4.4 Article

Team emergency assessment measure (TEAM) of non-technical skills: The Brazilian Portuguese version of the TEAM tool

期刊

CLINICS
卷 77, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER ESPANA
DOI: 10.1016/j.clinsp.2022.100043

关键词

Teamwork; Leadership; Communication; Education; Simulation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study aimed to translate and adapt the original Team Emergency Assessment Measure tool into Brazilian Portuguese and evaluate the psychometric properties of this new version. Results showed that the Brazilian Portuguese version of the TEAM tool displayed acceptable internal consistency and inter-rater reliability, similar to the original English version.
Objectives: The aim of this study was to conduct the translation and cross-cultural adaptation of the original Team Emergency Assessment Measure (TEAM) tool into the Brazilian Portuguese language and investigate the internal consistency, inter-rater reliability, and concurrent validity of this new version (bp-TEAM). Methods: Independent medical translators performed forward and backward translations of the TEAM tool between English and Portuguese, creating the bp-TEAM. The authors selected 23 videos from final-year medical students during in-situ emergency simulations. Three independent raters assessed all the videos using the bp TEAM and provided a score for each of the 12 items of the tool. The authors assessed the internal consistency and the inter-rater reliability of the tool. Results: Raters assessed all 23 videos. Internal consistency was assessed among the 11 items of the bp-TEAM from one rater, yielding a Cronbach's alpha of 0.89. inter-item correlation analysis yielded a mean correlation coeffi-cient rho of 0.46. Inter-rater reliability analysis among the three raters yielded an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.86 (95% CI 0.83???0.89), p < 0.001. Conclusion: The Brazilian Portuguese version of the TEAM tool presented acceptable psychometric properties, similar to the original English version.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据