Measurement of barriers to perform periodic examinations: development and psychometric properties scale

Objectives. Due to recent changes in workplace risks, it is required to investigate the motivations of employees and employers for occupational examination performance. This study aims to develop a self-report scale to overcome prior methodological defects and evaluate barriers of performing periodi...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:International journal of occupational safety and ergonomics 2023-04, Vol.29 (2), p.941-949
Main Authors: Akbari, Hossein, Hannani, Mitra, Motalebi Kashani, Masoud, Sadaf, Marzie, Saberi, Hamid Reza, Bidgoli, Sedighe Dehghani, Karamali, Fahimeh
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
barriers
Factor Analysis, Statistical
Humans
occupational periodic examinations
psychometric
Psychometrics - methods
reliability
Reproducibility of Results
scale
Self Report
Surveys and Questionnaires
validity
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Objectives. Due to recent changes in workplace risks, it is required to investigate the motivations of employees and employers for occupational examination performance. This study aims to develop a self-report scale to overcome prior methodological defects and evaluate barriers of performing periodic examinations. Methods. The study was conducted with 200 participants, including employers, occupational health inspectors, occupational physicians and occupational health experts working in the industrial sector, aged 25-70 years. The subjects supplied sociodemographic information and completed the experimental version of the instrument. Results. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) provided evidence for a five-factor model, including knowledge, quality, law, capability and service, with 62.68% variance. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) proved stability rates of both models (root mean square error of approximation [rmsea] = 0.062, comparative fit index [CFI] = 0.92, Tucker-Lewis index [TLI] = 0.906, incremental fit index [IFI] = 0.921, normed fit index [NFI] = 0.835, relative fit index [RFI] = 0.808). The scale also revealed appropriate levels of reliability (α = 0.916 and composite reliability [CR] >0.7) and validity (average variance extracted >0.5). Conclusion. The psychometric characteristics of the scale demonstrated acceptable validity and reliability. This study developed this valid instrument to be used by health decision-makers for assessing barriers of performing periodic examinations.
ISSN:1080-3548
2376-9130
DOI:10.1080/10803548.2022.2089467