Abstract
Objective: In order to verify the methodological quality of two versions of a tool for measuring attitudes towards interprofessional learning, we adapted - in terms of translation and scale form - the Heidelberg Version [1] of Readiness for Interprofessional Learning Scale - RIPLS [2], a methodologically controversial tool that had been translated into German, and compared both the original and new versions. Method: Three items were reworded and the scale form altered (from five to four levels), leading to the Halle Version that was validated by means of a cognitive pretest (n=6). Both questionnaires were completed by students taking the interprofessional degree program in Health and Nursing Sciences (HNS) and by students of Human Medicine. The test quality of both tools was examined by analyzing the main components and reliability using the scales allocation of the items as according to Parsell and Bligh [2]. Results: The questionnaires were randomly assembled and distributed to 331 students. The response was n=320 (HNS n=109; Medicine n=211). The Halle Version "RIPLS-HAL" of the questionnaire was completed by n=166 and the Heidelberg Version "RIPLS-HDB" by n=154. In the main component analysis the data could not depict the scale patterns of the original Australian tool. The reliability values of both the Heidelberg and Halle versions were only satisfactory for the "Teamwork and Collaboration" and "Professional Identity" scales. Conclusions: The German version of the Readiness for Interprofessional Learning Scale has only limited suitability for recording the attitude towards interprofessional learning. The present versions can be regarded as an approach towards developing a more suitable tool.