Validity evidence and use of the IPEC Competency Self-Assessment, Version 3

ABSTRACT

To guide interprofessional education (IPE), a variety of frameworks have been suggested for defining competency in interprofessional practice, but competency-based assessment remains challenging. One self-report measure developed to facilitate competency-based assessment in IPE is the IPEC Competency Self-Assessment. It was originally described as a 42-item measure constructed on the four domains defined by the Interprofessional Education Collaborative (IPEC) Expert Panel. Response data, however, identified only two factors labeled Interprofessional Interaction and Interprofessional Values. In this study, we tested a revised 19-item, two-factor scale based on these prior findings with a new sample (n = 608) and found good model fit with three items not loading on either factor. This led to a 16-item instrument, which was then tested with an additional sample (n = 676). Internal consistency was high, and scores for both subscales showed variance based on prior healthcare experience. The interprofessional interaction subscale was primarily comprised of items from the Teams and Teamwork domain, with one item each based on competencies from the Interprofessional Communication and Values/Ethics domains; and scores varied by year of enrollment. The interprofessional values subscale was comprised solely of items from the Values/Ethics domain. Scores for both subscales were strongly correlated with scores from the Interprofessional Socialization and Valuing Scale. This study further establishes the validity, reliability, and usability of an assessment tool based on interprofessional competency. The findings also suggest the constructs underlying the subscales may be affected differently by experience and training. Additional study using longitudinal data is needed to test this hypothesis.

KEYWORDS:

• Interprofessional education
• interprofessional practice
• competency-based education
• assessment
• evaluation

Supplementary material

supplemental data for this article can be accessed here.

Declaration of interest

The authors report no conflicts of interest. The authors alone are responsible for the content and writing of this article.

Notes

1. CFA was performed as the first step because earlier research had defined a measure with two factors and 19 items. The intent was to substantiate this model proposed by Lockeman et al. (2016). When findings from the first sample were inconsistent with the proposed model, EFA was then used to identify potential items for revision or deletion.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Kelly S. Lockeman

Kelly S. Lockeman is Assistant Professor of Medicine and Director of Evaluation and Assessment in the Center for Interprofessional Education and Collaborative Care, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA.

Alan W. Dow

Alan W. Dow is the Perlin Professor of Medicine and Health Administration and Director of the Center for Interprofessional Education and Collaborative Care, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA.

Autumn L. Randell

Autumn L. Randell is a doctoral candidate counselor education and supervision in the School of Education, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA.