Upload
trinhphuc
View
219
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Collaboration in SA
Children’s Centres Julia Jacob
Supervised by:
Dr Kobie Boshoff, Mr Hugh Stewart,
Dr Rebecca Stanley
Research Aim Developing a questionnaire and testing its
psychometric properties which can measure collaboration within South Australian
Children’s Centres teams.
AIM BACKGROUND STAGE 1 STAGE 2 DISCUSSION SUMMARY
Children’s Centres
Government of South Australia 2013; Nolan, Cartmel, & Macfarlane, 2012; Boshoff & Stewart 2013; Boshoff & Clayton 2009; The International Centre for Allied Health Evidence, Boshoff, & Weeks 2012.
Need Collaboration
Need for further development of strategies in place
AIM BACKGROUND STAGE 1 STAGE 2 DISCUSSION SUMMARY
Collaboration
D'Amour et al. 2005; Thannhauser, Russell-Mayhew, & Scott 2010; Dickinson & Glasby 2009, p. 6 Katzenbach & Smith 2005; Kennedy & Stewart 2011; Weiss & Davis 1985; Millward & Jeffries 2001;
“Collaboration is people from different disciplines working together for a period of
time with a known purpose and plan”
AIM BACKGROUND STAGE 1 STAGE 2 DISCUSSION SUMMARY
Sharing Partnership
Independency Power
COLLABORATION
Collaboration
West et al. 2013.
Characteristic and practices of
interprofessional collaboration
Team Identity (Characteristics - shared belief system and shared
purpose, respect, recognition, value
contributions)
Leadership
(achieving team outcomes)
Team Processes (building relationships, meetings, informal discussion, referral processes and
conflict resolution)
Working within and between
government departments
(funding, contractual arrangements),
Image adapted from West et al. 2013
AIM BACKGROUND STAGE 1 STAGE 2 DISCUSSION SUMMARY
Collaboration
Harman-Smith & Brinkman 2013, p. 1.
Facilitators
Barriers
• Leadership
• Relationships
• Professional development and professional supervision
• Design and use of physical space
• Leadership
• Governance structure
• Facility
AIM BACKGROUND STAGE 1 STAGE 2 DISCUSSION SUMMARY
Selecting a Questionnaire
Ødegård 2007.
A. No CC collaboration tool available
B. Systematic review
• Teams with health and non-health
C. Critical appraisal
• Specific to Children’s Centres
D. PINCOM-Q selected
• Individual and group aspects
AIM BACKGROUND STAGE 1 STAGE 2 DISCUSSION SUMMARY
PINCOM-Q
Ødegård 2007.
AIM BACKGROUND STAGE 1 STAGE 2 DISCUSSION SUMMARY
Modified PINCOM-Q
(32)
Individual (16)
Professional Power (4)
Role expectations (4)
Personality style (4)
Work motivation (4)
Group (16)
Leadership (4)
Coping abilities (4)
Communication (4)
Social support (4)
2 stage process
Depoy & Gitlin 1998; DeVon et al. 2007; Lynn 1986.
Expert Panel
•Face Validity
•Content Validity
CC Sample
•Internal consistency
•Usability
AIM BACKGROUND STAGE 1 STAGE 2 DISCUSSION SUMMARY
Expert Panel
Baggs 1994; Beycioglu & Aslan 2010; Dedrick & Greenbaum 2011; Knapp et al. 2009; Temkin-Greener et al. 2004; Lynn 1986.
Expert Panel
CC Sample
Psychometric Properties: 1.Face Validity
• Comments of acceptance 2.Content Validity
• Content validity index (CVI)
Participants: • Three experts • Professionals in Children’s Centres and
in interprofessional collaboration
AIM BACKGROUND STAGE 1 STAGE 2 DISCUSSION SUMMARY
Content Validity
Lynn 1986; Wynd, Schmidt, & Atkins Schaefer 2003; Lynn 1986; Polit et al. 2007; Ødegård 2007.
