Enter your email address
Submit
Write your message
Volume 10, Issue 1 (Iranian Journal of Ergonomics 2022)
Iran J Ergon 2022, 10(1): 26-35 |
Back to browse issues page
Ethics code: IR.TBZMEDTBZMED.VCRVCR.REC.1397.331
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Maleki-Ghahfarokhi A, Dianat I, Asghari Jafarabadi M, Parnianpour M, Azghani M, Khosravifar M et al . Psychometric Properties of the Persian Version of the Comfort Questionnaire for Hand tools (CQH). Iran J Ergon 2022; 10 (1) :26-35
URL: http://journal.iehfs.ir/article-1-882-en.html
URL: http://journal.iehfs.ir/article-1-882-en.html
Azam Maleki-Ghahfarokhi1 
, Iman Dianat2 , Mohammad Asghari Jafarabadi * 3, Mohamad Parnianpour4 , Mahmood-Reza Azghani5 , Maryam Khosravifar1 , Sina Samadi1
, Iman Dianat2 , Mohammad Asghari Jafarabadi * 3, Mohamad Parnianpour4 , Mahmood-Reza Azghani5 , Maryam Khosravifar1 , Sina Samadi1
1- Student Research Committee, Department of Occupational Health & Ergonomics, Faculty of Health, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran
2- Department of Occupational Health & Ergonomics, Faculty of Health, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran
3- Cabrini Research, Cabrini Health, VIC 3144, Australia and School of Public Health and Preventative Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, Monash University, Australia , m.asghari862@gmail.com
4- School of Mechanical Engineering, Sharif University of Technology, Tehran, Iran
5- Faculty of Biomedical Engineering, Sahand University of Technology, Iran
2- Department of Occupational Health & Ergonomics, Faculty of Health, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran
3- Cabrini Research, Cabrini Health, VIC 3144, Australia and School of Public Health and Preventative Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, Monash University, Australia , m.asghari862@gmail.com
4- School of Mechanical Engineering, Sharif University of Technology, Tehran, Iran
5- Faculty of Biomedical Engineering, Sahand University of Technology, Iran
Abstract: (4289 Views)
Objectives: The comfort questionnaire for hand tools (CQH) is a subjective measure for exploring the starting points for improving hand tool design. This study aimed to investigate the psychometric properties of the Farsi version of the CQH.
Methods: In this cross-sectional study, which was conducted among 163 university students, the 17-question CQH was translated into Farsi with a translation back-translation procedure. Content validity was assessed by a panel of 10 experts. Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) was applied for determining construct validity. Cronbach’s alpha and Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC) were used for assessing internal consistency and test-retest reliability, respectively. Ceiling and floor effects were also estimated for evaluating the feasibility of the measure.
Results: The CQH showed good content validity. Content validity index (CVI) ranged from 0.80 to 1.00 and Content Validity Ratio (CVR) ranged 0.62-1.00. EFA led to extraction of two factors from the data. The first one was mostly related to functionality and physical interaction and the second one, was generally about adverse body effects. The Cronbach’s alpha was 0.74 and test-retest reliability was 0.74 (95% CI = 0.58 to 0.86) which both were satisfactory. There were no (0%) ceiling and floor effects.
Conclusion: The Farsi version of CQH is an acceptable and useful instrument for evaluating hand tools comfort.
Methods: In this cross-sectional study, which was conducted among 163 university students, the 17-question CQH was translated into Farsi with a translation back-translation procedure. Content validity was assessed by a panel of 10 experts. Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) was applied for determining construct validity. Cronbach’s alpha and Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC) were used for assessing internal consistency and test-retest reliability, respectively. Ceiling and floor effects were also estimated for evaluating the feasibility of the measure.
Results: The CQH showed good content validity. Content validity index (CVI) ranged from 0.80 to 1.00 and Content Validity Ratio (CVR) ranged 0.62-1.00. EFA led to extraction of two factors from the data. The first one was mostly related to functionality and physical interaction and the second one, was generally about adverse body effects. The Cronbach’s alpha was 0.74 and test-retest reliability was 0.74 (95% CI = 0.58 to 0.86) which both were satisfactory. There were no (0%) ceiling and floor effects.
Conclusion: The Farsi version of CQH is an acceptable and useful instrument for evaluating hand tools comfort.
