Volume 6, Issue 3 (2021)
IJMPP 2021, 6(3): 554-561 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Sheikhmozafari M J, Alizade P M, Ahmadi O. Validation of the Persian version of the Workplace Physical-Ergonomic Conditions Evaluation (PECE) Questionnaire. IJMPP 2021; 6 (3) :554-561
URL: http://ijmpp.modares.ac.ir/article-32-52774-en.html
URL: http://ijmpp.modares.ac.ir/article-32-52774-en.html
1- Department of Occupational Health and safety and safety Engineering, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran
2- Department of Occupational Health and safety and safety Engineering, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran ,o.ahmadi@modares.ac.ir
2- Department of Occupational Health and safety and safety Engineering, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran ,
Abstract: (2455 Views)
Aim: The workplace physical-ergonomic conditions have a great impact on the health, well-being, and productivity of employees. One of the ways to assess the general condition of office work environments is to use valid questionnaires, so the purpose of this study is to determine the validity and reliability of the Persian version of the Workplace Physical- Ergonomic Conditions Evaluation (PECE) questionnaire for its applicability in Iran.
Method and Materials: The present study is an analytical study that was conducted on the administrative staff of a public university of Iran to Validate the Persian version of the PECE questionnaire. First, the Persian version of the questionnaire was prepared using the backward-forward translation method and then the translated questionnaire was filled out by 70 employees. Content Validity Index (CVI), Content Validity Rate (CVR), Test re-Test and Intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) method were used to measure validity and reliability respectively t SPSS 26. In the validity analysis, Kappa and Spearman coefficients were used for agreement and correlation between the answers to the questions, respectively.
Findings: Totally 70 staffs including (15 men and 55 female) with mean age of 35.65 (7.89) took part in the study. CVI and CVR showed acceptable range for the valid question are. The kappa and Spearman coefficients ranges were 0.634 to 1 and 0.681 to 1 in the first and second questionnaires’ distribution. In the reliability analysis of the questionnaire, the ICC coefficient was 0.93. A significant relationship was found between gender and satisfaction with ergonomic issues
Conclusion: The Persian version of the PECE questionnaire is a useful tool for evaluating the general conditions of office work environments that can be used as part of workplace evaluation programs and occupational care to prevent occupational diseases such as WMSDs, Vision and eye, hearing, and Pulmonary disorders.
Method and Materials: The present study is an analytical study that was conducted on the administrative staff of a public university of Iran to Validate the Persian version of the PECE questionnaire. First, the Persian version of the questionnaire was prepared using the backward-forward translation method and then the translated questionnaire was filled out by 70 employees. Content Validity Index (CVI), Content Validity Rate (CVR), Test re-Test and Intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) method were used to measure validity and reliability respectively t SPSS 26. In the validity analysis, Kappa and Spearman coefficients were used for agreement and correlation between the answers to the questions, respectively.
Findings: Totally 70 staffs including (15 men and 55 female) with mean age of 35.65 (7.89) took part in the study. CVI and CVR showed acceptable range for the valid question are. The kappa and Spearman coefficients ranges were 0.634 to 1 and 0.681 to 1 in the first and second questionnaires’ distribution. In the reliability analysis of the questionnaire, the ICC coefficient was 0.93. A significant relationship was found between gender and satisfaction with ergonomic issues
Conclusion: The Persian version of the PECE questionnaire is a useful tool for evaluating the general conditions of office work environments that can be used as part of workplace evaluation programs and occupational care to prevent occupational diseases such as WMSDs, Vision and eye, hearing, and Pulmonary disorders.
Article Type: Original Research |
Subject:
Sport Sciences, Therapy and Medicine
Received: 2021/05/23 | Accepted: 2021/06/17 | Published: 2021/06/20
Received: 2021/05/23 | Accepted: 2021/06/17 | Published: 2021/06/20
References
1. Chinedu OO, Henry AT, Nene JJ, Okwudili JD. Workrelated musculoskeletal disorders among office workers in higher education institutions: A crosssectional study. Ethiop. J. Health Sci. 2020;30(5). 715. [DOI:10.4314/ejhs.v30i5.10]
2. Yarandi FH, Golabchi M, Shaafi F. General Questionnaire for Ergonomic Assessment of Office Environment. J. Occup. Hyg. Eng.. 2019;6(3):20-33.
