Volume 10, Issue 3 (Summer 2022)
Iran J Health Sci 2022, 10(3): 1-12 |
Back to browse issues page
Mazandaran University of Medical Sciences, Sari, Iran , anaghibi1345@yahoo.com
Abstract: (970 Views)
Background and Purpose: COVID-19’s proliferation worldwide remains a significant threat to public health; therefore, the assessment and measurement of people’s intentions concerning the prevention of this threat can contribute to the development of suitable educational messages that promote preventive behaviors. This study aimed to develop a questionnaire to determine the factors affecting person’ intention of COVID-19 prevention (FAPI-COP).
Materials and Methods: This descriptive study was conducted on the people living in Mazandaran Province in 2020. The questionnaire was designed via literature review, focus group discussions, and interview with experts. A total of 10 specialists were selected to determine the content validity scores and 10 Mazandarani laypeople used to determine the reliability of the questionnaire. Finally, content validity index (CVI) and content validity ratio (CVR) were calculated by using Cronbach’s alpha and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) in SPSS, version 24.00.
Results: The first questionnaire consisted of 51 questions, and after evaluating validity and reliability, 36 questions were obtained. The content validity index of the questionnaire was 0.91, the content validity ratio 0.69, the Cronbach's alpha coefficient 0.78, and the internal correlation coefficient (ICC) 0.95 with the confidence interval of 0.80-0.99.
Conclusion: The results of the study showed that the present questionnaire had acceptable levels of reliability and validity, making it a useful tool in determining the factors affecting intention of COVID-19 prevention by people.
Materials and Methods: This descriptive study was conducted on the people living in Mazandaran Province in 2020. The questionnaire was designed via literature review, focus group discussions, and interview with experts. A total of 10 specialists were selected to determine the content validity scores and 10 Mazandarani laypeople used to determine the reliability of the questionnaire. Finally, content validity index (CVI) and content validity ratio (CVR) were calculated by using Cronbach’s alpha and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) in SPSS, version 24.00.
Results: The first questionnaire consisted of 51 questions, and after evaluating validity and reliability, 36 questions were obtained. The content validity index of the questionnaire was 0.91, the content validity ratio 0.69, the Cronbach's alpha coefficient 0.78, and the internal correlation coefficient (ICC) 0.95 with the confidence interval of 0.80-0.99.
Conclusion: The results of the study showed that the present questionnaire had acceptable levels of reliability and validity, making it a useful tool in determining the factors affecting intention of COVID-19 prevention by people.
Type of Study: Original Article |
Subject:
Health
References
1. Hui DS, I Azhar E, Madani TA, Ntoumi F, Kock R, Dar O, et al. The continuing 2019-nCoV epidemic threat of novel coronaviruses to global health-The latest 2019 novel coronavirus outbreak in Wuhan, China. International Journal of Infectious Diseases. 2020;91:264-6. [DOI:10.1016/j.ijid.2020.01.009] [PMID] [PMCID]
2. Kassema JJ. COVID-19 Outbreak: Is It a Health Crisis or Economic Crisis or Both? Case of African Counties. Case of African Counties (March 23, 2020). 2020. [DOI:10.2139/ssrn.3559200]
3. Wu Z, McGoogan JM. Characteristics of and important lessons from the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak in China: summary of a report of 72 314 cases from the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention. Jama. 2020. [DOI:10.1001/jama.2020.2648] [PMID]
4. Tomasi D. Coronavirus disease (COVID-19). A socioepidemiological analysis Bennington, VT: Vermont Academy of Arts and Sciences LV. 2020.
5. Tavakoli A, Vahdat K, Keshavarz M. Novel Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): An Emerging Infectious Disease in the 21st Century. Iranian South Medical Journal Bimonthly. 2020;22(6):432-50. [DOI:10.29252/ismj.22.6.432]
6. Jin Y-H, Cai L, Cheng Z-S, Cheng H, Deng T, Fan Y-P, et al. A rapid advice guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) infected pneumonia (standard version). Military Medical Research. 2020;7(1):4. [DOI:10.1186/s40779-020-0233-6] [PMID] [PMCID]
7. Dhama K, Sharun K, Tiwari R, Sircar S, Bhat S, Malik YS, et al. Coronavirus disease 2019-COVID-19. 2020. [DOI:10.20944/preprints202003.0001.v2]
8. Rogers RW. Cognitive and psychological processes in fear appeals and attitude change: A revised theory of protection motivation. Social psychophysiology: A sourcebook. 1983:153-76.
9. McCoach DB, Gable RK, Madura JP. Review of the steps for designing an instrument. Instrument development in the affective domain: Springer; 2013. p. 277-84. [DOI:10.1007/978-1-4614-7135-6_8]
10. Nunnally JC. Psychometric theory 3E: Tata McGraw-Hill Education; 1994.
11. Beck CT, Gable RK. Ensuring content validity: An illustration of the process. Journal of Nursing Measurement. 2001;9(2):201-15. [DOI:10.1891/1061-3749.9.2.201]
12. Newman I, Lim J, Pineda F. Content validity using a mixed methods approach: Its application and development through the use of a table of specifications methodology. Journal of Mixed Methods Research. 2013;7(3):243-60. [DOI:10.1177/1558689813476922]
13. Tilden VP, Nelson CA, May BA. Use of qualitative methods to enhance content validity. Nursing Research. 1990; 39(3), 172-175. [DOI:10.1097/00006199-199005000-00015]
14. Organization WH. Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): situation report 72. 2020. [DOI:10.1093/cid/ciaa688] [PMID] [PMCID]
15. Lynn MR. Determination and quantification of content validity. Nursing research. 1986. [DOI:10.1097/00006199-198611000-00017]
16. Waltz CF, Bausell BR. Nursing research: design statistics and computer analysis: Davis FA; 1981.
17. Lawshe CH. A quantitative approach to content validity 1. Personnel psychology. 1975;28(4):563-75. [DOI:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1975.tb01393.x]
18. Lacasse Y, Godbout C, Series F. Health-related quality of life in obstructive sleep apnoea. European Respiratory Journal. 2002;19(3):499-503. [DOI:10.1183/09031936.02.00216902] [PMID]
19. Cronbach LJ. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. psychometrika. 1951;16(3):297-334. [DOI:10.1007/BF02310555]
20. Rippetoe PA, RW. R. Effects of components of protection-motivation theory on adaptive and maladaptive coping with a health threat. Journal of personality and social psychology. 1987;52(3):596. [DOI:10.1037/0022-3514.52.3.596]
21. Milne S, Sheeran P, S. O. Prediction and intervention in health-related behavior: a meta-analytic review of protection motivation theory. Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 2000;30(1):106-43. [DOI:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2000.tb02308.x]
22. Sarkar U, Fisher L, D. S. Is self-efficacy associated with diabetes self-management across race/ethnicity and health literacy? Diabetes Care. 2006;29(4):823-9. [DOI:10.2337/diacare.29.04.06.dc05-1615] [PMID]
23. Grembowski D, Patrick D, Diehr P, Durham M, Beresford S, Kay E, et al. Self-efficacy and health behavior among older adults. Journal of health and social behavior. 1993;1:89-104. [DOI:10.2307/2137237]
24. Isralowitz R, Khamenka N, Konstantinov V, Gritsenko V, A. R. Fear, depression, substance misuse and related conditions among multi-national medical students at the peak of the COVID-19 epidemic. Journal of Loss and Trauma. 2020;1:1-4. [DOI:10.1080/15325024.2020.1799521]
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |