Article Text

PDF
Pilot analysis of the Motivation Assessment for Team Readiness, Integration, and Collaboration (MATRICx) using Rasch analysis
  1. Trudy Mallinson1,
  2. Gaetano R Lotrecchiano1,
  3. Lisa S Schwartz1,
  4. Jeremy Furniss2,
  5. Tommy Leblanc-Beaudoin3,
  6. Danielle Lazar4,
  7. Holly J Falk-Krzesinski5,6
  1. 1Department of Clinical Research and Leadership, School of Medicine and Health Sciences, The George Washington University, Washington District of Columbia, USA
  2. 2Unaffiliated scholar, USA
  3. 3Peel Regional Paramedic Services, Brampton, Ontario, Canada
  4. 4Consulting Solutions at Envision Pharma Group, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
  5. 5Elsevier, Global Academic Relations, New York, New York, USA
  6. 6Northwestern University School of Professional Studies, Chicago, Illinois, USA
  1. Correspondence to Dr Trudy Mallinson, Department of Clinical Research and Leadership, School of Medicine and Health Sciences, The George Washington University, 2100 Pennsylvania Avenue, Rm 318, Washington DC 20037, USA; trudy{at}gwu.edu

Abstract

Healthcare services and the production of healthcare knowledge are increasingly dependent on highly functioning, multidisciplinary teams, requiring greater awareness of individuals’ readiness to collaborate in translational science teams. Yet, there is no comprehensive tool of individual motivations and threats to collaboration that can guide preparation of individuals for work on well-functioning teams. This prospective pilot study evaluated the preliminary psychometric properties of the Motivation Assessment for Team Readiness, Integration, and Collaboration (MATRICx). We examined 55 items of the MATRICx in a sample of 125 faculty, students and researchers, using contemporary psychometric methods (Rasch analysis). We found that the motivator and threat items formed separate constructs relative to collaboration readiness. Further, respondents who identified themselves as inexperienced at working on collaborative projects defined the motivation construct differently from experienced respondents. These results are consistent with differences in strategic alliances described in the literature—for example, inexperienced respondents reflected features of cooperation and coordination, such as concern with sharing information and compatibility of goals. In contrast, the more experienced respondents were concerned with issues that reflected a collective purpose, more typical of collaborative alliances. While these different types of alliances are usually described as representing varying aspects along a continuum, our findings suggest that collaboration might be better thought of as a qualitatively different state than cooperation or coordination. These results need to be replicated in larger samples, but the findings have implications for the development and design of educational interventions that aim to ready scientists and clinicians for greater interdisciplinary work.

  • Research Design
  • Translational Medical Research

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.