Mon, May 26, 2025
[Archive]
.png)
Volume 4, Issue 1 (3-2018)
jhehp 2018, 4(1): 7-12 |
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:
Ghiasvand F, Arghami S, Mahboubi M, Bakhtiari J, Mohammadgholoih S. Development and Validation of an Awareness Assessment Instrument of Safe Work for Laboratory Staff. jhehp 2018; 4 (1) :7-12
URL: http://jhehp.zums.ac.ir/article-1-154-en.html
URL: http://jhehp.zums.ac.ir/article-1-154-en.html
Fatemeh Ghiasvand1 
, Shirazeh Arghami *2 , Manouchehr Mahboubi1 , Javad Bakhtiari1 , Shabnam Mohammadgholoih1
, Shirazeh Arghami *2 , Manouchehr Mahboubi1 , Javad Bakhtiari1 , Shabnam Mohammadgholoih1
1- Zanjan Student Research Center, School of Public Health, Zanjan University of Medical Sciences, Zanjan, Iran.
2- Department of Occupational Health Engineering, School of Public Health, Zanjan University of Medical Sciences, Zanjan, Iran.
2- Department of Occupational Health Engineering, School of Public Health, Zanjan University of Medical Sciences, Zanjan, Iran.
Abstract: (8324 Views)
Background: Chemistry laboratories of universities are dangerous. However, there is no appropriate instrument to assess staffs' awareness. The present study aims at developing a standardized instrument for awareness assessment of laboratory personnel on safe work.
Methods: The present study is a kind of developing instrument methodology. The study was implemented in two phases: (I) generating items based on the review of relevant literature and interviews, and (II) assessment of the content validity according to seven occupational health and laboratory sciences experts. The validity of the tool was determined based on content validity index (CVI) and content validity ratio (CVR).
Results: In the item generation phase, 53 items were developed in four areas including storage of chemical substances, usage of chemical substances, personal protection equipment, and general observations. The value of CVI was in the range of 0.75-0.91, while the CVR was in the range of 0.4 to 1. Based on these values, some items were omitted and, finally, the content validity for the 40-item questionnaire was established.
Conclusion: Since the content validity of this questionnaire was established, it can be used in future studies.
Methods: The present study is a kind of developing instrument methodology. The study was implemented in two phases: (I) generating items based on the review of relevant literature and interviews, and (II) assessment of the content validity according to seven occupational health and laboratory sciences experts. The validity of the tool was determined based on content validity index (CVI) and content validity ratio (CVR).
Results: In the item generation phase, 53 items were developed in four areas including storage of chemical substances, usage of chemical substances, personal protection equipment, and general observations. The value of CVI was in the range of 0.75-0.91, while the CVR was in the range of 0.4 to 1. Based on these values, some items were omitted and, finally, the content validity for the 40-item questionnaire was established.
Conclusion: Since the content validity of this questionnaire was established, it can be used in future studies.
Keywords: Chemical substances, Awareness assessment, Laboratory, Content validity index, Content validity ratio
Type of Study: Original Article |
Subject:
Occupational and Industrial Health
Received: 2018/01/4 | Accepted: 2018/02/24 | Published: 2018/03/21
Received: 2018/01/4 | Accepted: 2018/02/24 | Published: 2018/03/21
References
1. Schenk L, Hansson SO, Rudén C, Gilek M. Occupational Exposure Limits: A Comparative Study. ISRTP. 2008; 50(2): 261-70. [Crossref]
2. Bahrami A, Rastkar N, Bakand S, Modiri F, Sadeghi F, Talaati H, et al. A Guide to Use of Hazardous Chemical Material. Environ Occupt Health Center. [In Persian]. Available from: URL: http://behdasht.gov.ir/uploads/mavad.pdf.
3. Herber RF, Duffus JH, Christensen JM, Olsen E, Park MV. Risk Assessment for Occupational Exposure to Chemicals: A Review of Current Methodology (IUPAC Technical Report). Pure Appl Chem. 2001; 73(6): 993-1031. [Crossref]
4. Money C, Margary S. Improved Use of Workplace Exposure data in the Regulatory Risk Assessment of Chemicals within Europe. Ann Occup Hyg. 2002; 46(3): 279-85.
5. Alizadeh A, Alizadeh H. Safety in the Laboratory. J Vet Laboratory Res. 2012; 4(1): 108-108.
6. Adl J. Dangers and Failures in Academic Labs. Tehran University Medical Science: TUMS Publication. 2004; 62 (6): 518-25. [In Persian].
7. Peplow M, Marris E. How Dangerous is Chemistry? Nature. 2006; 441(7093): 560-1. [Crossref]
8. Langerman N. Laboratory Safety? J Chem Health Saf. 2009; 16(3): 49-50. [Crossref]
9. Nicol AM, Hurrell AC, Wahyuni D, McDowall W, Chu W. Accuracy, Comprehensibility, and Use of Material Safety data Sheets: A Review. Am J Ind Med. 2008; 51(11): 861-6. [Crossref]
10. Lestari F, Kurniawidjaja ML, Hartono B. Baseline Survey on the Implementation of Laboratory Chemical Safety, Health and Security within Health Faculties Laboratories at Universitas Indonesia. J Chem Health Saf. 2016; 3(4): 38-43. [Crossref]
11. Mogopodi D, Paphane B, Petros S. Assessment of Chemical Management Practices and Safety in Junior Secondary School Laboratories in Gaborone. J Chem Health Saf. 2015; 22(5): 17-27. [Crossref]
12. National Research Council Committee on Prudent Practices in the Laboratory. Prudent Practices in the Laboratory: Handling and Management of Chemical Hazards. Washington: DC; 2011.
13. Lawshe CH. A Quantitative Approach to Content Validity. Pers Psychol. 1975; 28(4): 563-75. [Crossref]
14. Drekonja DM, Abbo LM, Kuskowski MA, Gnadt C, Shukla B, Johnson JR. A Survey of Resident Physicians' Knowledge Regarding Urine Testing and Subsequent Antimicrobial Treatment. Am J Infect Control. 2013; 41(10): 892-6. [Crossref]
15. Rahimzadeh H, Mansourian M, Karegar M, Ghorbani M, Beyrami S, Shafyian Z. The Knowledge, Attitude, and Performance of the Bakers Regarding the Use of Sodium Bicarbonate in Bread. Payesh. 2012; 11 (2): 279-83. [In Persian].
16. Kashi G, Pourkabiri B. Examining the Effect of Training on Islamic Azad University’s Awarness about Security in Organic Chemistry Laboratory in Tehran. The 8th Seminar on Chemistry of Iran: University of Semnan; 2013.
17. Hulla JE, Kinter LB, Kelman B. A Standard of Knowledge for the Professional Practice of Toxicology. Environ Health Persp. 2015; 123(8): 743. [Crossref]
18. Yaghmaie F. Content Validity and Its Estimation. J Med Educ. 2003; 3(1): 25-7.
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
© 2024 The Author(s)
