Development and Translation of Measurement Findings for the Motivation Assessment for Team Readiness,Integration,and Collaboration Self-Scoring Form

PURPOSE: Collaboration is increasingly required in research (Wuchty et al., 2007) because of the need for a wider range of scientific expertise, advanced instrumentation to address research questions, and larger project teams. The Motivation Assessment for Team Readiness, Integration, and Collaboration (MATRICx) was designed as an evidence-based assessment of motivations for and threats to collaborative engagement for health, medical, and research teams. The theoretical foundation for the MATRICx is based on a scoping review (Lotrecchiano et al., 2016), and the tool has adequate psychometric properties based on Rasch analysis (Mallinson et al., 2016). This study describes the development of an innovative approach to presenting a self-scoring format for the MATRICx and to determining how results of the assessment tool could be interpreted for health care teams. The purpose of the study was to describe the features of a self-scoring form that enhance and detract from the understanding and interpretation of MATRICx scores.

METHOD: The self-scoring form was developed using a mixed methods approach with an iterative process of qualitative and quantitative techniques. A qualitative study was conducted to examine users’ experience with the self-report form, ways of interpreting results, and insights into how participants might apply what is learned through the self-scoring format to their personal development (Rothwell et al., 2016). Four participants, all of whom had doctorates in their respective fields, engaged in a focus group discussion of four proposed self-scoring formats. This deliberative discussion, in which explanations were given during the actual interview, was held because the innovative graphic presentation based on Rasch models was unfamiliar to the participants; thus, providing additional information supported the participants’ responses (Rothwell et al., 2016). The philosophical assumptions and interpretive framework are consistent with postpositivism because the underlying assumption is that improving the design of the self-scoring format may improve respondents’ experience in using the questionnaire. The key informant interviews were analyzed thematically.

RESULTS: Four themes were identified: (1) levels and skills are useful, (2) report form is not intuitive, (3) need for self-scoring instructions, and (4) confusion in instructions and use. The first three themes relate to features that enhanced or detracted from users’ understanding of how to use the self-scoring form. The fourth theme relates to suggestions the users provided for the form’s future use. Overall, the participants found the content of the MATRICx informative but found the presentation on the proposed self-scoring form confusing and not intuitive. Further refinement was performed on the questionnaire.

CONCLUSION: This study provides insight into the use of a self-scoring questionnaire based on the key form format. Findings suggest that this different format may be initially confusing to users and that clear instructions on how to self-score and use the new format are needed for it to be useful for application in team science collaborations. A revised self-scoring form is presented, along with practical applications for use on the person and group level. Future development of the MATRICx self-scoring form is discussed.

References

Lotrecchiano, G. R., Mallinson, T. R., Leblanc-Beaudoin, T., Schwartz, L. S., Lazar, D., & Falk-Krzesinski, H. J. (2016). Individual motivation and threat indicators of collaboration readiness in scientific knowledge producing teams: A scoping review and domain analysis. Heliyon, 2(5), e0010. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2016.e00105

Mallinson, T., Lotrecchiano, G. R., Schwartz, L. S., Furniss, J., Beaudoin, T. L., Lazar, D., & Falk-Krzesinski, H. (2016). Pilot analysis of the Motivation Assessment for Team Readiness, Integration, and Collaboration (MATRICx) using Rasch analysis. Journal of Investigative Medicine, 64, 1186–1193. https://doi.org/10.1136/jim-2016-000173

Rothwell, E., Anderson, R., & Botkin, J. R. (2016). Deliberative discussion focus groups. Qualitative Health Research, 26, 734–740. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732315591150

Wuchty, S., Jones, B. F., & Uzzi, B. (2007). The increasing dominance of teams in production of knowledge. Science, 316, 1036–1039. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1136099