Building Better Reporting Decisions Using Interprofessional Education and the Care Scale

Background and Purpose: Mandated reporting in child maltreatment is influenced by case ambiguity, professional role differences, and structural inequities that disproportionately burden marginalized families. These issues are pronounced in health and allied health settings, where social workers collaborate with nurses, athletic trainers, educators, and criminal justice professionals. Few educational interventions explicitly target reporters’ decision-making, foster bias awareness, or use psychometrically sound tools to enhance interprofessional education (IPE). This study evaluates a measurement-informed IPE model that integrates the Child Abuse Reporting (CARE) Scale to: (1) assess its psychometric properties and (2) examine how social work contributes to more equitable and consistent mandated reporting within health-oriented interprofessional teams.

Methods: An IPE module featuring a realistic child maltreatment case and the CARE Scale was implemented with more than 500 graduate students in social work, nursing, athletic training, criminal justice, and education. Students conducted interdisciplinary case analyses, completed CARE Scale vignettes indicating their likelihood of reporting, and participated in structured peer debriefings on bias and professional roles. Pre/post CARE Scale data were analyzed with exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses to evaluate reliability and construct validity. We then compared reporting thresholds across disciplines—focusing on social work relative to other health and allied health professions—to see how social work’s equity- and family-focused orientation appeared in responses and team dialogue.

Results: The module was associated with increased child maltreatment knowledge and more favorable attitudes toward interprofessional collaboration. Qualitative feedback indicated better critical thinking about gray-area cases, deeper reflection on bias, and clearer understanding of social work’s role on interprofessional teams. Psychometric analyses supported acceptable internal consistency and construct validity for the CARE Scale (KMO = 0.71; α = 0.69; CFI = 0.936; RMSEA = 0.063; SRMR = 0.063). The measure detected meaningful variation in reporting thresholds across disciplines and settings, reflecting sensitivity to differences in professional judgment. Social work students showed distinct patterns in weighing risk, family context, and structural inequities, which deepened interprofessional discussions.

Conclusions and Implications: Incorporating a psychometrically supported measure such as the CARE Scale into IPE offers a practical strategy for strengthening social work’s role in health and interprofessional teaming. This measurement-informed model embeds self-assessment, bias awareness, and data-driven reflection into training, supporting more equitable, resilience-informed mandated reporting. Findings show that rigorous psychometrics can illuminate disciplinary differences, enhance social work’s contribution to team-based practice, and guide educational interventions that promote democratic, just, and accountable systems of care. Social work research on measurement and IPE can thereby improve interprofessional collaboration, inform mandated reporting policy and practice, and center racial and social justice in health and child welfare systems.