Measurement of Change in Rehabilitation Team Dynamics With the Team Assessment Profile (TAP)

  • Andrew J. Haig
  • Diane Belongia LeBreck


Teamwork is fundamental in rehabilitation, yet research on team structure and function is lacking. The Teamwork Assessment Profile (TAP) is a rehab specific survey instrument for team dynamics used before and after institution of a novel team format, Issue Oriented Rehabilitation Staffing (IORS), on a rehabilitation unit. With IORS, a “Person Responsible” leads each “Issue.” Highly structured team meetings focus on team coordination, not reporting or documentation. Statistically significant team dynamic changes occurred on the TAP after IORS, including team interdependence, length of staffing, and percent of staffing time viewed as useful. Sample size and uncontrolled covariables limit conclusions, but the TAP demonstrated face validity. IORS is a viable staffing format. Measurement of team dynamics may improve quality and efficiency of rehabilitation teams.

rehabilitation transdisciplinary multidisciplinary team administration 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Fordyce, W. E. (1981). ACRM presidential address: On interdisciplinary peers. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehab. 62: 51-53.Google Scholar
  2. Given, B., and Simmons, S. (1977). The interdisciplinary health-care team: Fact or Fiction? Nursing Forum 16(2): 165-184.Google Scholar
  3. Haig, A. J., Nagy, A., LeBreck, D. B., and Stein, G. L. (1995). Outpatient planning for persons with physical disabilities: A randomized prospective trial of physiatrist alone versus a multidisciplinary team. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehab. 76: 341-348.Google Scholar
  4. Halstead, L. S. (1976). Team care in chronic illness: A critical review of the literature of the past 25 years. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehab. 57: 507-511.Google Scholar
  5. Hintze, J. L. (1987). Number Cruncher Statistical System Version 5.01, Kaysville, Utah.Google Scholar
  6. Keith, R. A. (1991). The comprehensive treatment team in rehabilitation. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehab. 72: 269-274.Google Scholar
  7. Magrun, W. M., and Tigges, K. N. (1982). A transdisciplinary mobile intervention program for rural areas. Am. J. Occup. Ther. 36: 90-94.Google Scholar
  8. McEachern, J. E., Makens, P. K., Buchanan, E. D., et al. (1991). Quality improvement: An imperative for medical care. J. Occup. Med. 33: 365-371.Google Scholar
  9. Melvin, J. L. (1988). Status report on interdisciplinary medical rehabilitation. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehab. 79: 272-276.Google Scholar
  10. Nagi, S. Z. (1975). Teamwork in health care in the U.S.: A sociological perspective. Milbank Memorial Fund Quarterly. Winter: 75-91.Google Scholar
  11. Purtillo, R. B., and Meier, R. H., III. (1993). Team challenges: Regulatory constraints and patient empowerment. Am. J. Phys. Med. Rehab. 72: 327-330.Google Scholar
  12. Purtillo, R. B. (1988). Ethical issues in teamwork: The context of rehabilitation. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehab. 69: 318-322.Google Scholar
  13. Rothberg, J. S. (1985). The 34th John Stanley Coulter Memorial Lecture. The interdisciplinary process: Is it a chimera for clinical practice and for the ACRM? Arch. Phys. Med. Rehab. 66: 343-347.Google Scholar
  14. Rothberg, J. S. (1982). The rehabilitation team: Future direction. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehab. 62: 407-410.Google Scholar
  15. Strasser, D. S., Falconer, J. A., and Martino-Saltzmann, D. (1994). The rehabilitation team. Staff perceptions of the hospital environment, the interdisciplinary team environment and interprofessional relations. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehab. 75: 177-182.Google Scholar
  16. Wanless, R. L., Reutter, S. L., and Kline, A. E. (1992). Communication among rehabilitation staff: “Mild,” “moderate” or “severe” deficits? Arch. Phys. Med. Rehab. 73: 477-481.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andrew J. Haig
    • 1
  • Diane Belongia LeBreck
    • 2
  1. 1.The University of MichiganAnn Arbor
  2. 2.Lena

Personalised recommendations