Annals of Occupational and Environmental Medicine

The Korean Society of Occupational & Environmental Medicine (대한직업환경의학회)
권호 표지

Reliability and Validity of Questionnaire for Assessing Physical Workloads

육체적 작업강도 평가 설문지의 신뢰도와 타당도

Lee, Dong-Jun;Kang, Dong-Mug;Koh, Sang-Baek;Kim, Joung-Won;Jang, Jun-Ho;Kim, Jong-Eun;Cho, Byung-Mann;Lee, Su-IIl
이동준;강동묵;고상백;김정원;장준호;김종은;조병만;이수일

  • Published : 20031200
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Objectives: The aims of the study were to make a questionnaire for assessing physical workloads and to evaluate its reliability and validity. Methods: A total of 220 workers (foundry workers 30, large vehicle assemblers 30, shipyard workers 75, and automobile manufacturers 80) completed a self-administered questionnaire and took examinations for physical work capacity and working heart rate. We excluded data with insufficient responses or incorrect physical work capacity and working heart rate. Finally, the data of 154 workers (70.0%) were used for our study. In order to evaluate the reliability and validity of the questionnaire, we used statistical analyses including the scaling assumption test and a comparison with the objective tool for physical workload which was evaluated by working energy expenditure. Results: The items of the questionnaire in the same categories had close distribution in the evaluation of the scaling assumption. The item internal consistency was 0.41-0.73 for posture factor, and 0.62-0.79 for non-posture factor. The item discriminate validity was 100%. Cronbach’s a coefficient of the total items was 0.73 (0.58 for posture factor and 0.74 for nonposture factor). In the correlation between working energy expenditure and questions, general physical activity (p=0.008), proportion of the workday with hands above shoulder (p=0.002), proportion of the workday with trunk bent (p=0.028), proportion of the workday with awkward posture (p=0.048), sweating after work (p=0.006), total scales (p=0.003) and Borg scale (p=0.011) all had statistical significance. Conclusions: Our questionnaire for assessing physical workloads demonstrated statistically significant reliability and validity. But the questions for the proportions of the workday with sitting work posture and with static posture should be modified via a larger study.

목적: 육체적 작업강도를 평가하는 설문지를 개발하고 신뢰도 및 타당도를 분석하고자 본 연구를 실시하였다. 방법: 주물생산 일개 사업장(30명), 전동차 정밀 조립 일개 사업장(30명), 조선소 일개 사업장(75명), 자동차 생산 일개 사업장(85명) 등 총 4개 사업장의 근로자 220명을 대상으로 하여 설문조사와 육체적 부하를 측정하였다. 현재 통증이 있거나 치료를 받고 있는 근로자는 대상에서 제외하였으며, 설문에 50 %이상 응답하지 않았거나 작업 중 심박동수가 제대로 측정되지 않은 근로자 66명을 제외한 154명(주물생산 일개 사업장 1 9명, 전동차 부품 정밀 조립 일개 사업장 29명, 조선소 일개 사업장 37명, 자동차 생산 일개 사업장 69명)을 대상으로 분석을 시행하였다(설문응답자의70.0%). 설문지의 타당성 검토를 위하여 설문지 자체의 척도화 가정, 신뢰도와 타당도를 분석하였으며, 객관적인 척도와의 비교를 위하여 선형회귀분석을 시행하였다. 결과: 척도화 가정(scaling assumption)에 대한 검정에서 같은 항목에 속하는 문항들의 표준편차는 비슷한 분포를 보였으며, 문항내적일치도는 자세요인(문항 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8)이 0.41-0.73이었고, 비자세요인(문항 1, 2, 9, 10, 11)의 경우 0.62-0.79였다. 내적일치도와 문항판별타당도는 100 %였으며, 작업강도 전체 문항의 신뢰도 계수는 0.73이었으며 자세요인의 경우 0.58, 비자세요인은 0.74였다. 작업 중 에너지 소모량과의 상관분석에서 작업의 형태 (p=0.008), 손을 어깨 위로 올리는 작업의 비율 (p=0.002), 몸을 구부리는 작업의 비율(p=0.028), 불편한 자세를 취하는 작업의 비율(p=0.048), 작업 후에는 땀을 흘림(reverse coding) (p=0.006), 작업의 힘든 정도(Borg scale) (p=0.011), 문항 1부터 1 1까지의 합산점수 (p=0.003), 등이 통계적으로 유의하였다. 결론: 본 연구에서 개발한 육체적 작업강도 평가 설문지는 문항 6과 8을 제외한 나머지 문항의 결과가 유의하거나 또는 경계적 유의성을 가졌으며, 전체 문항의 합산점수가 유의한 결과를 보여주었으므로 신뢰도와 타당도를 가지는 것으로 생각되며, 향후 좀 더 대규모의 표본을 대상으로 한 연구를 통해 문항 6과 8을 수정하는 작업과 test-retest 등을 통한 신뢰도 검증을 실시할 경우 보다 나은 문항개발과 수정이 가능할 것으로 판단된다.