3. Trebuna P, Petriková A, Pekarcikova M. Influence of physical factors of working environment on worker's performance from ergonomic point of view. J. Simul. 2017;3(3):1-9.
4. Butt AI, Shaams SB, Ghauri M, Shahzad K, Jaffery MH. Study of physical, chemical and ergonomic occupational hazards faced by photocopy machine operators. Life Sci J. 2014;11:370-81.
5. Fink D. A new definition of noise: noise is unwanted and/or harmful sound. Noise is the new 'secondhand smoke. In Proceedings of Meetings on Acoustics. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2019;39(1):050002. [DOI:10.1121/2.0001186]
6. Appel-Meulenbroek, R., Steps, S., Wenmaekers, R. and Arentze, T. "Coping strategies and perceived productivity in open-plan offices with noise problems", J. Manag. Psychol. 2021; 36 (4): 400- 414. [DOI:10.1108/JMP-09-2019-0526]
7. Lee PJ, Lee BK, Jeon JY, Zhang M, Kang J. Impact of noise on self-rated job satisfaction and health in open-plan offices: a structural equation modelling approach. Ergonomics. 2016;59(2):222-234. [DOI:10.1080/00140139.2015.1066877]
8. Lee Y, Aletta F. Acoustical planning for workplace health and well-being: A case study in four openplan offices. Build. Acoust. 2019;26(3):207-20. [DOI:10.1177/1351010X19868546]
9. Schettini SR, Gonçalves CG. Quality of life, perception and knowledge of dentists on noise. Rev. CEFAC. 2017;19(6):782-791 [DOI:10.1590/1982-021620171966717]
10. Chandwani A, Chauhan MK, Bhatnagar A. Ergonomics Assessment of Office Desk Workers Working in Corporate Offices.IJHSR.2019;9(8):367-375.
11. Peña-García A, Salata F. The perspective of Total Lighting as a key factor to increase the Sustainability of strategic activities. Sustainability. 2020;12(7):2751. [DOI:10.3390/su12072751]
12. Golmohamadi R, Shafiee Motlagh M, Jamshidi Rastani M, Salimi N, Valizadeh Z. Assessment of Interior and Area Artificial Lighting in Hospitals of Hamadan City. JOHE. 2014; 1 (1) :47-56.
13. Ebrahimpour R, Payedar Ardakani P, Tohidi Moghadam M. The Role of Lighting, Window Views and Indoor Plants on Stress Reduction of Offices' Staffs by Psychophysics method. IOH. 2018;14(6):135-147.
14. Gaowgzeh RA, Chevidikunnan MF, Al Saif A, ElGendy S, Karrouf G, Al Senany S. Prevalence of and risk factors for low back pain among dentists. J Phys Ther Sci. 2015;27(9):2803-2806. [DOI:10.1589/jpts.27.2803]
15. Golmohammadi R, Alizadeh H, Motamedzade M, Soltanian A. The relationship between the prevalence of musculoskeletal pains and the lighting in carpet weaving workshops among female carpet weavers in Bijar Township. OMQJ. 2017;8(4):27-36.
16. Sheikhmozafari MJ, Salimi F, Ahmadi O. Risk Assessment of MusculoSkeletal Disorders among workers of a housekeeping service company in Kerman, Iran. IJMPP. 2020;5(4):402-9.
17. Ahmadi O, Sheikh Damenab P, Abbaspour A, Rasoulzadeh Y. Musculoskeletal Disorders Risk Assessment in Serviceman Workers of a Petrochemical Company. IJMPP. 2020;5(3):360-6.