Total 0.78
Group 0.96
Individual 0.58
Question Not relevant
Somewhat relevant
Quite relevant
Very relevant
CVI
One 0.67
Two 0.33
CVI Example
CVI Results
Does the data truthfully replicate collaboration within the team
AIM BACKGROUND STAGE 1 STAGE 2 DISCUSSION SUMMARY
Expert Panel
CC Sample
Children’s Centre Sample
Psychometric properties: 3. Internal consistency 4. Usability Participants: • 17 Children’s Centres members • 11 Sites • 51.5% response rate approximately • Education and health professionals
AIM BACKGROUND STAGE 1 STAGE 2 DISCUSSION SUMMARY
Internal Consistency
Cronbach 1951; McEvoy, Williams, & Olds 2010; Ushiro 2009; Connelly 2011.
Total 0.744
Individual 0.722
Group 0.856
Do the questions correlate to collaboration
AIM BACKGROUND STAGE 1 STAGE 2 DISCUSSION SUMMARY
Cronbach’s Alpha Results
Usability
Is the tool user friendly?
AIM BACKGROUND STAGE 1 STAGE 2 DISCUSSION SUMMARY
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 2 3 4 5
Nu
mb
er
of
Par
tici
pan
ts
Rating
Usability Ratings
Was this questionnaire easy touse?
Was this questionnaire easy tounderstand?
Was this questionnaire's timelength appropriate?
Was the questionnaire’s order appropriate?
Do you think this questionnairewould be useful in practice?
Usability
Average
(mean)
Standard
deviation
(population)
Total 3.9 1.07
Ease of use 3.7 1.23
Understanding 3.7 1.13
Length 4.1 1.02
Logical order 3.9 0.90
Usefulness to practice 3.9 1.02
Is the tool is user friendly?
Time Taken: Average = 22 minutes
AIM BACKGROUND STAGE 1 STAGE 2 DISCUSSION SUMMARY
Usability
Is the tool is user friendly?
AIM BACKGROUND STAGE 1 STAGE 2 DISCUSSION SUMMARY
Do you think this questionnaire would be useful in practice?
“I think this could be helpful for teams to identify areas for improvement and to celebrate strengths”
“Could be useful as a discussion tool to review current strengths, weaknesses and goals. This would only be
appropriate in a safe environment, I feel we could manage this given our current team and practices”
Survey Participants, 2014
Discussion
Ødegård 2007
• Provide a quantitative evaluation of collaboration
• Preliminary psychometric testing with adequate results for early stage questionnaire development.
AIM BACKGROUND STAGE 1 STAGE 2 DISCUSSION SUMMARY
Implications for practice
• Facilitate discussion around
collaborative practice.
• Highlight strengths and
weaknesses
• Reflect on changes over
time
• Use in similar settings
AIM BACKGROUND STAGE 1 STAGE 2 DISCUSSION SUMMARY
Limitations
• Small sample size • Participants professions • Basic testing
AIM BACKGROUND STAGE 1 STAGE 2 DISCUSSION SUMMARY
Recommendations
• Further development and refinement • Scoring system • Research applications
AIM BACKGROUND STAGE 1 STAGE 2 DISCUSSION SUMMARY
• PINCOM-Q selected via Systematic review
• Face validity and content validity determined through
expert panel
• Usability and internal consistency determined with
Children’s Centre sample
• Modified PINCOM-Q will be utilised in future practice
• Further development may be necessary
Summary
AIM BACKGROUND STAGE 1 STAGE 2 DISCUSSION SUMMARY
Making meaning of the past
• Evaluate and reflect on practice
Forging the future
• Then adapt and change practice
Final Message
AIM BACKGROUND STAGE 1 STAGE 2 DISCUSSION SUMMARY
References
Baggs, J. G. (1994). Development of an instrument to measure collaboration and satisfaction about care decisions. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 20(1), 176-182.
