A Delphi Study to Determine Leveling of the Interprofessional Core Competencies for Four Levels of Interprofessional Practice
Although the Core Competencies for Interprofessional Education (IPE) provide guidance in developing interprofessional learning experiences, the literature is sparse in how to incorporate them across varying levels of learning activities. Thus, the purpose of this study was to explore consensus for leveling the IPEC Core Competencies for use across four levels of interprofessional practice. Initially, Benner’s novice to expert theory was used to develop a leveling document for planning educational experiences appropriate for pre-licensure through practice learners. Using this document, a Delphi study was conducted to gain consensus on leveling the Core Competencies.
A modified Delphi technique was employed using an expert panel of 48 healthcare faculty experienced in interprofessional education. Participants were asked to select their opinion of the level of learner for which each of the competencies were most appropriate.
After three rounds of questionnaires, 34 of the 38 competencies achieved consensus at a 70% agreement. Four competencies did not reach consensus.
Using a developmental approach, this study provides a foundational point for establishing guidelines for progressive organization and consistency in interprofessional learning activities. Although four competencies did not reach consensus, the results suggest that leveling is possible. Ongoing research is needed to further validate or revise the findings from this study.
KeywordsInterprofessional education Core competencies Learner leveling Competency leveling
We wish to acknowledge and thank those interprofessional education experts who agreed to participate in this study. We also wish to acknowledge the contributing work of our colleagues who are co-members of HealthSim United, a non-profit organization formed to facilitate simulation that is “always interprofessional” and “always has family presence.”
Compliance with Ethical Standards
The institutional review boards of the authors’ associated universities approved the study. Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.
- 1.Interprofessional Education Collaborative Expert Panel. Core competencies for interprofessional collaborative practice: report of an expert panel. Washington, D.C.2011.Google Scholar
- 12.Kolb DA. Experiential learning: experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall; 1984.Google Scholar
- 13.Holton E, Knowles M, Swanson R. The adult learner: the definitive classic in adult education and human resource development. 6th ed. Boston: Elsevier; 2005.Google Scholar
- 16.Busenhart CA. “Leveling core competencies for interprofessional collaborative practice” for learners. Lawrence: University of Kansas; 2014.Google Scholar
- 18.Hsu C-C, Sandford BA. The Delphi technique: making sense of consensus. Pract Assess Res Eval. 2007;12(10):1–8.Google Scholar
- 19.Custer RL, Scarcella JA, Stewart B. The modified Delphi technique—a rotational modification. J Vocat Tech Educ . 1999;15(2).Google Scholar
- 20.Finkelman A, Kenner C. Teaching IOM: implications of the Institute of Medicine reports for nursing education. Silver Spring, MD: Nursesbooks.org; 2012.Google Scholar
- 21.Interprofessional Education Collaborative, editor. Team-based competencies: building a shared foundation for education and clincial practice. Interprofessional Education Collaborative; 2011 February 16–17; Washington, DC.Google Scholar
- 22.Qualtrics. Qualtrics. 2016 ed. Provo, Utah 2016.Google Scholar
- 23.Rivera R Jr. Assessing community reintegration in adolescents and young adults with spinal cord injury: a Delphi study. Denton: Texas Woman’s University; 2013.Google Scholar
- 25.Interprofessional Education Collaborative. Core competencies for interprofessional collaborative practice: 2016 update. Washington, DC: Interprofessional Education Collaborative 2016.Google Scholar