Format

Send to

Choose Destination
J Interprof Care. 2011 Sep;25(5):339-44. doi: 10.3109/13561820.2011.589542. Epub 2011 Jul 6.

Development and validation of the interprofessional collaborator assessment rubric (ICAR).

Author information

1
Faculty of Medicine, Centre for Collaborative Health Professional Education, Memorial University, St. John’s, Newfoundland A1B 3V6, Canada. vcurran@mun.ca

Abstract

There have been increasing calls for a competency-based approach in interprofessional education (IPE). The purpose of this multi-site research project was to develop a validated set of interprofessional collaborator competencies and an associated competency-based assessment rubric, in both English and French languages. The first phase involved a detailed comparative analysis of peer-reviewed and grey literature using typological analysis to construct a draft list of interprofessional collaborator competency categories and statements. A two-round Delphi survey of experts was undertaken to validate these competencies. In the second phase, an assessment rubric was developed based on the validated competencies and then evaluated for utility, clarity, practicality and fairness through multi-site focus groups with students and faculty at both college and university levels. The paper outlines an approach to developing, constructing and validating a bilingual instrument for interprofessional learning and assessment. The approach was collaborative in nature, involving an interprofessional project team and respondents from across multiple health profession education programs. The Delphi survey ratings indicate a high level of agreement with the importance of the competency statements and focus group participants rated the rubric positively and felt it had value. The focus group results were also useful in pre-piloting the contextual application of the instrument across multiple health profession education programs. This rubric instrument may be used across a variety of professions and learning contexts. Future work includes evaluation of further dimensions of validity and reliability for this tool across a variety of settings.

PMID:
21732723
DOI:
10.3109/13561820.2011.589542
[Indexed for MEDLINE]

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Taylor & Francis
Loading ...
Support Center