Beycioglu, K., & Aslan, B. (2010). Teacher Leadership Scale: A Validity and Reliability Study. Ilkogretim Online, 9(2), 764-764.
Boshoff, K., & Clayton, S. (2009). Best Practice Guidelines for Occupational Therapy Service Delivery in Children's Centres: University of South Australia, Department of Health and Department of Education.
Boshoff, K., & Stewart, H. (2013). Key principles for confronting the challenges of collaboration in educational settings. Australian Occupational Therapy Journal, 60(2), 144-147. doi: 10.1111/1440-1630.12003
Cronbach, L. (1951). Coefficent alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16(3), 297-334.
Colton, D., & Covert, R. W. (2007). Designing and Constructing Instruments for Social Research and Evaluation Retrieved from http://UNISA.eblib.com.au/patron/FullRecord.aspx?p=309811
Coluci, M. Z. O., & Alexandre, N. M. C. (2009). Development of a Questionnaire to Evaluate the Usability of Assessment Instruments. Rev. enferm, 17(3), 378-382.
Connelly, L. M. (2011). Cronbach's Alpha. Medsurg Nursing, 20(1), 44-45.
D'Amour, D., Ferrada-Videla, M., San Martin Rodriguez, L., & Beaulieu, M.-D. (2005). The conceptual basis for interprofessional collaboration: core concepts and theoretical frameworks. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 19(1), 116-131. doi: 10.1080/13561820500082529
Dedrick, R. F., & Greenbaum, P. E. (2011). Multilevel confirmatory factor analysis of a scale measuring interagency collaboration of children's mental health agencies. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 19(1), 27-40. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1063426610365879
Depoy, E., & Gitlin, L. N. (1998). Introduction to Research: Understanding and Applying Multiple Strategies (2 ed.). United States of America: Mosby Inc.
DeVon, H., Block, M., Moyle-Wright, P., Ernst, D., Hayden, S., Lazzara, D., Kostas-Polston, E. (2007). A Psychometric Toolbox for Testing Validity and Reliability. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 39(2), 155-164.
Dickinson, H., & Glasby, J. (2009). Introduction. In J. Glasby & H. Dickinson (Eds.), International Perspectives on Health and Social Care - Partnership Working in Action (pp. 1-9). Ames, Iowa: Wiley-Blackwell/CAIPE.
References continued…
Gerangue, J. (2014, 28 August). [Project Officer Early Childhood and Children's Centres].
Government of South Australia. (2013). Children's Centre Overview. Retrieved 25 August 2013, from http://www.childrenscentres.sa.gov.au/files/links/2013_April_CC_Overview.pdf
Harman-Smith, Y., & Brinkman, S. (2013). Children's Centre Evaluation. Interim Evaluation Report: Summary of Qualitative Evaluation Findings. Adelaide.
Katzenbach, J. R., & Smith, D. K. (2005). The discipline of teams. Harvard Business Review, 83(7), 162-171.
Kennedy, S., & Stewart, H. (2011). Collaboration between occupational therapists and teachers: Definitions, implementation and efficacy. Australian Occupational Therapy Journal, 58(3), 209-214. doi: 10.1111/j.1440-1630.2011.00934.x
Knapp, P., Raynor, D. K., Thistlethwaite, J. E., & Jones, M. B. (2009). A questionnaire to measure health practitioners' attitudes to partnership in medicine taking: LATCon II. Health Expectations, 12(2), 175-186. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1369-7625.2009.00545.x
Lynn, M. (1986). Determination and Quantification of Content Validity. Nursing research, 35(6), 382-386.
McEvoy, M., Williams, M., & Olds, T. (2010). Development and psychometric testing of a trans-professional evidence-based practice profile questionnaire. Medical Teacher, 32(9), 373-380.
Millward, L. J., & Jeffries, N. (2001). The team survey: a tool for health care team development. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 35(2), 276-287.
