An evaluation of the psychometric properties of the Australian Collaborative Practice Assessment Tool

Abstract

Objectives This study aimed to validate the Collaborative Practice Assessment Tool (CPAT) in the Australian setting and provide a quality instrument in terms of psychometric properties that can be used to measure interprofessional outcomes for both healthcare practitioners and students. The outcomes evaluated include the capacity to work in an interprofessional team, good interprofessional communication skills, leadership skills, ensuring clear division of tasks and roles in a team, effective conflict management, and being actively involved with patients and their families/communities in care. Methods The COSMIN (COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments) taxonomy and standards were used as guides for evaluating the psychometric properties of the Australian CPAT, which include evaluations regarding instrument development requirements of sample target and size, content validity, internal structure (structural validity, internal consistency reliability and measurement invariance), and hypotheses testing. CPAT Australia was developed through two stages involving pilot studies and a validation study, both of which included healthcare practitioners and students as participants. A pilot study examined content validity regarding item relevance, item comprehensibility, and instrument comprehensiveness. The validation study was carried out to assess the internal structure of CPAT Australia for aspects of structural validity, internal consistency reliabilities, and configural, metric and scalar measurement invariance. The structural validity was explored using the following three steps: exploratory, confirmatory, and multi-group factor analysis. Construct validity was evaluated to confirm direct and indirect paths of assumptions based on a previously validated model. Data collected between August 2021 and May 2022. Results The content validity evaluation confirmed that all items were relevant, understandable and comprehensive for measuring interprofessional collaborative care in Australia. Three hundred ninety-nine participants contributed to the validation study (n=152 practitioners; n=247 students). The original instrument model of 8-Factor 56-Item was improved in the Australian CPAT. Two items, Item 27 (Physicians assume the ultimate responsibility) and Item 49 (Final decision rest with the physician), were consistently rejected and therefore discarded. The internal structure of the 7-Factor 54-Item solution was confirmed as a suitable model with fit indices meeting COSMIN standards for a good model in practitioner and student cohorts. Configural, metric and scalar invariances were confirmed, indicating the invariance of the instruments when used for the practitioner and student cohorts. The construct validity evaluation indicated that 81.3% of direct and indirect assumptions were accepted, fulfilling the COSMIN requirement of >75% of proposed assumptions being accepted. Conclusion The Australian CPAT with a 7-factor 54-item solution was confirmed as a quality measure for assessing interprofessional education and collaborative practice for both healthcare practitioners and students in Australia with robust psychometric properties.