OBJECTIVE: To test the psychometric soundness of a teamwork climate survey in labor and delivery, examine differences in perceptions of teamwork, and provide benchmarking data. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey of labor and delivery caregivers in 44 hospitals in diverse regions of the US, using the Safety Attitudes Questionnaire teamwork climate scale. RESULTS: The response rate was 72% (3382 of 4700). The teamwork climate scale had good internal reliability (overall alpha = 0.78). Teamwork climate scale factor structure was confirmed using multilevel confirmatory factor analyses (CFI = 0.95, TLI = 0.92, RMSEA = 0.12, SRMR(within) = 0.04, SRMR(between) = 0.09). Aggregation of individual-level responses to the L&D unit-level was supported by ICC (1) = 0.06 (P < 0.001), ICC (2) = 0.83 and mean r (wg(j)) = 0.83. ANOVA demonstrated differences between caregivers F (7, 3013) = 10.30, P < 0.001 and labor and delivery units, F (43, 1022) = 3.49, P < 0.001. Convergent validity of the scale scores was measured by correlations with external teamwork-related items: collaborative decision making (r = 0.780, P < 0.001), use of briefings (r = 0.496, P < 0.001) and perceived adequacy of staffing levels (r = 0.593, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: We demonstrate a psychometrically sound teamwork climate scale, correlate it to external teamwork-related items, and provide labor and delivery teamwork benchmarks. Further teamwork climate research should explore the links to clinical and operational outcomes.
OBJECTIVE: To test the psychometric soundness of a teamwork climate survey in labor and delivery, examine differences in perceptions of teamwork, and provide benchmarking data. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey of labor and delivery caregivers in 44 hospitals in diverse regions of the US, using the Safety Attitudes Questionnaire teamwork climate scale. RESULTS: The response rate was 72% (3382 of 4700). The teamwork climate scale had good internal reliability (overall alpha = 0.78). Teamwork climate scale factor structure was confirmed using multilevel confirmatory factor analyses (CFI = 0.95, TLI = 0.92, RMSEA = 0.12, SRMR(within) = 0.04, SRMR(between) = 0.09). Aggregation of individual-level responses to the L&D unit-level was supported by ICC (1) = 0.06 (P < 0.001), ICC (2) = 0.83 and mean r (wg(j)) = 0.83. ANOVA demonstrated differences between caregivers F (7, 3013) = 10.30, P < 0.001 and labor and delivery units, F (43, 1022) = 3.49, P < 0.001. Convergent validity of the scale scores was measured by correlations with external teamwork-related items: collaborative decision making (r = 0.780, P < 0.001), use of briefings (r = 0.496, P < 0.001) and perceived adequacy of staffing levels (r = 0.593, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: We demonstrate a psychometrically sound teamwork climate scale, correlate it to external teamwork-related items, and provide labor and delivery teamwork benchmarks. Further teamwork climate research should explore the links to clinical and operational outcomes.
Authors: Sara J Singer; Christine W Hartmann; Amresh Hanchate; Shibei Zhao; Mark Meterko; Priti Shokeen; Shoutzu Lin; David M Gaba; Amy K Rosen Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2009-07-03 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: Rachel D A Havyer; Majken T Wingo; Nneka I Comfere; Darlene R Nelson; Andrew J Halvorsen; Furman S McDonald; Darcy A Reed Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2013-12-11 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Mark L Wieland; Andrew J Halvorsen; Rajeev Chaudhry; Darcy A Reed; Furman S McDonald; Kris G Thomas Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2013-08 Impact factor: 5.128