Introduction Recent findings suggest that process and outcome-based efficacy beliefs are factorially distinct with differential effects for team performance. This study extends this work by examining process and outcome efficacy (TPE, TOE) of interprofessional (IP) care teams over time.
Methods A within-team, repeated measures design with survey methodology was implemented in a sample of prelicensure IP care teams performing over three consecutive clinical simulation scenarios. TPE and TOE were assessed before and after each performance episode.
Results Initial baseline results replicated the discriminant validity for TPE and TOE separate factors. Further findings from multilevel modelling indicated significant time effects for TPE convergence, but not TOE convergence. However, a cross-level interaction effect of ‘TOE(Start-Mean)×Time’ strengthened TOE convergence over time. A final follow-up analysis of team agreement’s substantive impact was conducted using independent faculty-observer ratings of teams’ final simulation.
Conclusion Independent sample t-tests of high/low-agreement teams indicated support for agreement’s substantive impact, such that high-agreement teams were rated as significantly better performers than low-agreement teams during the final simulation training. We discuss the substantive merit of methodological within-team agreement as an indicator of team functionality within IP and greater healthcare-simulation trainings at-large.
- team efficacy
- team dynamics
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Contributors MJK contributed IPE measurement selection, questionnaire programming, data curation, technical analyses and write-up of early manuscript drafts. DSA contributed initial project planning outreach to schools of allied health professions, as well as IPE literature review synthesis, and IPE facilitator training. BPD contributed IPE training delivery support and materials development for facilitator training, as well as support in assessing participating allied health professions.
Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Competing interests None declared.
Ethics approval The enclosed study was approved by the academic medical centre’s internal Institutional Review Board.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Data sharing statement All data published or unpublished from the enclosed study are freely available by direct request from the secondary author.
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.