18. pirmoradi Z, Golmohammadi R, Faradmal J, Motamedzade M. Artificial Lighting and Its Relation with Body Posture in Office Workplaces. Int.J.Eng. 2018;5(4):9-16. [DOI:10.30699/jergon.5.4.9]
19. Kalakoski V, Selinheimo S, Valtonen T, Turunen J, Käpykangas S, Ylisassi H, Toivio P, Järnefelt H, Hannonen H, Paajanen T. Effects of a cognitive ergonomics workplace intervention (CogErg) on cognitive strain and well-being: a clusterrandomized controlled trial. A study protocol. BMC Psychol.2020;8(1):1-6. [DOI:10.1186/s40359-019-0349-1]
20. Heidari Moghaddam R, Babamiri M, Motamedzade M, Farhadian M, Ebrahimi K. Evaluation of the effectiveness of ergonomic work station on musculoskeletal pain in a group of administrative staff. Int.J.Eng. 2018;5(4):56-64. [DOI:10.30699/jergon.5.4.56]
21. Daneshmandi H, Choobineh A, Ghaem H, Alhamd M, Fakherpour A. The effect of musculoskeletal problems on fatigue and productivity of office personnel: a cross-sectional study. J Prev Med Hyg. 2017;58(3):252.
22. Göçer Ö , Candido C, Thomas L, Göçer K. Differences in occupants' satisfaction and perceived productivity in high-and low-performance offices. Buildings. 2019;9(9):199. [DOI:10.3390/buildings9090199]
23. Grozdanovic M, Bijelić B. Impact of Human, workplace and indoor environmental risk factors on operator's reliability in control rooms. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment: Hum. Ecol. Risk Assess. 2019;26(1):177-189. [DOI:10.1080/10807039.2018.1501659]
24. Clausen PA, Frederiksen M, Sejbæk CS, Sørli JB, Hougaard KS, Frydendall KB, et al. Chemicals inhaled from spray cleaning and disinfection products and their respiratory effects. A comprehensive review. Int J Hyg Envir Heal. 2020;229:113592. [DOI:10.1016/j.ijheh.2020.113592]
25. Steinemann A. National prevalence and effects of multiple chemical sensitivities. J Occup Environ Med 2018;60(3). [DOI:10.1097/JOM.0000000000001272]
26. Taghipour M, Mahboobi M, Nikoeifar A, Mowloodi ES. Analysing the Effects of Physical Conditions of the Workplace on Employee's Productivity (Including Case Study). IJEPP. 2015;3(4):111 119. [DOI:10.11648/j.ijepp.20150304.15]
27. Reijula K, Sundman-Digert C. Assessment of indoor air problems at work with a questionnaire. Occup Environ Med. 2004;61(1):33-38.
28. Lahtinen M, Sundman-Digert C, Reijula K. Psychosocial work environment and indoor air problems: a questionnaire as a means of problem diagnosis. Occup Environ Med. 2004;61(2):143-149. [DOI:10.1136/oem.2002.005835]
29. Ahmadi Kivanani E, Pouyakian M, Alipour A. Design and Development of a Persian Office Chair Satisfaction Questionnaire. Int.J.Eng. 2019;6(4):20-29. [DOI:10.30699/jergon.6.4.20]
30. Zakerian SA, Garosi E, Abdi Z, Bakhshi E, Kamrani M, Kalantari R. Studying the influence of workplace design on productivity of bank clerks. HSW. 2016;6(2):35-42.
31. Muftić M, Krupić E, Vuković M, Babić S. Ergonomic assessment of physiotherapist health status. Acta Medica Salin. 2018;45:1-2.
32. Lee WL, Chinna K, Lim Abdullah K, Zainal Abidin I. The forward-backward and dualpanel translation methods are comparable in producing semantic equivalent versions of a heart quality of life questionnaire. Int. J. Nurs. Pract. 2019;25(1):e12715. [DOI:10.1111/ijn.12715]
33. Tsang S, Royse CF, Terkawi AS. Guidelines for developing, translating, and validating a questionnaire in perioperative and pain medicine. Saudi J Anaesth. 2017;11(1):80-89 [DOI:10.4103/sja.SJA_203_17]
34. Azimi A, Ebrahimi A, Maracy M. Designing a scale for the psychological flexibility of adolescent girls and examining its psychometric characteristics. J. Educ. Meas. 2020;10(40):115-36.
35. Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Guillemin F, Ferraz MB. Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine. 2000;25(24):3186-91. [DOI:10.1097/00007632-200012150-00014]
36. Sim J, Wright CC. The kappa statistic in reliability studies: use, interpretation, and sample size requirements. Phys. Ther. 2005;85(3):257-68. [DOI:10.1093/ptj/85.3.257]
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |