Danielle F Loeb1, Lori A Crane2, Erin Leister3, Elizabeth A Bayliss4, Evette Ludman5, Ingrid A Binswanger6, Danielle M Kline7, Meredith Smith8, Frank V deGruy9, Donald E Nease10, L Miriam Dickinson11. 1. Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of Colorado, Aurora, USA. Electronic address: Danielle.loeb@ucdenver.edu. 2. Department of Community and Behavioral Health, Colorado School of Public Health, The Adult and Child Center for Outcomes Research and Delivery Science, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, USA. Electronic address: Lori.crane@ucdenver.edu. 3. Department of Biostatistics & Informatics, Colorado School of Public Health, The Adult and Child Center for Outcomes Research and Delivery Science, Aurora, USA. Electronic address: Erin.leister@ucdenver.edu. 4. Kaiser Permanente Colorado Institute for Health Research, Denver, USA; Department of Family Medicine, University of Colorado, Aurora, USA. Electronic address: Elizabeth.bayliss@kp.org. 5. Group Health Research Institute, Seattle, WA, USA. Electronic address: Ludman.e@ghc.org. 6. Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of Colorado, Aurora, USA; Kaiser Permanente Colorado Institute for Health Research, Denver, USA. Electronic address: Ingrid.a.binswanger@kp.org. 7. Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, USA. Electronic address: Danielle.Kline@ucdenver.edu. 8. Cancer Center, University of Colorado, Aurora, USA. Electronic address: Meredith.smith@ucdenver.edu. 9. Department of Family Medicine, University of Colorado, Aurora, USA. Electronic address: Frank.deGruy@ucdenver.edu. 10. Department of Family Medicine, University of Colorado, Aurora, USA. Electronic address: Donald.nease@ucdenver.edu. 11. Department of Family Medicine, University of Colorado, Aurora, USA; Department of Biostatistics & Informatics, Colorado School of Public Health, University of Colorado, Aurora, USA. Electronic address: Miriam.dickinson@ucdenver.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Develop and validate self-efficacy scales for primary care provider (PCP) mental illness management and team-based care participation. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We developed three self-efficacy scales: team-based care (TBC), mental illness management (MIM), and chronic medical illness (CMI). We developed the scales using Bandura's Social Cognitive Theory as a guide. The survey instrument included items from previously validated scales on team-based care and mental illness management. We administered a mail survey to 900 randomly selected Colorado physicians. We conducted exploratory principal factor analysis with oblique rotation. We constructed self-efficacy scales and calculated standardized Cronbach's alpha coefficients to test internal consistency. We calculated correlation coefficients between the MIM and TBC scales and previously validated measures related to each scale to evaluate convergent validity. We tested correlations between the TBC and the measures expected to correlate with the MIM scale and vice versa to evaluate discriminant validity. RESULTS: PCPs (n=402, response rate=49%) from diverse practice settings completed surveys. Items grouped into factors as expected. Cronbach's alphas were 0.94, 0.88, and 0.83 for TBC, MIM, and CMI scales respectively. In convergent validity testing, the TBC scale was correlated as predicted with scales assessing communications strategies, attitudes toward teams, and other teamwork indicators (r=0.25 to 0.40, all statistically significant). Likewise, the MIM scale was significantly correlated with several items about knowledge and experience managing mental illness (r=0.24 to 41, all statistically significant). As expected in discriminant validity testing, the TBC scale had only very weak correlations with the mental illness knowledge and experience managing mental illness items (r=0.03 to 0.12). Likewise, the MIM scale was only weakly correlated with measures of team-based care (r=0.09 to.17). CONCLUSION: This validation study of MIM and TBC self-efficacy scales showed high internal validity and good construct validity.
OBJECTIVE: Develop and validate self-efficacy scales for primary care provider (PCP) mental illness management and team-based care participation. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We developed three self-efficacy scales: team-based care (TBC), mental illness management (MIM), and chronic medical illness (CMI). We developed the scales using Bandura's Social Cognitive Theory as a guide. The survey instrument included items from previously validated scales on team-based care and mental illness management. We administered a mail survey to 900 randomly selected Colorado physicians. We conducted exploratory principal factor analysis with oblique rotation. We constructed self-efficacy scales and calculated standardized Cronbach's alpha coefficients to test internal consistency. We calculated correlation coefficients between the MIM and TBC scales and previously validated measures related to each scale to evaluate convergent validity. We tested correlations between the TBC and the measures expected to correlate with the MIM scale and vice versa to evaluate discriminant validity. RESULTS: PCPs (n=402, response rate=49%) from diverse practice settings completed surveys. Items grouped into factors as expected. Cronbach's alphas were 0.94, 0.88, and 0.83 for TBC, MIM, and CMI scales respectively. In convergent validity testing, the TBC scale was correlated as predicted with scales assessing communications strategies, attitudes toward teams, and other teamwork indicators (r=0.25 to 0.40, all statistically significant). Likewise, the MIM scale was significantly correlated with several items about knowledge and experience managing mental illness (r=0.24 to 41, all statistically significant). As expected in discriminant validity testing, the TBC scale had only very weak correlations with the mental illness knowledge and experience managing mental illness items (r=0.03 to 0.12). Likewise, the MIM scale was only weakly correlated with measures of team-based care (r=0.09 to.17). CONCLUSION: This validation study of MIM and TBC self-efficacy scales showed high internal validity and good construct validity.
Authors: Benjamin F Crabtree; Sabrina M Chase; Christopher G Wise; Gordon D Schiff; Laura A Schmidt; Jeanette R Goyzueta; Rebecca A Malouin; Susan M C Payne; Michael T Quinn; Paul A Nutting; William L Miller; Carlos Roberto Jaén Journal: Med Care Date: 2011-01 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: C F Mendes de Leon; T E Seeman; D I Baker; E D Richardson; M E Tinetti Journal: J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci Date: 1996-07 Impact factor: 4.077
Authors: Philip S Wang; Sergio Aguilar-Gaxiola; Jordi Alonso; Matthias C Angermeyer; Guilherme Borges; Evelyn J Bromet; Ronny Bruffaerts; Giovanni de Girolamo; Ron de Graaf; Oye Gureje; Josep Maria Haro; Elie G Karam; Ronald C Kessler; Viviane Kovess; Michael C Lane; Sing Lee; Daphna Levinson; Yutaka Ono; Maria Petukhova; José Posada-Villa; Soraya Seedat; J Elisabeth Wells Journal: Lancet Date: 2007-09-08 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Philip S Wang; Olga Demler; Mark Olfson; Harold A Pincus; Kenneth B Wells; Ronald C Kessler Journal: Am J Psychiatry Date: 2006-07 Impact factor: 19.242
Authors: Danielle F Loeb; Erin Leister; Evette Ludman; Ingrid A Binswanger; Lori Crane; Miriam Dickinson; Danielle M Kline; Frank V deGruy; Donald Nease; Elizabeth A Bayliss Journal: Gen Hosp Psychiatry Date: 2017-11-11 Impact factor: 3.238
Authors: Danielle F Loeb; Samantha Pelican Monson; Steven Lockhart; Cori Depue; Evette Ludman; Donald E Nease; Ingrid A Binswanger; Danielle M Kline; Frank V de Gruy; Dixie G Good; Elizabeth A Bayliss Journal: BMC Psychiatry Date: 2019-10-15 Impact factor: 3.630
Authors: Danielle F Loeb; Danielle M Kline; Kurt Kroenke; Cynthia Boyd; Elizabeth A Bayliss; Evette Ludman; L Miriam Dickinson; Ingrid A Binswanger; Samantha P Monson Journal: BMC Fam Pract Date: 2019-09-06 Impact factor: 2.497