Health Professions Ethics Rubric: Validation of Reliability in an Interprofessional Health Ethics Course

• Published in: Journal of dental education Vol. 79; no. 4; pp. 424 - 431
• Main Authors: Poirier, Therese I., Hecht, Keith A., Lynch, J. Christopher, Otsuka, Allen S., Shafer, Kathy J., Wilhelm, Miranda J.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States American Dental Education Association 01.04.2015
• Subjects: Beneficence; Confidentiality - ethics; dental education; Dentistry; Education, Dental; Education, Pharmacy; Empathy - ethics; ethics; Ethics, Dental - education; Ethics, Pharmacy - education; Faculty; Faculty, Dental; Humans; Informed Consent - ethics; interdisciplinary health care team; interprofessional education; Patient Care Team; Personal Autonomy; pharmacy education; Students, Dental; Students, Pharmacy; Teaching - methods; Truth Disclosure - ethics; interprofessional education; dental education; interdisciplinary health care team; pharmacy education; ethics
• ISSN: 0022-0337; 1930-7837
• DOI: 10.1002/j.0022-0337.2015.79.4.tb05900.x

The aim of this study was to validate a health professions ethics rubric by an interprofessional team. The rubric was used by two pharmacy and two dental faculty members to score ethics cases submitted by 16 teams comprised of 80 pharmacy and 50 dental students. A debriefing session for each case was moderated by a non‐rater faculty member to arrive at a consensus score for the cases. Interrater reliability was calculated for the four raters and the debriefing scores as well as the four raters without the debriefing scores. The overall interrater correlations were in the range of 0.790 to 0.906 for the four raters. Issues ranged from 0.320 to 0.758. Principles ranged from 0.610 to 0.838. Options ranged from 0.655 to 0.843. Analysis ranged from 0.667 to 0.918. Solution ranged from 0.739 to 0.886. With the inclusion of the consensus scores, the interrater correlations were even higher. The best correlations were for the overall score and solution components of the rubric. With further edits in the rubric and enhanced training by faculty raters and changes in the ethics learning session, the revised rubric could be evaluated again for grading. Further training for faculty using the rubric for grading student cases should enhance its reliability. Demonstrating to students the ethical decision making process using the rubric should enhance the validation process.