Item-to-Composite Scale Correlations and Internal Consistency Reliability
| Composite . | Item-to-Own Composite Scale Correlationsa . | Item-to-Other Composite Scale Correlationsa . | α . | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean . | Range . | |||
| Composite 1: access to care | 0.69 | |||
| Delays: lack of sufficient servicesb | 0.85 | 0.31 | 0.11 to 0.47 | |
| Delays: lack of informationb | 0.65 | 0.27 | 0.12 to 0.38 | |
| Composite 2: communication with CTMs | 0.80 | |||
| CTMs explained things in understandable manner | 0.68 | 0.37 | 0.16-0.55 | |
| Family comfortable voicing concerns with CTMs | 0.56 | 0.25 | 0.16 to 0.38 | |
| CTMs listened carefully to what family had to say | 0.72 | 0.38 | 0.12 to 0.55 | |
| CTMs treated family as a full partner | 0.70 | 0.38 | 0.19 to 0.56 | |
| Composite 3: family impact | 0.72 | |||
| CTMs discussed things that cause family stress | 0.33 | 0.13 | −0.03 to 0.23 | |
| CTMs discussed things that made it hard to care for child | 0.28 | 0.12 | −0.05 to 0.21 | |
| CTMs took the whole family into account | 0.75 | 0.38 | 0.26 to 0.55 | |
| CTMs offered other than in-person communication | 0.63 | 0.27 | 0.15 to 0.37 | |
| CTMs offered peer connections | 0.30 | 0.13 | 0.02 to 0.23 | |
| Composite 4: care goal creation/planning | 0.64 | |||
| CTMs created short-term care goals | 0.89 | 0.13 | 0.05 to 0.19 | |
| CTMs created long-term care goals | 0.84 | 0.18 | 0.09 to 0.28 | |
| Composite 5: team functioning/quality | 0.84 | |||
| CTMs knew about advice from other CTMs | 0.78 | 0.39 | 0.23 to 0.52 | |
| CTMs assigned and explained responsibility | 0.71 | 0.40 | 0.31 to 0.54 | |
| CTMs aware of tests and evaluations | 0.73 | 0.31 | 0.23 to 0.52 | |
| CTMs followed through on responsibilities | 0.71 | 0.40 | 0.23 to 0.52 | |
| CTMs considered “big picture” | 0.78 | 0.45 | 0.27 to 0.56 | |
| CTMs had access to same medical record | 0.60 | 0.24 | 0.10 to 0.32 | |
| Composite . | Item-to-Own Composite Scale Correlationsa . | Item-to-Other Composite Scale Correlationsa . | α . | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean . | Range . | |||
| Composite 1: access to care | 0.69 | |||
| Delays: lack of sufficient servicesb | 0.85 | 0.31 | 0.11 to 0.47 | |
| Delays: lack of informationb | 0.65 | 0.27 | 0.12 to 0.38 | |
| Composite 2: communication with CTMs | 0.80 | |||
| CTMs explained things in understandable manner | 0.68 | 0.37 | 0.16-0.55 | |
| Family comfortable voicing concerns with CTMs | 0.56 | 0.25 | 0.16 to 0.38 | |
| CTMs listened carefully to what family had to say | 0.72 | 0.38 | 0.12 to 0.55 | |
| CTMs treated family as a full partner | 0.70 | 0.38 | 0.19 to 0.56 | |
| Composite 3: family impact | 0.72 | |||
| CTMs discussed things that cause family stress | 0.33 | 0.13 | −0.03 to 0.23 | |
| CTMs discussed things that made it hard to care for child | 0.28 | 0.12 | −0.05 to 0.21 | |
| CTMs took the whole family into account | 0.75 | 0.38 | 0.26 to 0.55 | |
| CTMs offered other than in-person communication | 0.63 | 0.27 | 0.15 to 0.37 | |
| CTMs offered peer connections | 0.30 | 0.13 | 0.02 to 0.23 | |
| Composite 4: care goal creation/planning | 0.64 | |||
| CTMs created short-term care goals | 0.89 | 0.13 | 0.05 to 0.19 | |
| CTMs created long-term care goals | 0.84 | 0.18 | 0.09 to 0.28 | |
| Composite 5: team functioning/quality | 0.84 | |||
| CTMs knew about advice from other CTMs | 0.78 | 0.39 | 0.23 to 0.52 | |
| CTMs assigned and explained responsibility | 0.71 | 0.40 | 0.31 to 0.54 | |
| CTMs aware of tests and evaluations | 0.73 | 0.31 | 0.23 to 0.52 | |
| CTMs followed through on responsibilities | 0.71 | 0.40 | 0.23 to 0.52 | |
| CTMs considered “big picture” | 0.78 | 0.45 | 0.27 to 0.56 | |
| CTMs had access to same medical record | 0.60 | 0.24 | 0.10 to 0.32 | |
CTM, care team member.
All correlations are significant at P < .05.
This item is reverse coded so that higher values indicate better performance.