Figure 1
Perception of Interprofessional Collaboration Model [14].
Table 1
Participant Characteristics.
| COHORT 1 (N = 201) | COHORT 2 (N = 159) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| N | % | N | % | |||
| Gender | ||||||
| Female | 149 | 74.1 | 110 | 69.6 | ||
| Male | 48 | 23.9 | 48 | 30.4 | ||
| Age | ||||||
| under 25 | 3 | 1.5 | 4 | 2.5 | ||
| 25–34 | 53 | 26.6 | 41 | 25.8 | ||
| 35–44 | 53 | 26.6 | 44 | 27.7 | ||
| 45–54 | 55 | 27.6 | 44 | 27.7 | ||
| 55–64 | 34 | 17.1 | 25 | 15.7 | ||
| >64 | 1 | 0.5 | 1 | 0.6 | ||
| Organisation | ||||||
| Child and adolescent psychiatry | 84 | 42.2 | 68 | 43.0 | ||
| Child and youth welfare office | 82 | 41.2 | 48 | 30.4 | ||
| Child and youth welfare services | 21 | 10.6 | 26 | 16.5 | ||
| Other | 12 | 6.0 | 16 | 10.1 | ||
| Profession | ||||||
| Social worker | 97 | 50.0 | 70 | 44.3 | ||
| Child welfare worker | 31 | 16.0 | 33 | 20.9 | ||
| Nurse | 19 | 9.8 | 14 | 8.9 | ||
| Psychologist | 6 | 3.1 | 4 | 2.5 | ||
| Psychotherapist | 19 | 9.8 | 16 | 10.1 | ||
| Psychiatrist | 12 | 6.2 | 9 | 5.7 | ||
| B.A./M.A. Education | 4 | 2.1 | 2 | 1.3 | ||
| Support worker | 6 | 3.1 | 10 | 6.3 | ||
| Work experience | ||||||
| under 5 years | 41 | 21.1 | 31 | 19.7 | ||
| 5–9 years | 36 | 18.6 | 32 | 20.4 | ||
| 10–20 years | 70 | 36.1 | 57 | 36.3 | ||
| >20 years | 54 | 24.2 | 47 | 23.6 | ||
Table 2
Exploratory factor analysis of a five-factor model of the German PINCOM-Q.
| CRONBACH’S ALPHA COEFFICIENT | .81 | .79 | .74 | .60 | .53 | CRONBACH’S ALPHA IF ITEM DELETED | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SUBSCALE/ITEM | FACTOR 1 | FACTOR 2 | FACTOR 3 | FACTOR 4 | FACTOR 5 | ||
| 1 | Social Support a | .71 | .78 | ||||
| 2 | Social support b | .67 | .78 | ||||
| 3 | Social support c | .75 | .77 | ||||
| 4 | Social support d | .60 | .80 | ||||
| 5 | Communication a | .72 | .78 | ||||
| 6 | Communication d | .67 | .79 | ||||
| 7 | Coping a | .67 | .78 | ||||
| 8 | Professional power a | .81 | .73 | ||||
| 9 | Professional power b | .68 | 74 | ||||
| 10 | Professional power c | .59 | 80 | ||||
| 11 | Professional power d | .76 | .76 | ||||
| 12 | Personality style a | .76 | .75 | ||||
| 13 | Personality style d | .64 | .78 | ||||
| 14 | Role expectancy c | .82 | 68 | ||||
| 15 | Role expectancy d | .73 | .63 | ||||
| 16 | Organization domain b | .72 | .62 | ||||
| 17 | Coping c | .63 | .69 | ||||
| 18 | Communication b | .60 | .72 | ||||
| 19 | Organizational culture a | .82 | .57 | ||||
| 20 | Organizational cultured | .64 | .59 | ||||
| 21 | Organization domain a | .61 | .40 | ||||
| 22 | Organization domain d | –59 | .51 | ||||
| 23 | Motivation a | .75 | .37 | ||||
| 24 | Motivation b | .66 | .48 | ||||
| 25 | Motivation d | .61 | .45 | ||||
| 26 | Role expectancy a | .55 | .51 | ||||
| (Cumulative Contribution (%) | 27.38% | 40.31% | 47.60% | 53.48% | 58.48% | ||
Figure 2
Five-Factor Model of the PINCOM-Q (G).
Figure 3
Four-Factor Model PINCOM-Q (G).
Table 3
PINCOM-Q (G) Items and Subscales.
| CRONBACH’S ALPHA | ||
|---|---|---|
| Subscale 1 | Interprofessional climate | α = .81 |
| 1 | I experience that I can get help and social support from the other professionals in the interprofessional groups I participate in | |
| 2 | I find that other professionals in the interprofessional collaboration groups I participate in, arc willing to listen to me if I have problems | |
| 3 | I find that I am appreciated by other professionals in the interprofessional groups I participate in | |
| 4 | I have almost never found that other professionals do not understand what I am trying to express and/or report | |
| 5 | I get relevant feedback on my contributions in the interprofessional groups I participate in | |
| 6 | Professionals arc good at exchanging information with each other about how they work | |
| 7 | We almost always solve the defined problems in the interprofessional group | |
| 8 | The organizations are characterized by the wish to work interprofessionally | |
| 9 | We (the employees) are encouraged to promote new ways of working in interprofessional groups | |
| 10 | Laws and regulations arc relatively well known by all the professionals in interprofessional groups | |
| Subsacle 2 | Conflict | α = .80 |
| 1 | Some professionals dominate the interprofessional meetings with their professional viewpoints* | |
| 2 | Some professionals determine the underlying assumptions in interprofessional groups | |
| 3 | Occasionally interprofessional groups do not work because some professionals dominate the meetings* | |
| 4 | Some professionals act in ways that make interprofessional collaboration difficult* | |
| 5 | Interprofessional collaboration calls for openness of mind and not all professionals are able to live up to that* | |
| Subscale 3 | Role expectancy and Shared Goals | α = .76 |
| 1 | My experience is that our roles are always clearly defined | |
| 2 | I experience that my area of responsibility is clearly defined when I work in interprofessional groups | |
| 3 | Everybody knows their area of responsibility | |
| 4 | In most of the interprofessional groups I participate in, we agree about priorities | |
| 5 | In the interprofessional groups I participate in, exchange of information is never a problem | |
| Subscale 4 | Motivation | α = .53 |
| 1 | I find working in interprofessional groups valuable | |
| 2 | I get to use my creativity and imagination when I work in interprofessional groups | |
| 3 | I experience personal growth when I work in interprofessional groups | |
| 4 | I always have clear goals when I work interprofessionally | |
| Total: 24 items | α = .85 |
[i] * Reverse coded.