Measures of efficacy for health care professional teams

Abstract

This methodological study of a measure of collective efficacy was conducted to advance the methods of studying the mechanism involved in the performance of professional groups. Groups and teams are increasingly used in conducting organizational work. Hospitals have increased the use of teams in quality improvement initiatives and accreditation by JCAHO requires integration of multidisciplinary approaches to management. In this study the psychometric properties of a collective efficacy measure were assessed. Self efficacy served as the theoretical and operational foundation for collective efficacy therefore a measure of self efficacy was also assessed. Self and collective efficacy questionnaires were administered to 56 professional groups from six hospitals. The professional groups had an organizational group assignment which was used in assessing efficacy beliefs. The results of psychometric testing provided evidence of internal consistency reliability for both self efficacy (alpha =.85, n = 421) and collective efficacy scales (alpha =.90, n = 45). Forty-five groups met the criteria for aggregation. Evidence of construct validity for the self efficacy scale was established by examining the level of individual performance and self efficacy. Evidence of construct validity was not established for the collective efficacy scale using level of group performance and collective efficacy. A low correlation between the mean self efficacy of a group and the level of collective efficacy of each group provided evidence that two different constructs were being measured (r =.29, p =.057). Research questions related to size, time as a group, and composition provided additional insight into the construct of collective efficacy. The study involved three distinct design issues: use of health care professionals in groups who make knowledge contributions, the study was conducted in "real time" with "live" organizational assignments in the natural setting of the institution, and a group construct, collective efficacy, was examined. Additional development of collective efficacy is indicated. Assurance that a shared understanding of the group's assignment exists among members and an improved method for measuring group performance would contribute to future development of collective efficacy. This study represents an initial step in measuring collective efficacy further development could serve to advance the study of professional groups.