Keywords

References

  1. 김기영, 전명식. SAS 인자분석. 서울: 자유아카데미, 1990.
  2. 성태제. 타당도와 신뢰도. 서울: 양서원, 1995.
  3. Baecke JAH, Burema J, Frytters JER. A short questionnaire for the measurement of habitual physical activity in epidemiological studies. Amer J Clin Nutri 1982;36:932-42.
  4. Blair SN, Haskell WL, Ho P, Paffenbarger RS Jr, Vranizan KM, Farquhar JW, Wood PD. Assessment of habitual physical activity by seven-day recall in a community survey and controlled experiments. Amer J Epidemio 1985;122:794-804.
  5. Borg G. Psychophysical bases of perceived exertion. Med Sci Sports Exc. 1982;14:377-81.
  6. Dannenberg AL, Wilson PWE. Assessing physical fitness and physical activity in population-based surveys. Washington, DC: U.S. Goverment Printing Office, 1989.
  7. Gretebeck, RJ, Montoye H, Porter W. Validation of a portable accelerometer for estimating energy expenditure using doubly labeled water. Manuscript submitted for publication, 1993.
  8. Helmstadter GC. Principles of psychological measurement. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc. 1964.
  9. Jacobs D, Anisworth B, Hartman T, Leon A. A simultaneous evaluation of ten commonly used physical activity questionnaire. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise. 1993;25:81-91. https://doi.org/10.1249/00005768-199301000-00012
  10. LaPorte R, Cauley J, Kinsey C, Corbett W, Robertson R, Black-Sandler R. The epidemiology of physical activity in children, college students, middle-aged men, menopausal females and monkeys. J Chr Disea. 1982;35:787-95. https://doi.org/10.1016/0021-9681(82)90090-X
  11. Leon A, Jacobs D, DeBacker G, Taylor H. Relationship of physical characteristics and life habits to treadmill exercise capacity. Amer J Epidemio. 1981;113:653-60.
  12. Macmillan AM. The health opinion survey: Technique for estimating prevalence of psychoneurotic and related types of disorder in communities. Psychological Reports 1957;3:377-87. https://doi.org/10.2466/PR0.3..377-398
  13. Mahoney M, Freedson P. Assessment of physical activity from Caltrac and Baecke questionnaire techniques. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise. 1990;22:s80.
  14. McCormick EJ. Human factors in engineering and design(4th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill, 1993.
  15. Montoye H, Cunningham D, Welch H, Epstein F. Laboratory methods for assessing metabolic capacity in a large epidemiologic study. Ameri J Epidemio 1970;91:38-74.
  16. Montoye HJ. An introduction to measurement in physical education, Vol. 4. Indianapolis. IN: Phi Epsilon Kappa Fraternity, 1970.
  17. Montoye HJ. Physical activity and health: An epidemiologic study of an entire community. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1975.
  18. Nunnally JC. Psychometric theory, 2nd edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1978.
  19. Ola L, Christina W, Annika H. Validity of a selfadministered questionnaire for assessing physical work loads in a general population. J Occup Environ Med. 2002;44:724-35.
  20. Paffenbarger RS Jr, Blair SN, Lee IM, Hyde RT. Measurement of physical activity to assess health effects in free-living populations. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise 1993;25:60-70. https://doi.org/10.1249/00005768-199301000-00010
  21. Perneger TV, Leplege A, Etter JF, Rougemont A. Validation of a French-Language version of the MOS 36-Item short form health survey (SF-36) in young healthy adults. J cli Epidemio 1995;48(8):1051-60. https://doi.org/10.1016/0895-4356(94)00227-H
  22. Shapiro S, Weinblatt E, Frank CW, Sager RV, Densen PM. The H.I.P. study of incidence and diagnosis of coronary heart disease: Methodology. J Chr Disease 1963;16:1281-92.
  23. Tyler TA, Fiske DW. Homogeneity indices and text length. Educational and Psychological Measurement 1968;28:767-78. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316446802800306
  24. Ware JE. Measuring patients’views: the Optimum outcome measure. BMJ 1993;306:1429-30. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.306.6890.1429
  25. Ware JE. SF-36 Health Survey. Manual & Interpretation Guide. Boston, MA.: The Health institute, 1993.
  26. Yasin, S. Measuring habitual leisure-time physical activity by recall record questionnaire. In M.J. Karvonen & A.J. Barry(Eds.), Physical activity and the heart(pp.372-3). Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas, 1967.