Type of Study: Research |
Subject:
Other Cases
Received: 2022/04/1 | Accepted: 2022/07/1 | ePublished: 2022/07/1
Received: 2022/04/1 | Accepted: 2022/07/1 | ePublished: 2022/07/1
References
1. Kuijt-Evers L, Bosch T, Huysmans M, De Looze M, Vink P. Association between objective and subjective measurements of comfort and discomfort in hand tools. Appl Ergon. 2007;38(5):643-54. [DOI] [PubMed]
2. Cacha CA. Ergonomics and safety in hand tool design. Boca Raton, Florida: CRC Press; 1999.
3. Aghazadeh F, Mital A. Injuries due to handtools: Results of a questionnaire. Applied ergonomics. 1987;18(4):273-8. [DOI] [PubMed]
4. Aldien Y, Welcome D, Rakheja S, Dong R, Boileau PE. Contact pressure distribution at hand–handle interface: role of hand forces and handle size. Int J Ind Ergon. 2005;35(3):267-86. [DOI]
5. Das B. Ergonomic evaluation, design and testing of hand tools. In: Strasser H, editor. Assessment of the ergonomic quality of hand-held tools and computer input devices. Amsterdam, Netherlands: IOS Press; 2007. p. 23-39.
6. Fellows GL, Freivalds A. Ergonomics evaluation of a foam rubber grip for tool handles. Appl Ergon. 1991;22(4):225-30. [DOI] [PubMed]
7. Li KW. Ergonomic evaluation of a fixture used for power driven wire-tying hand tools. Int J Ind Ergon. 2003;32(2):71-9. [DOI]
8. Kuijt-Evers LFM, Twisk J, Groenesteijn L, De Looze MP, Vink P. Identifying predictors of comfort and discomfort in using hand tools. Ergonomics. 2005;48(6):692-702. [DOI] [PubMed]
9. Aptel M, Claudon L, Marsot J. Integration of ergonomics into hand tool design: principle and presentation of an example. Int J Occup Saf Ergon. 2002;8(1):107-15. [DOI] [PubMed]
10. Marsot J, Claudon L. Design and ergonomics. Methods for integrating ergonomics at hand tool design stage. Int J Occup Saf Ergon. 2004;10(1):13-23. [DOI] [PubMed]
11. Maleki-Ghahfarokhi A, Azghani M-R, Dianat I. Effects of handle characteristics of manual hand tools on maximal torque exertions: A literature review. Int J Occup Saf Ergon. 2022;28(3):1387-402. [DOI] [PubMed]
12. Saremi M, Khani Jazani R, Kavousi A, Rezapour T. Ergonomic evaluation of non-powered hand tools: introduction and validation in dentistry [in Persian]. Daneshvar Med. 2012;20(3):11-21.
13. Vink P. Comfort and design: principles and good practice. Boca Raton, Florida: CRC press; 2004.
14. Kuijt-Evers LF, Söderback I. The design of artisans’ hand tools: Users’ perceived comfort and discomfort. In: Söderback I, editor. International handbook of occupational therapy interventions. Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany: Springer; 2009. p. 167-77.
15. Kuijt-Evers LMF, Vink P, de Looze MP. Comfort predictors for different kinds of hand tools: Differences and similarities. Int J Ind Ergon. 2007;37(1):73-84. [DOI]
16. De Looze MP, Kuijt-Evers LFM, Van Dieen J. Sitting comfort and discomfort and the relationships with objective measures. Ergonomics. 2003;46(10):985-97. [DOI] [PubMed]
17. Sohrabi MS. The effect of non-powered hand tools' diameter on comfort and maximum hand torque [in Persian]. Iran J Ergon. 2015;3(2):68-75.
18. Veisi H, Choobineh A, Ghaem H, Shafiee Z. The effect of hand tools’ handle shape on upper extremity comfort and postural discomfort among hand-woven shoemaking workers. Int J Ind Ergon. 2019;74:102833. [DOI]
19. Mououdi M, Amin K. Comfort evaluation of penagain ergonomic pen with traditional pen (non-ergonomic) [in Persian]. J Ilam Univ Med Sci. 2012;20(3):46-54.
20. DeVellis RF. Scale development: Theory and applications. 2nd ed. New York, NY: SAGE publications; 2003.
21. 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] [PubMed]
22. Waltz CF, Strickland OL, Lenz ER. Measurement in nursing and health research. 4th ed. New York, NY: Springer publishing company; 2010.
23. Bennell K, Bartam S, Crossley K, Green S. Outcome measures in patellofemoral pain syndrome: test retest reliability and inter-relationships. Phys Ther Sport. 2000;1(2):32-41. [DOI]
24. Bartko JJ. The intraclass correlation coefficient as a measure of reliability. Psychol Rep. 1966;19(1):3-11. [DOI] [PubMed]
25. Tinsley HE, Brown SD. Handbook of applied multivariate statistics and mathematical modeling. 1st ed. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Academic press; 2000.
26. McHorney CA, Tarlov AR. Individual-patient monitoring in clinical practice: are available health status surveys adequate? Qual Life Res. 1995;4(4):293-307. [DOI] [PubMed]
27. George D. SPSS for windows step by step: A simple study guide and reference, 17.0 update. 10th ed. Boston, Massachusetts: Allyn & Bacon; 2009.
28. Zhang L, Helander MG, Drury CG. Identifying factors of comfort and discomfort in sitting. HFES. 1996;38(3):377-89. [DOI]
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
Copyright Policy
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
