Enter your email address
Submit
Write your message
Volume 10, Issue 2 (Iranian Journal of Ergonomics 2022)
Iran J Ergon 2022, 10(2): 121-131 |
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:
Kalatpour O, Heidarimoghadam R, Mohammadfam I, Farhadian M, Tavakkol M R. Develop and Validity Operator Room Risk-taking Questionnaire with Event-related Potentials. Iran J Ergon 2022; 10 (2) :121-131
URL: http://journal.iehfs.ir/article-1-906-en.html
URL: http://journal.iehfs.ir/article-1-906-en.html
Omid Kalatpour1 
, Rashid Heidarimoghadam2 , Iraj Mohammadfam1 , Maryam Farhadian3 , Mohammad Reza Tavakkol * 4
, Rashid Heidarimoghadam2 , Iraj Mohammadfam1 , Maryam Farhadian3 , Mohammad Reza Tavakkol * 4
1- Department of Occupational Health and Safety Engineering, School of Public Health, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences, Iran
2- Department of Ergonomics, School of Public Health, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences, Hamadan, Iran
3- Department of Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences, Hamadan, Iran
4- Department of Ergonomics, School of Public Health, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences, Hamadan, Iran , herfehei@gmail.com
2- Department of Ergonomics, School of Public Health, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences, Hamadan, Iran
3- Department of Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences, Hamadan, Iran
4- Department of Ergonomics, School of Public Health, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences, Hamadan, Iran , herfehei@gmail.com
Abstract: (3127 Views)
Objectives: Risk-taking is a personality trait which plays a part in the occurrence of work-related accidents. For this reason, people who are highly risk-taking whose decision might cause accident should not be employed in critical situations. The purpose of this survey was to design and verify the validity of the risk tolerance questionnaire, suitable for control room operators, through examining the event related potential (ERP).
Methods: At first, the questions were selected from reliable scientific resources based on the conceptual model. The questions of the initial questionnaire were selected based on face validity, and then the questionnaire was filled out by 178 control room operators. At the next step, the best questions of the questionnaire were extracted using exploratory factor analysis (EFA). In terms of reliability, 42 individuals of the study group refilled in the questionnaire again after three months as a test-retest. The ERPs were assessed using electroencephalography along with Balloon Analogue Risk Task (BART). The correlation coefficient calculated between the ERPs, and risky behaviors, and questionnaire scores.
Results: One factor and 13 questions were identified as the best questions regarding EFA. Cronbach's alpha was 0.91. The Spearman correlation coefficient was calculated between the questionnaire score and risk-taking behavior as well as between the questionnaire score and P300, which was 0.38 (P = 0.01, η2 = 0.70) and 0.63 (P = 0.01, η2 = 0.99), respectively.
Conclusion: The Operator control Room Risk-Taking (ORTQ) questionnaire consists of 13 questions which can be used as an appropriate tool to assess the risk-taking trait in control room operators and also for research purposes. This questionnaire has got three personality dimensions including risk-taking nature, impulsivity and venturesomeness.
Methods: At first, the questions were selected from reliable scientific resources based on the conceptual model. The questions of the initial questionnaire were selected based on face validity, and then the questionnaire was filled out by 178 control room operators. At the next step, the best questions of the questionnaire were extracted using exploratory factor analysis (EFA). In terms of reliability, 42 individuals of the study group refilled in the questionnaire again after three months as a test-retest. The ERPs were assessed using electroencephalography along with Balloon Analogue Risk Task (BART). The correlation coefficient calculated between the ERPs, and risky behaviors, and questionnaire scores.
Results: One factor and 13 questions were identified as the best questions regarding EFA. Cronbach's alpha was 0.91. The Spearman correlation coefficient was calculated between the questionnaire score and risk-taking behavior as well as between the questionnaire score and P300, which was 0.38 (P = 0.01, η2 = 0.70) and 0.63 (P = 0.01, η2 = 0.99), respectively.
Conclusion: The Operator control Room Risk-Taking (ORTQ) questionnaire consists of 13 questions which can be used as an appropriate tool to assess the risk-taking trait in control room operators and also for research purposes. This questionnaire has got three personality dimensions including risk-taking nature, impulsivity and venturesomeness.
Type of Study: Research |
Subject:
Other Cases
Received: 2022/08/20 | Accepted: 2022/09/23 | ePublished: 2022/09/23
Received: 2022/08/20 | Accepted: 2022/09/23 | ePublished: 2022/09/23
References
1. World Health Organization. WHO/ILO joint estimates of the work-related burden of disease and injury, 2000-2016: global monitoring report. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO; 2021.
2. Blais AR, Weber EU. A domain-specific risk-taking (DOSPERT) scale for adult populations. Judgm Decis Mak. 2006;1(1):33-47.
