↓ Skip to main content

Informational role self-efficacy: a validation in interprofessional collaboration contexts involving healthcare service and project teams

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, April 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (69th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (61st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
34 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
74 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Informational role self-efficacy: a validation in interprofessional collaboration contexts involving healthcare service and project teams
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, April 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12913-016-1382-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

François Chiocchio, Paule Lebel, Jean-Nicolas Dubé

Abstract

Healthcare professionals perform knowledge-intensive work in very specialized disciplines. Across the professional divide, collaboration becomes increasingly difficult. For effective teamwork and collaboration to occur, it is considered necessary for individuals to believe in their ability to draw on their expertise and provide what others need to perform their job well. To date, however, no instruments exist to measure such a construct. A two-study design is used to test the psychometric properties, factor structure and incremental validity of a five-item questionnaire measuring informational role self-efficacy. Based on parallel analysis and exploratory factor analysis, Study 1 shows a robust and reliable one-dimensional construct. Study 2 cross-validates this factor structure using confirmatory factor analysis. Study 2 also shows that informational role self-efficacy predicts proactive teamwork behaviors over and above goal similarity, interdependence, coordination and intra-team trust. The instrument can be used in research to assess an individual's capability beliefs in communicating his/her informational characteristics that are pertinent to the task performance of others. The construct is also shown to have value in team-building exercises.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 74 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
Switzerland 1 1%
Unknown 72 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 16%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 11%
Student > Master 7 9%
Student > Bachelor 7 9%
Researcher 4 5%
Other 14 19%
Unknown 22 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 12 16%
Psychology 9 12%
Social Sciences 5 7%
Business, Management and Accounting 4 5%
Engineering 4 5%
Other 16 22%
Unknown 24 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 24 May 2016.
All research outputs
#6,642,268
of 23,881,329 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#3,148
of 7,949 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#91,108
of 301,356 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#32
of 81 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,881,329 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,949 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 301,356 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 81 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its contemporaries.