Data Collection Instruments

survey was placed into the invitation email, the newsletter notices, and distributed

electronically through the hospitals’ intranets to all HCPs. Informed consent was assumed if individuals completed and submitted the electronic version or returned the paper

version to the researcher.

Participants had the option to be entered into a draw for an IPAD after completion of the study as a thank-you for their time. At the end of the survey, respondents provided a contact phone number or email address for the draw separately from the survey itself.

Participant contact information for entry into the draw was recorded using a password protected electronic file. The draw was carried after data collection was completed.

5.8.1 Data Collection Instruments

The data collection survey was comprised of demographic questions, four existing instruments to measure conscientiousness, general self-efficacy, work engagement, and reciprocity with co-workers and the newly developed instrument to measure IPRC for this study (Appendix J). Permission was obtained from the developers to use their scales for this study.

5.8.1.1 Demographic Data. The survey items included gender, age,

professional educational preparation, participant’s licensed profession of practice, full or part-time employment, length of time since entry into practice and IP experience.

5.8.1.2 Conscientiousness. HCPs’ conscientiousness was measured with the Big Five Inventory (BFI) conscientiousness subscale containing 9-items (John, Naumann,

& Soto, 2008; John, Donahue & Kentle, 1991). Only the single factor, (conscientiousness subscale) was used in this study. The BFI’s conscientiousness dimension uses a 5-point rating scale ranges from 1= disagree strongly to 5 = agree strongly with four of its items

149

requiring reverse scoring. In this study, participants’ ratings for the nine items were

summed to determine their overall conscientiousness score. Higher scores reflect greater perceived conscientiousness of individual HCPs. The Cronbach’s α for the total BFI dimensions ranged from .79 to .88, with an α = .82 for the conscientiousness dimension (John & Srivastava, 1999).

5.8.1.3 General Self-Efficacy (GSE). The New General Self-Efficacy (NGSE) Scale (Chen et al., 2001) was used to measure HCPs’ perceptions of their general self-efficacy (GSE) and is a single dimension 8-item self-report measure that uses a five-point scale (1= strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree), where higher scores reflect greater GSE. This shortened version of Sherer et al.’s (1982) 17-item General Self-Efficacy Scale (SGSE) was created to overcome issues about test-retest reliability and validity of the SGSE. In this study, participants’ ratings for all 8-items were summed to determine their overall GSE scores. The GSE demonstrates predictive validity with CFI = .90 and has a reported reliability of Cronbach’s α from .87 to .95 in three samples of the first study and .86 and .90 in two samples of a second study (Chen et al.).

5.8.1.4 Work Engagement. The Utrecht Work Engagement Scale-9 (UWES-9) (Schaufeli, Bakker, & Salanova, 2006) was used to measure HCPs’ work engagement.

This self-report questionnaire is a shortened 9-item version of the 17-item UWES and measures three factors including vigor (VI) (3 items), dedication (DE), (3 items) and absorption (AB) (3 items with a 7-point rating scale (1 = never to 7= always) with higher scores indicating more work engagement. For this study, the three items for each of the three subscales were summed and the subscales was summed to arrive at an overall engagement score. Cronbach’s α for the three item scales were reported to be satisfactory.

150

Across 10 countries, the Cronbach’s α for VI scale varied between .60 and .88 (median

.77) with 2 countries rating lower than .70 –Finland (α = .65) and France (α = .60). DE varied between .75 and .90 (median= .92). AB scale between .66 and .86 (median .78) with Spain (.66) the only country lower than .70). Finally, Cronbach’s α for the total 9 item scale varied between .85 and .92 (median = .92) across all 10 countries.

5.8.1.5 Reciprocity with Co-workers. Reciprocity with IP team members was measured using the Reciprocity with Coworkers (RECOW) scale (Gilliam & Rayburn, 2016). The RECOW a contains 3 items and a 9-point rating scale ranging from 1 =

strongly disagree to 9 =strongly agree with a higher score representing great reciprocation with a co-worker. Gilliam and Rayburn (2016) reported a satisfactory Cronbach’s α (0.91).

5.8.1.6 Interprofessional Role Clarification (IPRC). The IPRCS was

developed for this study to measure IPRC by completing exploratory factor analysis with principal axis factoring. Due to limited sample size, the same data was used to conduct a confirmatory factor analysis using maximum likelihood estimate. Fit indices were used to assess the goodness of fit including X²/df, GFI, SRMR, CFI, and RMSEA. The final IPRCS consists of 11 items distributed across three factors including Knowing Roles (5 items), Articulating Roles (3 items) and Sharing Roles (3 items) with a 5-point scale (1=

strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree). For this study, the items for each of the three subscales were summed and an overall IPRCS score was obtained by summing the three subscales scores with higher scores reflecting more effective IPRC. Cronbach’s α for the total IPRCS (.76) and the subscales, knowing roles (.74), articulating roles .82) and sharing roles (.72) were satisfactory.

151

5.8.1.7 Global IP Role Clarification Indicators (GIPRCI). A global measure

of IP role clarification was used comprised of two items: (1) overall, my current work environment provides opportunities to clarify roles with other members of the IP

healthcare team, and Overall, IP team members are clear about their roles. These were rated using the same 5-point ratings as the IPRCS with scores obtained by summing and averaging the two items. Higher scores represent stronger perceptions of working in an environment where team members clarify roles and provided evidence of IPRCS construct validity.

5.9 Data Analysis

All data were either downloaded from Qualtrics and entered into SPSS Version 25 to form a data set. Initially descriptive analyses of collected data was undertaken. AMOS 25 was used to conduct additional inferential analyses related to path models using SEM methods.