A tale of dual-approach construct validation and reliability testing for a Zika infection awareness knowledge questionnaire

IF 0.9 Q4 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Journal of Health Research Pub Date : 2021-06-25 DOI:10.1108/jhr-08-2020-0332
Chin Mun Wong, M. R. Hassan, R. Hod, S. W. Puteh, S. Bakar
{"title":"A tale of dual-approach construct validation and reliability testing for a Zika infection awareness knowledge questionnaire","authors":"Chin Mun Wong, M. R. Hassan, R. Hod, S. W. Puteh, S. Bakar","doi":"10.1108/jhr-08-2020-0332","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"PurposeThis study aims to validate the English version of a WHO-adapted questionnaire: Zika infection awareness/knowledge questionnaire using a unique dual-approach validation model.Design/methodology/approachA cross-sectional pilot study of 30 adult respondents in Malaysia completed the self-administered questionnaire on knowledge and perception to Zika infection. Construct validity was assessed by exploratory factor analysis (EFA) of SPSS and Rasch partial credit. Reliability is tested using pKR20 and Cronbach’s alpha.FindingsKnowledge construct was unidimensional, good model fit, easy to endorse and well discriminative. Five-rating Likert scale for perception domain was appropriate. Knowledge domain should be separated into 6 level of difficulties. Perception domain should remain as one construct. Knowledge domain was highly reliability (pKR20 = 0.96), perception domain was fairly reliable (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.641). Respondent's ability to answer knowledge domain and perception domain were separated into 3 and 4 levels.Research limitations/implicationsSmall sample size may affect factor analysis.Practical implicationsThe questionnaire has good psychometric properties to measure the knowledge and perception of Zika infection among Malaysian community.Social implicationsThe questionnaire helped to gauge knowledge and perception of the general community in Malaysia to aid preparation of health education tool for Zika infection.Originality/valueThis paper validated questionnaire with two biostatistical software programs in bidirectional approach – items difficulty and respondents' ability – is the first field test of WHO questionnaire among general population in Southeast Asia.","PeriodicalId":15935,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Health Research","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2021-06-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Health Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/jhr-08-2020-0332","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

PurposeThis study aims to validate the English version of a WHO-adapted questionnaire: Zika infection awareness/knowledge questionnaire using a unique dual-approach validation model.Design/methodology/approachA cross-sectional pilot study of 30 adult respondents in Malaysia completed the self-administered questionnaire on knowledge and perception to Zika infection. Construct validity was assessed by exploratory factor analysis (EFA) of SPSS and Rasch partial credit. Reliability is tested using pKR20 and Cronbach’s alpha.FindingsKnowledge construct was unidimensional, good model fit, easy to endorse and well discriminative. Five-rating Likert scale for perception domain was appropriate. Knowledge domain should be separated into 6 level of difficulties. Perception domain should remain as one construct. Knowledge domain was highly reliability (pKR20 = 0.96), perception domain was fairly reliable (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.641). Respondent's ability to answer knowledge domain and perception domain were separated into 3 and 4 levels.Research limitations/implicationsSmall sample size may affect factor analysis.Practical implicationsThe questionnaire has good psychometric properties to measure the knowledge and perception of Zika infection among Malaysian community.Social implicationsThe questionnaire helped to gauge knowledge and perception of the general community in Malaysia to aid preparation of health education tool for Zika infection.Originality/valueThis paper validated questionnaire with two biostatistical software programs in bidirectional approach – items difficulty and respondents' ability – is the first field test of WHO questionnaire among general population in Southeast Asia.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
寨卡病毒感染认知问卷的双方法结构验证和信度检验
目的本研究旨在采用独特的双方法验证模型,对世卫组织改编的《寨卡病毒感染意识/知识问卷》英文版进行验证。设计/方法/方法对马来西亚30名成年受访者进行了横断面试点研究,他们完成了关于寨卡病毒感染知识和认知的自我管理问卷。采用SPSS的探索性因子分析(EFA)和Rasch部分信用评估结构效度。可靠性测试采用pKR20和Cronbach 's alpha。发现知识结构具有单元化、模型拟合好、易于认可、判别性好等特点。知觉领域采用李克特五评量表。知识领域应分为6个难度等级。感知域应该保持为一个结构。知识领域具有高信度(pKR20 = 0.96),感知领域具有相当信度(Cronbach’s alpha = 0.641)。被调查者对知识领域和感知领域的回答能力分为3级和4级。研究局限性/启示小样本量可能会影响因子分析。实践意义该问卷具有较好的心理测量性质,可用于测量马来西亚人群对寨卡病毒感染的认知和认知。社会意义该问卷有助于评估马来西亚普通社区的知识和认知,以帮助准备寨卡病毒感染的健康教育工具。原创性/价值本文采用项目难度和被调查者能力两种生物统计软件程序双向验证问卷,首次在东南亚普通人群中进行世卫组织问卷的现场测试。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Health Research
Journal of Health Research HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES-
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
5.90%
发文量
0
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊最新文献
Implementation of a Cancer Education Program in Rural Counties with the Lowest HPV Vaccination Rates and Health Rankings. The Evaluation of Collaborative Disease Prevention and Control Measures for Border Health Between Thailand and Myanmar, Laos, and Cambodia Development and Implementation of a Unique, Tailored School Lunch Training Program for Teachers and their Stakeholders at Public Primary Schools in Thailand Understanding Digital Well-being and Insights From Technological Impacts on University Students’ Everyday Lives in Bangkok Anxiety and depression in palliative care cancer patients in Vietnam: baseline data from a randomized controlled trial of multidisciplinary palliative care versus standard care
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1