Validating a SMIIL:) Development and initial validation of a Scale Measuring the Impact of Interprofessional Learning (SMIIL)

Figures & data

Figure 1. Summary of modified Kirkpatrick’s model of evaluation (Barr et al., 2000)

Table 1. Relationship between the 21-item SMIIL and the levels of the modified Kirkpatrick’s model (H. Barr et al., 2000)

The SMIIL items	Corresponding level of the modified Kirkpatrick’s model
1.1– 1.5	1
2.1– 2.6	2a
3.1– 3.7	2b
4.1– 4.3	3

Table 2. Response rates by year group

Year Group	Response Rate	Response Rate (%)
1	19/225	8.44
2	10/144	6.94
3	61/131	46.6
4*	30/170	17.6
5	59/117	50.4

*40 intercalating students were added to the current year 4 cohort as intercalation takes place between years 4 and 5 at UEMS.

Table 3. The corrected item-total correlation for the final 17-item SMIIL

	Item*	Mean Likert Score (2 s.f.)	SD of Likert Score (2 d.p.)	Corrected Item-total Correlation
1	I would choose to learn with other healthcare professionals or students in the future.	4.2	0.70	0.477
2	The varying levels of knowledge expected of different professions makes it difficult to learn together.	3.3	1.02	0.229
3	It is difficult to practice clinical skills effectively when learning with other healthcare professionals or students.	3.8	0.83	0.303
4	I am better equipped to work as part of a multidisciplinary team in my future practice.	4.0	0.80	0.404
5	I can better appreciate the need for involving multiple healthcare professionals in the care of one patient.	4.4	0.59	0.442
6	I have overcome any preconceived ideas I had about the healthcare professionals or students encountered.	3.8	0.81	0.438
7	Preconceived ideas about a particular profession can lead to ineffective teamwork.	4.3	0.73	0.309
8	I need more training to understand the roles of other healthcare professionals. ^a	3.9	0.88	0.198
9	I need more training to understand the limitations of other healthcare professionals’ roles. ^a	4.0	0.82	0.272
10	My understanding of the topic(s) covered has improved.	3.6	0.77	0.446
11	My clinical skills have improved.	3.6	0.83	0.444
12	I have a better understanding of the roles of other healthcare professionals.	4.1	0.69	0.553
13	I can effectively convey relevant information to other healthcare professionals or students.	3.7	0.70	0.396
14	I feel able to manage conflict in teams due to a better understanding of other healthcare professionals’ or students’ perspectives.	3.2	0.86	0.256
15	I (will) approach placements/ teaching sessions delivered by other healthcare professionals or students more positively.	3.9	0.67	0.598
16	I (will) promote the expertise of other healthcare professionals within my profession.	4.1	0.72	0.604
17	I (will) use the expertise of other healthcare professionals more effectively to generate holistic care plans.	4.3	0.64	0.560

*Each item begins with the stem statement of: “As a result of my experience with interprofessional learning I think that … ”

^aItems were reworded following data collection, as the item did not fit with the stem statement. (The original can be found in Supplementary Reading Materials).

Figure 2. A graph showing the mean composite score of the SMIIL within 2 standard deviations for years 1 to 5

Barr, H., Freeth, D., Hammick, M., Koppel, I., & Reeves, S. (2000). Evaluations of interprofessional education: A United Kingdom review for health and social care. The Centre for the Advancement of Interprofessional Education

 Google Scholar