Promoting interprofessionalism: initial evaluation of a master of science in health professions education degree program

Figures & data

Table 1 Percent of effects

Effect	Source	Frequency	Mean	Percent
Participant	0.115	1	0.115	42.59
Domain	0.083	3	0.028	10.25
Item	−0.168	3	0	0
Participant by domain	0.069	3	0.023	8.52
Participant by item	0.016	3	0.005	1.98
Domain by item	0.57	9	0.063	23.46
Participant by domain by item	0.322	9	0.036	13.25
Total			0.27	100.05

Table 2 Variance component effects

Variance	Relative	Absolute
Systematic	0.115	0.115
Error	0.064	0.155
Total	0.179	0.27
Ratio	0.64	0.58

Table 3 Descriptive statistics

Domain	Mean	SD	N
Promoting interprofessionalism	4.62	0.52	15
Acquiring academic skills	3.93	0.47	15
Student-centered	4.68	0.42	15

Abbreviation: SD, standard deviation.

Table 4 Item descriptive statistics

	Mean	SD
Promoting interprofessionalism
1. Learning in an interprofessional manner has increased my knowledge of other health professions	4.7	0.6
2. Interprofessional nature of the program added to the value	4.8	0.6
3. Program increased my understanding of the educational challenges faced by other professions	4.7	0.6
4. Working with interprofessional scholars improved my interprofessional communication	4.7	0.6
5. Communicating with interprofessional program scholars has improved my interprofessional relationships at my place of employment	4.3	0.9
Acquiring new academic skills
1. Program has taught me useful academic skills	4.6	0.5
2. Program has taught me useful clinical skills	2.6	0.8
3. I am more satisfied with my teaching skills	4.4	0.7
4. I am more satisfied with conducting research	3.9	0.9
5. I am more satisfied with structuring of my courses	4.5	0.5
Student-centered environment
I am satisfied with
1. Program’s course contents	4.6	0.6
2. Learning activities	4.7	0.5
3. Organization	4.6	0.5
4. Online format	4.7	0.5
5. Overall program met my expectations	4.8	0.4

Abbreviation: SD, standard deviation.