Evidence of validity for the Norwegian version of the interprofessional collaborative competency attainment survey (ICCAS)

Figures & data

Table 1. Characteristics of the respondents (n = 1440). Number of respondents in each institution, program and academic year (n), and percentage of total sample (%)

	n (%)
Location
UiB	46 (3.2)
HVL Bergen	687 (47.7)
HVL Førde	5 (0.3)
UiS	63 (4.4)
OsloMet	11 (0.8)
UiO	15 (1.0)
NTNU Trondheim	558 (38.8)
UiT	55 (3.8)
Professional Program
Audiology	29 (2.0)
Biom edical Laboratory	96 (6.7)
Child Welfare	2 (0.1)
Dentistry*	8 (0.6)
Dental Hygiene	26 (1.8)
Geriatric Nursing	5 (0.3)
Kindergarten Teacher	3 (0.3)
Medicine*	123 (8.5)
Music Therapy	2 (0.1)
Nutrition*	8 (0.6)
Nursing	422 (29.3)
Occupational Therapy	136 (9.4)
Pharmacy*	11 (0.8)
Physiotherapy	147 (10.2)
Psychology*	5 (0.3)
Radiography	89 (6.2)
Social Education	179 (12.4)
Social Work	149 (10.3)
Academic year
1	268 (18.6)
2	205 (14.2)
3	914 (63.5)
4	18 (1.3)
5 6	22 (1.5) 13 (0.9)

UiB = University of Bergen, HVL = Western Norway University of Applied Sciences, UiS = University of Stavanger, OsloMet = Oslo Metropolitan University, UiO = University of Oslo, NTNU = Norwegian University of Science and Technology, UiT = Arctic University of Norway.

*Professional program of more than three years duration

Table 2. Summary of exploratory factor analysis results

ICCAS item	Pre-scores Factor	Post-scores Factor
1. Promote effective communication among IP members	.62	.71
2. Actively listen to IP team members’ ideas and concerns	.63	.77
3. Express my ideas and concerns without being judgmental	.62	.71
4. Provide constructive feedback to IP members	.63	.68
5. Express my ideas and concerns in a clear, concise manner	.66	.70
6. Seek out IP team members to address issues	.69	.76
7. Work effectively with IP team members to enhance care	.74	.80
8. Learn with, from and about IP team members to enhance care	.73	.80
9. Identify and describe my abilities and contributions to the IP team	.69	.73
10. Be accountable for my contributions to the IP team	.72	.77
11. Understand the abilities and contributions of IP team members	.72	.81
12. Recognize how others’ skills and knowledge complement and overlap with my own	.70	.78
13. Use an IP team approach with the patient to assess the health situation	.72	.75
14. Use an IP team approach with the patient to provide whole person care	.70	.76
15. Include the patient/user/family in decision-making	.62	.67
16. Actively listen to the perspectives of IP team members	.72	.81
17. Take into account the ideas of IP team members	.72	.81
18. Address team conflict in a respectful manner	.65	.72
19. Develop an effective care plan with IP team members	.66	.68
20. Negotiate responsibilities within overlapping scopes of practice	.69	.73

* Factor loadings after rotation. Factor loadings over 0.40 appear in bold

Table 3. Item total score correlation and omega if item deleted based on students’ responses pre- and post-score

	Pre-scores		Post-scores
ICCAS item	Item total r	Omega if item deleted	Item total r	Omega if item deleted
1. Promote effective communication among IP members	.63	.90	.74	.92
2. Actively listen to IP team members’ ideas and concerns	.65	.90	.79	.92
3. Express my ideas and concerns without being judgmental	.63	.91	.73	.92
4. Provide constructive feedback to IP members	.64	.91	.69	.92
5. Express my ideas and concerns in a clear, concise manner	.67	.91	.74	.92
6. Seek out IP team members to address issues	.69	.91	.78	.92
7. Work effectively with IP team members to enhance care	.73	.91	.82	.92
8. Learn with, from and about IP team members to enhance care	.74	.91	.82	.92
9. Identify and describe my abilities and contributions to the IP team	.70	.91	.76	.92
10. Be accountable for my contributions to the IP team	.72	.91	.79	.92
11. Understand the abilities and contributions of IP team members	.72	.91	.81	.92
12. Recognize how others’ skills and knowledge complement and overlap with my own	.71	.91	.79	.92
13. Use an IP team approach with the patient to assess the health situation	.71	.91	.76	.92
14. Use an IP team approach with the patient to provide whole person care	.70	.91	.78	.92
15. Include the patient/user/family in decision-making	.62	.91	.70	.92
16. Actively listen to the perspectives of IP team members	.72	.91	.82	.92
17. Take into account the ideas of IP team members	.73	.91	.82	.92
18. Address team conflict in a respectful manner	.65	.91	.72	.92
19. Develop an effective care plan with IP team members	.67	.91	.70	.92
20. Negotiate responsibilities within overlapping scopes of practice	.70	.91	.76	.92

Table 4. Paired-samples t-tests between pre- and post-scores on each item

Construct	Items¹	Mean (SD) Retrospective	Mean (SD)	Mean difference [95% CI]	Effect size²	Difference³
		Pre-score	Post- score	Post-pre
Communication	1	3.55 (0.85)	4.30(0.75)	0.75 [0.71, 0.80]	.89	Large
	2	4.23 (0.85)	4.60 (0.73)	0.37 [0.33, 0.41]	.50	Moderate
	3	4.09 (0.90)	4.42 (0.80)	0.33 [0.29, 0.37]	.44	Small
	4	3.78 (0.95)	4.18 (0.85)	0.40 [0.36, 0.44]	.53	Moderate
	5	3.75 (0.89)	4.18 (0.84)	0.43 [0.39, 0.46]	.57	Moderate
Collaboration	6	3.78 (0.97)	4.36 (0.80)	0.58 [0.53, 0.62]	.67	Moderate
	7	3.84 (0.90)	4.44 (0.75)	0.60 [0.56, 0.65]	.74	Moderate
	8	3.74 (0.90)	4.47 (0.76)	0.73 [0.69, 0.77]	.84	Large
Roles and responsibilities	9	3.68 (0.92)	4.28 (0.80)	0.60 [0.55, 0.64]	.73	Moderate
	10	3.92 (0.94)	4.38 (0.78)	0.46 [0.42, 0.50]	.62	Moderate
	11	4.08 (0.92)	4.58 (0.74)	0.50 [0.46, 0.54]	.63	Moderate
	12	3.85 (0.93)	4.49 (0.76)	0.64 [0.60, 0.69]	.76	Moderate
Patient-centered care	13	3.58 (0.95)	4.29 (0.83)	0.71 [0.67, 0.76]	.82	Large
	14	3.64 (0.93)	4.29 (0.83)	0.65 [0.60, 0.69]	.77	Moderate
	15	3.85 (0.98)	4.28 (0.88)	0.43 [0.39, 0.47]	.56	Moderate
Conflict management, team functioning	16	4.20 (0.86)	4.58 (0.73)	0.38 [0.34, 0.42]	.54	Moderate
	17	4.19 (0.87)	4.54 (0.75)	0.35 [0.31, 0.38]	.52	Moderate
	18	4.00 (0.96)	4.31 (0.88)	0.31 [0.27, 0.34]	.46	Small
	19	3.62 (1.01)	4.18 (0.93)	0.56 [0.51, 0.61]	.67	Moderate
	20	3.67 (0.94)	4.20 (0.88)	0.53 [0.49, 0.57]	.64	Moderate

¹Item description is found in table 2 & 3. ²Cohen d, ³Qualitative differences: “Large” = values of ≥0.8, “Moderate” = values between 0.79-0.50 and “Small” values between 0.2-0.49 (Cohen, 1988)

Items on ICCAS were scored on a five-point Likert-type scale; 1= strongly disagree, 2= slightly disagree, 3= neutral, 4= slightly agree, 5= strongly agree, n/a= not applicable (registered as missing)

Cohen, J. (ed.). (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Laurence Erlbaum.

 Google Scholar