC) tool for the students of medicine and nursing.
methodsThe present study was a cross-sectional one conducted as a psychometric investigation of the IPEC tool at the Iran University of Medical Sciences in 2022. The initial tool contained 42 items developed according to a 5-point Likert scale, which was translated into Persian with the consent of the original researcher. The validity index and the content validity ratio were investigated by a panel of 11 specialists in medical and clinical education, and its construct validity was evaluated using confirmatory factor analysis. Also, the second population of the study included medical and nursing students of Iran University of Medical Sciences and simple random sampling method. Moreover, the reliability of the instrument was investigated using internal consistency, Cronbach's Alpha, and test-retest methods.
resultsBased on the indicators calculated to perform a psychometric investigation over the above tool, it had acceptable reliability and validity according to the specialists. The tool evaluates inter-professional collaboration competency between the students of medicine and nursing across four areas (values and ethics, roles and responsibilities, inter-professional communication, and team-based care and teamwork). Moreover, Cronbach's Alpha coefficient for the tool was determined at 0.84.
conclusionThe results of the study showed that the above tool could evaluate inter-professional competency as a valid and reliable questionnaire, and its results could be utilized in planning and education.
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.