Translating and validating a Japanese version of the instrument for patient assessment of medical professionalism (J-IPAMP): a cross-sectional survey

Hirohisa Fujikawa; Daisuke Son; Takuya Aoki; Kayo Kondo; Yousuke Takemura; Minoru Saito; Naoko Den; Masato Eto

doi:10.1186/s12909-022-03699-8

Translating and validating a Japanese version of the instrument for patient assessment of medical professionalism (J-IPAMP): a cross-sectional survey

BMC Med Educ. 2022 Aug 23;22(1):641. doi: 10.1186/s12909-022-03699-8.

Authors

Hirohisa Fujikawa¹, Daisuke Son^{2

3}, Takuya Aoki^{4

5}, Kayo Kondo⁶, Yousuke Takemura⁷, Minoru Saito⁸, Naoko Den⁹, Masato Eto²

Affiliations

¹ Department of Medical Education Studies, International Research Center for Medical Education, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, 7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, 113-0033, Japan. hirohisa.fujikawa@gmail.com.
² Department of Medical Education Studies, International Research Center for Medical Education, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, 7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, 113-0033, Japan.
³ Department of Community-Based Family Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Tottori University, Yonago, Tottori, Japan.
⁴ Division of Clinical Epidemiology, Research Center for Medical Sciences, The Jikei University School of Medicine, Minato-ku, Tokyo, Japan.
⁵ Section of Clinical Epidemiology, Department of Community Medicine, Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto University, Sakyo-ku, Kyoto, Japan.
⁶ School of Modern Languages and Cultures, Durham University, Durham, UK.
⁷ Department of General Medicine, Graduate School of Medical Science, Tokyo Women's Medical University, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo, Japan.
⁸ Department of Internal Medicine, Suwa Central Hospital, Chino, Nagano, Japan.
⁹ Department of Internal Medicine, Oji Seikyo Hospital, Tokyo Hokuto Health Co-Operative, Kita-ku, Tokyo, Japan.

Abstract

Background: Although there are many tools to assess medical professionalism, they rarely address patients' perspectives. The instrument for patient assessment of medical professionalism (IPAMP) comprises 11 items and has been established and validated as a valuable tool for assessing trainees' professionalism from the patient's perspective. However, there is no instrument to assess professionalism from the patient's perspective in Japan. The purpose of the present study was to develop a Japanese version of the IPAMP (J-IPAMP) and test its validity and reliability.

Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional survey to examine the reliability and validity of the J-IPAMP in two hospitals (one each in an urban and rural area) in Japan. Receptionists or surveyors distributed the anonymous questionnaire to 276 inpatients; all participants were aged above 20 years and assigned to medical trainees. We evaluated its structural and criterion-related validity, as well as internal consistency reliability.

Results: Data of 235 (85.1%) patients were analyzed. Using the split-half validation technique, we performed an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) along with a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). The EFA showed a one-factor solution. Then, to compare the model fitness between two models (the two-factor model from the original English version vs. unidimensional model suggested by the EFA), the CFA was performed. The CFA showed that almost all of the fit indices met their respective criteria and were approximately the same for the two models. Thus, we adopted a single-factor model. The Pearson correlation coefficients between the total J-IPAMP scores and the global ratings were 0.738, indicating adequate criterion-related validity. The Cronbach's alpha of the 11 items of the instrument was 0.96 (95% confidence interval: 0.96-0.97) and the omega value was 0.96, demonstrating acceptable internal consistency reliability.

Conclusions: We developed the Japanese version of the IPAMP. Its validity and reliability were verified through analysis. This instrument can be utilized for professionalism education in the postgraduate training setting.

Keywords: Medical professionalism; Reliability; Scale development; Validity.

MeSH terms

Aged
Cross-Sectional Studies
Humans
Japan
Professionalism*
Psychometrics
Reproducibility of Results
Surveys and Questionnaires
Translating*