Team collaboration: a case study of an early intervention team.

The study described in this article sought to examine the workings of an interdisciplinary team as a research entity and as a service provider. There were two levels of analysis in the study: the process of collaborating on the research and the results of the research observation of an interdisciplinary team in a clinical setting. An interdisciplinary research team studied the interaction of a single clinical team over a 6-month period working with one child in a hospital-based early intervention program. The data were collected through intensive interviews, direct observations of the family and team members, and selected videotaping of team meetings. Qualitative data analysis methods were used, and five themes emerged: who takes the lead, the classroom as a way station, we like our freedom but..., who is giving and who is taking advice, and communication comes in few forms.

Assessment training and team functioning for treating children with disabilities.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate differences in team functioning before and after assessment training. DESIGN: Before-after trial. SETTING: Outpatient rehabilitation and education program in a university medical center-based rehabilitation institute. PARTICIPANTS: A population-based sample of 19 rehabilitation and education specialists. INTERVENTION: Baseline measures were taken during four meetings using the multidisciplinary team approach. Training in a global measure of child development ensued and staff administered the test to children in their care. Test results were then used during four transdisciplinary team meetings. OUTCOME MEASURES: Behavioral ratings of team participation (Transdisciplinary Team Rating Scale), self-report instruments of team development (Team Assessment Questionnaire), treatment planning and goal development (Staff Perception Questionnaire). RESULTS: Results of t tests confirmed two of three hypotheses. There was more team member participation during transdisciplinary meetings than during multidisciplinary meetings (p = .003) and staff members' perceptions of the efficacy of treatment planning and implementation of goals significantly favored the transdisciplinary model (p < .001). No significant difference was found in team development (p = .254). CONCLUSION: This study provides evidence for the value of training in an assessment tool that requires the use of a common, functional language that is comprehensible to all staff members and promotes a transdisciplinary approach to team work.

Team approaches to treating children with disabilities: a comparison.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate differences in team functioning between the multidisciplinary and transdisciplinary models when treating children with disabilities. DESIGN: A crossover trial. SETTING: An outpatient educational and rehabilitation program in a rehabilitation institute based at a university medical center. PARTICIPANTS: A population-based sample of 19 rehabilitation specialists and educators. INTERVENTION: Participants attended four team meetings using the multidisciplinary approach and then attended four team meetings using the transdisciplinary approach. OUTCOME MEASURES: Behavioral ratings of team participation (Transdisciplinary Team Rating Scale) and self-report instruments of team development (Team Assessment Questionnaire) and treatment planning and goal development (Staff Perception Questionnaire). RESULTS: Results of t tests confirmed the hypothesis that there was more team member participation during transdisciplinary meetings than during multidisciplinary meetings (p=.027). There were no differences in levels of team development (p=.329); however, staff members favored the transdisciplinary model for treatment planning and goal development (p < .001). CONCLUSION: This study provides evidence of the effectiveness of the transdisciplinary model. Further research is now needed to investigate outcome variables such as rate of success in attaining treatment goals when using this model.