Developing and Testing the Reliability and Validity of the Brief Haze Weather Health Protection Behavior Assessment Scale-Adolescent Version (BHWHPBAS-AV)

Abstract

Objectives: To develop a Brief Haze Weather Health Protection Behavior Assessment Scale-Adolescent Version (BHWHPBAS-AV). Methods: Considering primary prevention, secondary prevention and tertiary prevention as a theoretical basis, researchers developed a Brief Haze Weather Health Protection Behavior Assessment Scale-Adolescent Version-I(BHWHPBAS-AV-I). After performing 6 reviews by related experts, and after conducting six adolescent tests for BHWHPBAS-AV-I, researchers developed an updated BHWHPBAS-AV-II. Out of the 20 districts in Baoding, two districts were randomly selected; moreover, two middle schools from these two districts were also randomly selected. Considering one class as a unit, researchers subsequently randomly selected 22 classes by using stratified sampling. In the end, 1,025 valid questionnaires were used as part of the study. At which point, researchers investigated the validity and reliability of the scale and obtained the final scale (BHWHPBAS-AV). Results: BHWHPBAS-AV Cronbach's α = 0.878, content validity = 0.948, and factor cumulative contribution rate = 54.058% using exploratory factor analysis. By confirmatory factor analysis, Chi square value (χ 2) = 271.791, degrees of freedom (df) = 94, Chi square value/degrees of freedom (χ 2 /df) = 2.891, root-mean-square error of approximation (RMSEA) = 0.051, normed fit index (NFI) = 0.930, incremental fit index (IFI) = 0.953, goodness of fit index (GFI) = 0.955, Tueker-Lewis index (TLI) = 0.940, comparative fit index (CFI) = 0.953. BHWHPBAS-AV was composed of 16 items as well as 3 dimensions. Conclusions: A BHWHPBAS-AV scale that has an acceptable reliability and validity can be applied to assess adolescent haze weather health protection behavior, and can also help school teachers, as well as medical staff working in community health care institutions, to perform targeted behavioral interventions and deliver health education programs to adolescents.

Measuring job stress of dental workers in China during the COVID-19 pandemic: reliability and validity of the hospital consultants’ job stress questionnaire

“…Specific indicators were employed to evaluate the model fit. For the EFA analysis, criteria included a Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) coefficient greater than 0.70, a significance level below 0.05 for Bartlett’s sphericity test, eigenvalues above 1.0, cumulative variance contribution rates above 50%, and factor loading above 0.40 [ 33 , 34 ]. A cross-loading value below 0.30, and a difference of primary loading as compared to any cross-loading value above 0.2 were recommended [ 35 ].…”

Reliability and Validity of General Health Questionnaire-12 in Chinese Dental Healthcare Workers During the COVID-19 Pandemic

“…Specific indicators were used to evaluate the model fit. For EFA analysis, a Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) coefficient >0.70, engine value >1.0 ( 30 , 31 ) cumulative variance contribution rate >50%, and factor load >0.30 were recommended ( 32 , 33 ). For CFA analysis, the Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) should be <0.10 (better if below 0.05); otherwise, the model should be rejected ( 33 , 34 ).…”

Reliability and validity of the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index among frontline COVID-19 health care workers using classical test theory and item response theory

“…Construct validity evaluates the degree to which an instrument/ test measures the intended construct. Exploratory factor analysis 48 and confirmatory factor analysis 49,50 were used.…”