Measuring professional identity in health and social care students: single-item question versus the Macleod Clark Professional Identity Scale (MCPIS-9)

Background Existing measures of professional identity often yield high scores among students that may mask differences. One frequently used measure of professional identity is the one factor 9-item questionnaire MCPIS-9 with a five-point balanced answering scale. The aim of this study was to investigate the performance of the MCPIS-9 compared to a single-item question with five positively unbalanced response options. Methods An explorative cross-sectional study inviting all students from all academic years in 11 health and social care programs at one university. Two instruments were used to assess professional identity (response options): the Norwegian version of the 9-item Macleod Clark Professional Identity Scale (MCPIS-9) (strongly disagree, disagree, neither agree nor disagree, agree, strongly agree), and a single-item question, “All things considered, to what extent do you identify with the profession you are training for?” (not at all, some¸ much, very much, completely). Data were analysed using descriptive statistics, Spearman correlation and multivariable regression. Results A total of 864 students from 11 programs participated (mean age 24 years; 77% women). The MCPIS-9 had a mean score of 4.15 (standard deviation 0.54), and the single-item question lower mean score and twice the variation (mean 3.58, standard deviation 0.99). The two measures correlated (Spearman's ρ = 0.61, p < 0.001). Both detected higher professional identity among students in later years, with the single-item question having a large difference (0.68 point from first to final year, MCPIS-9 0.19 point). Multivariable models showed that both measures identified academic year and having the program as first choice, as being the variables most strongly associated with higher professional identity, with the single-item question having larger adjusted coefficients. Conclusion The single-item measure showed comparable validity evidence to the MCPIS-9 and produced greater score dispersion in this sample. Given its simplicity and low respondent burden, it may be a useful alternative as and overall measure of professional identity.