Validity and reliability of the Persian version of the questionnaire to assess the ergonomic knowledge of computer professionals
Validity and reliability of the Persian version of the questionnaire to assess the ergonomic knowledge of computer professionals
Mahdi Rafiyan,1Mohammad Javad Azadchehr,2Negin Masoudi-Alavi,3Fatemeh Hajrezaie,4Elaheh Mianesaz,5,*Fatemeh Kourkinejad Gharaei,6
1. Student research committee, Kashan University of Medical Sciences, Kashan, Iran. 2. Trauma Research Center, Kashan University of Medical Sciences, Kashan, Iran 3. Trauma Nursing Research Center, Kashan University of Medical Sciences, Kashan, Iran 5. Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Faculty of Medicine, Kashan University of Medical Sciences, Kashan, Iran 6. Department of Infectious diseases, Emam Reza Hospital, Sirjan School of Medical Sciences, Sirjan, Iran
Introduction: The prevalence of musculoskeletal disorders among people with frequent use of computers varies from 40% among students to more than 70% among university employees. In order to plan education with the aim of filling the knowledge gaps regarding the principles of ergonomics, it is necessary to know the level of knowledge of people in this field. In the conducted search, only one questionnaire was found that evaluates people's knowledge and not its external appearance. Considering the importance of the mentioned components and the strengths of this tool, including a special design for evaluating ergonomic knowledge of working with computers and the use of perceived indicators, we decided to translate and psychometrically evaluate the questionnaire of ergonomic knowledge of working with computers in Iranian society during this research.
Methods: The current research was a translation and psychometric study of tools, and its purpose was the validity and reliability of the questionnaire for evaluating ergonomic knowledge of working with computers. The questionnaire for evaluating knowledge of computer ergonomics was translated into Farsi. Then the translated questionnaire was re-translated into the original language by a third person. Then the translation and re-translation were reviewed by the research team and sent to the designer of the questionnaire for approval. Then the translated questionnaire was completed by the computer user and a question was asked whether the person understood the items or not. In order to check the formal and qualitative validity of the translation of the questionnaire, 10 computer users were given their opinion about the difficulty in understanding the concepts, ambiguity and inappropriate perceptions, and the appropriateness and relevance of the items. In order to check the quantitative face validity, the computer user was asked to record his opinion about the importance of each item. To check the content validity of the tool using a qualitative method, 5 experts were provided and their opinions were presented in a specialized group (plan implementers) and applied to the options. Also, CVR and CVI were evaluated for content validity. Finally, ICC was calculated with 20 computer users. In the stage of construct validity assessment, among the computer users who met the criteria for entering the study, they were selected by the available method and after obtaining informed consent, they were invited to participate in the research.
Results: After the Persian translation of the questionnaire, the CVI and CVR of the questions were evaluated, and 12 questions were removed based on the content validity ratio of less than 0.75, and the CVI of the remaining 23 questions was equal to 0.99. Also, in the quantitative face validity part, all questions (23 questions) had an acceptable impact factor (more than 1.5). The ICC coefficient was equal to 0.813 (confidence interval 0.515, 0.928 and p<0.001). In order to check the validity of the construct, 328 people were evaluated. The ratio of male and female students was approximately equal. The average age of the participating students was 25.5±25.65 years. Also, the majority of studied students were studying in fields related to medical sciences. In the factor analysis of 23 questions, 4 questions were removed from the questionnaire due to the factor loading of less than 0.3 and the single-factor structure was able to explain about 30% of the total variance of the instrument score.
Conclusion: Translation and publication of a practical tool for evaluating ergonomics knowledge prevents the emergence of various versions. In this study, our results showed that the 19-question version of the computer ergonomic knowledge evaluation questionnaire has good validity and reliability and can be used to evaluate ergonomic knowledge. However, in order to improve the factor variance, it is recommended to add knowledge questions and changes in the questionnaire options, as well as increase the study population.