Luderer Christiane, Donat Matthias, Baum Ute, Kirsten Angelika, Jahn Patrick, Stoevesandt Dietrich
Martin-Luther-University Halle-Wittenberg, Faculty of Medicine, Institute for Health and Nursing Science, Halle (Saale), Germany.
Martin-Luther-University Halle-Wittenberg, Faculty of Philosophy - Educational Sciences, Institute for Pedagogy, Halle (Saale); Germany.
GMS J Med Educ. 2017 Aug 15;34(3):Doc33. doi: 10.3205/zma001110. eCollection 2017.
In order to verify the methodological quality of two versions of a tool for measuring attitudes towards interprofessional learning, we adapted - in terms of translation and scale form - the Heidelberg Version [1] of - RIPLS [2], a methodologically controversial tool that had been translated into German, and compared both the original and new versions. Three items were reworded and the scale form altered (from five to four levels), leading to the Halle Version that was validated by means of a cognitive pretest (=6). Both questionnaires were completed by students taking the interprofessional degree program in Health and Nursing Sciences (HNS) and by students of Human Medicine. The test quality of both tools was examined by analyzing the main components and reliability using the scales allocation of the items as according to Parsell and Bligh [2]. The questionnaires were randomly assembled and distributed to 331 students. The response was =320 (HNS =109; Medicine =211). The Halle Version "RIPLS-HAL" of the questionnaire was completed by =166 and the Heidelberg Version "RIPLS-HDB" by =154. In the main component analysis the data could not depict the scale patterns of the original Australian tool. The reliability values of both the Heidelberg and Halle versions were only satisfactory for the "Teamwork and Collaboration" and "Professional Identity" scales. The German version of the Readiness for Interprofessional Learning Scale has only limited suitability for recording the attitude towards interprofessional learning. The present versions can be regarded as an approach towards developing a more suitable tool.
为了验证一种用于衡量对跨专业学习态度的工具两个版本的方法学质量，我们在翻译和量表形式方面对RIPLS（跨专业学习准备度量表）的海德堡版本[1]进行了改编，该工具在方法学上存在争议且已被翻译成德语，然后对原始版本和新版本进行了比较。重新措辞了三个项目并改变了量表形式（从五级变为四级），从而产生了通过认知预测试（=6）验证的哈雷版本。两份问卷均由健康与护理科学跨专业学位课程的学生以及医学专业的学生填写。根据帕塞尔和布莱[2]的量表项目分配，通过分析主要成分和信度来检验两种工具的测试质量。问卷随机组合并分发给331名学生。回复率为=320（健康与护理科学专业=109；医学专业=211）。问卷的哈雷版本“RIPLS - HAL”由=166人完成，海德堡版本“RIPLS - HDB”由=154人完成。在主成分分析中，数据无法描绘出原始澳大利亚工具的量表模式。海德堡版本和哈雷版本的信度值仅在“团队合作与协作”和“专业身份”量表方面令人满意。德语版的跨专业学习准备度量表在记录对跨专业学习的态度方面适用性有限。当前版本可被视为开发更合适工具的一种方法。