3. Weber EU, Blais AR, Betz NE. A domain-specific risk-attitude scale: Measuring risk perceptions and risk behaviors. J Behav Decis Mak. 2002;15(4):263-90. [DOI]
4. Ba Y, Zhang W, Peng Q, Salvendy G, Crundall D. Risk-taking on the road and in the mind: behavioural and neural patterns of decision making between risky and safe drivers. Ergonomics. 2016;59(1):27-38. [DOI] [PubMed]
5. Zhang DC, Highhouse S, Nye CD. Development and validation of the General Risk Propensity Scale (GRiPS). J Behav Decis Mak. 2019;32(2):152-67. [DOI]
6. Choi B, Jebelli H, Lee S. Feasibility analysis of electrodermal activity (EDA) acquired from wearable sensors to assess construction workers’ perceived risk. Saf Sci. 2019;115:110-20. [DOI]
7. de Groot K, van Strien JW. Event-related potentials in response to feedback following risk-taking in the hot version of the Columbia Card Task. Psychophysiology. 2019;56(9):e13390. [DOI] [PubMed]
8. Yau YHC, Potenza MN, Mayes LC, Crowley MJ. Blunted feedback processing during risk-taking in adolescents with features of problematic Internet use. Addict Behav. 2015;45:156-63. [DOI] [PubMed]
9. Massar SAA, Rossi V, Schutter DJLG, Kenemans JL. Baseline EEG theta/beta ratio and punishment sensitivity as biomarkers for feedback-related negativity (FRN) and risk-taking. Clin Neurophysiol. 2012;123(10):1958-65. [DOI] [PubMed]
10. Congdon E, Bato AA, Schonberg T, Mumford JA, Karlsgodt KH, Sabb FW, et al. Differences in neural activation as a function of risk-taking task parameters. Front Neurosci. 2013;7:173. [DOI] [PubMed]
11. Mohr PNC, Biele G, Heekeren HR. Neural processing of risk. J Neurosci. 2010;30(19):6613-9. [DOI] [PubMed]
12. Chandrakumar D, Feuerriegel D, Bode S, Grech M, Keage HAD. Event-related potentials in relation to risk-taking: A systematic review. Front Behav Neurosci. 2018;12:111. [DOI] [PubMed]
13. Grol R, Whitfield M, De Maeseneer J, Mokkink H. Attitudes to risk taking in medical decision making among British, Dutch and Belgian general practitioners. Br J Gen Pr. 1990;40(333):134-6. [PubMed]
14. Huff RA, Keil M, Kappelman L, Prybutok V. Validation of the Sitkin-Weingart Business Risk Propensity Scale. Manag Res News. 1997;20(12):39-48. [DOI]
15. Lejuez CW, Read JP, Kahler CW, Richards JB, Ramsey SE, Stuart GL, et al. Evaluation of a behavioral measure of risk taking: the Balloon Analogue Risk Task (BART). J Exp Psychol Appl. 2002;8(2):75-84. [DOI] [PubMed]
16. Bechara A, Damasio AR, Damasio H, Anderson SW. Insensitivity to future consequences following damage to human prefrontal cortex. Cognition. 1994;50(1-3):7-15. [DOI] [PubMed]
17. Low BKL, Chan AHS. Questionnaire for construction worker risk taking (Q-CWRT) in Hong Kong. Japanese J Ergon. 2017;53(Suppl 2):S584-7.
18. Lajunen T, Parker D, Summala H. The manchester driver behaviour questionnaire: a cross-cultural study. Accid Anal Prev. 2004;36(2):231-8. [DOI] [PubMed]
19. Lermer E, Streicher B, Raue M. Measuring subjective risk estimates. In: Raue M, Lermer E, Streicher B, editors. Psychological perspectives on risk and risk analysis. Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany: Springer; 2018. p. 313-27.
20. Fleming M, Lardner R. Strategies to promote safe behaviour as part of a health and safety management system. Norwich, UK: HSE Books; 2002.
21. Wagenaar WA. Risk taking and accident causation. In: Yates JF, editor. Risk-taking behavior. Philadelphia, PA: John Wiley & Sons; 1992.
22. Hair JF, Black WC, Babin BJ, Anderson RE. Multivariate data analysis. 8th ed. Hoboken, New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall; 2018.
23. Moeller FG, Barratt ES, Dougherty DM, Schmitz JM, Swann AC. Psychiatric aspects of impulsivity. Am J Psychiatry. 2001;158(11):1783-93. [DOI] [PubMed]
24. Bleichrodt H, L’Haridon O, van Ass D. The risk attitudes of professional athletes: Optimism and success are related. Decision. 2018;5(2):95. [DOI]
25. Russo PM, De Pascalis V, Varriale V, Barratt ES. Impulsivity, intelligence and P300 wave: An empirical study. Int J Psychophysiol. 2008;69(2):112-8. [DOI] [PubMed]
26. Harmon-Jones E, Barratt ES, Wigg C. Impulsiveness, aggression, reading, and the P300 of the event-related potential. Pers Individ Dif. 1997;22(4):439-45. [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.