Nielsen, J., Levy, J., & Cohen, J. (1994). Measuring usability: preference vs. performance. Communications of the ACM, 37(4), 66-75.
Nolan, A., Cartmel, J. L., & Macfarlane, K. M. (2012). Thinking about Practice in integrated Children's Services: Consider Transdisciplinarity. Children Australia, 37(3), 94-99.
Ødegård, A. (2007). Exploring perceptions of interprofessional collaboration in child mental health care. International Journal of Integrated Care (IJIC), 6, 1-13.
Polit, D., Beck, C., & Owen, S. (2007). Is the CVI an acceptable indicator of content validity? Appraisal and recommendations. Research in Nursing & Health, 30(4), 459-467.
Sue, V. M., & Ritter, L. (2007). Conducting Online Surveys. United States of America: Sage Publications.
References continued…
Temkin-Greener, H., Gross, D., Kunitz, S. J., & Mukamel, D. (2004). Measuring interdisciplinary team performance in a long-term care setting. Medical Care, 42(5), 472-481.
Thannhauser, J., Russell-Mayhew, S., & Scott, C. (2010). Measures of interprofessional education and collaboration. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 24(4), 336-349. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/13561820903442903
The International Centre for Allied Health Evidence, Boshoff, K., & Weeks, S. (2012). A Systematic Review Informing the Service Delivery Framework of the Allied Health Program in Children's Centres in South Australia The International Centre for Allied Health Evidence, SA Health and the Department of Education and Child Development, Government of South Australia.
Ushiro, R. (2009). Nurse-Physician Collaboration Scale: development and psychometric testing. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 65(7), 1497-1508. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2009.05011.x
Weiss, S. J., & Davis, H. P. (1985). Validity and reliability of the Collaborative Practice Scales. Nursing research, 34(5), 299-305.Wynd, C., Schmidt, B., & Atkins Schaefer, M. (2003). Two quantitative approaches for estimating content validity. Western Journal of Nursing Research, 25(5), 508-518.
West, M., Boshoff, K., & Stewart, H. (2013). Characteristics and practices of interprofessional collaboration in Children's Centre teams, which include Allied Health professionals. Unpublished research report. University of South Australia.
Zwarenstein, M., Goldman, J., & Reeves, S. (2009). Interprofessional collaboration: effects of practice-based interventions on professional practice and healthcare outcomes (Publication no. 10.1002/14651858.CD000072.pub2). Retrieved 28 October 2013 http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/store/10.1002/14651858.CD000072.pub2/asset/CD000072.pdf?v=1&t=hnfm92jq&s=a704ecd3a67585b0e46328aa542c9924cf37a024
Image references
Slide 1 – http://syllainternational.com/modern-architects-blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/kids-drawing.jpg Slide 2 - http://meship.com/Blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/VoIP-collaboration.jpg Slide 3 – http://s.hswstatic.com/gif/physics-activity-2.jpg Slide 7 – http://www.divorcesourceradio.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/abc_blocks.jpg Slide 13 – http://www.c3workplace.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Working-together.jpg Slide 14 –http://images4.fanpop.com/image/photos/24200000/colourful-paints-colors-24236795-1920-1280.jpg Slide 18 - http://www.thenalefamily.com/images/Children%20Website%20Graphics/ABC% 20blocks 123.gif Slide 19 – http://cache2.asset-cache.net/gc/97847888-young-girl-and-boy-holding-hands-gettyimages.jpg?v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=2&d=c9LekUUMLJzBbM3tMvii4CR1lxBAOphYiQ2yWNn3b5U%3D Slide 20 - http://webmogul101.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/color-paints.jpg Slide 21- http://www.fullsailstrategies.com/Portals/172297/images/Paper%20people%20in %20circlePNG-resized-600.png Slide 22 - http://alexjeffery.me/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/wiki-online-team-collaboration.jpg