Allied health professionals cognitive workload scale in Malacca, Malaysia: A psychometric properties evaluation.

IF 1.7 4区 医学 Q3 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Shahirah Md Rasid, Hanif Farhan Mohd Rasdi, Jin Wen Cheng, Dayana Hazwani Mohd Suadi Nata
{"title":"Allied health professionals cognitive workload scale in Malacca, Malaysia: A psychometric properties evaluation.","authors":"Shahirah Md Rasid, Hanif Farhan Mohd Rasdi, Jin Wen Cheng, Dayana Hazwani Mohd Suadi Nata","doi":"10.1177/10519815241290024","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>BackgroundCognitive workload has emerged as one of the most important topics that must be understood and addressed because of its impact on errors and work performance that will compromise patient safety. With increasing patient health demands, Allied Health Professionals (AHPs) tend to have heavier cognitive workloads and impact on personal well-being.ObjectiveOur study aims to determine the validity and reliability of a cognitive workload scale for AHP in Malacca, Malaysia and examine its effect on personal well-being.MethodThe instrument comprises items related to human reliability, human-computer interaction, decision-making, skilled performance, training, work stress and cognitive ergonomic effect. The content validation was conducted using the Content Validity Questionnaire with eight expert panels' responses. 120 AHP working in Malacca were recruited using purposive sampling and took part in the study, completing the online questionnaires. To evaluate the validity based on relationships with other measures, the SMEQ scale was also administered. AMOS Version 24 and IBM SPSS Version 26 were used in data analysis.ResultsThe instrument showed good content validity (CVI > 0.74). After the deletion of six items, the instrument has good convergent validity (AVE > 0.5), discriminant validity (HTMT Ratio < 0.85), composite reliability (CR > 0.7), internal consistency (alpha > 0.7), construct validity the ratio (1.865), CFI (0.900), PCFI (0.821), PNFI (0.738), RMSEA (0.085), IFI (0.90) and test-retest reliability (ICC > 0.6). The study found a positive correlation with the Malay version of SMEQ. This study also found that the AHP in the laboratory group have higher work stress and experiences more cognitive load effects, leading to lower personal well-being.ConclusionOverall, the final version of a scale measuring the cognitive workload is valid and reliable in assessing cognitive ergonomics among AHP. Testing cognitive workload on different work populations, including manual and non-manual workers, is recommended for future studies.</p>","PeriodicalId":51373,"journal":{"name":"Work-A Journal of Prevention Assessment & Rehabilitation","volume":"80 2","pages":"836-849"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Work-A Journal of Prevention Assessment & Rehabilitation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10519815241290024","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/11/25 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

BackgroundCognitive workload has emerged as one of the most important topics that must be understood and addressed because of its impact on errors and work performance that will compromise patient safety. With increasing patient health demands, Allied Health Professionals (AHPs) tend to have heavier cognitive workloads and impact on personal well-being.ObjectiveOur study aims to determine the validity and reliability of a cognitive workload scale for AHP in Malacca, Malaysia and examine its effect on personal well-being.MethodThe instrument comprises items related to human reliability, human-computer interaction, decision-making, skilled performance, training, work stress and cognitive ergonomic effect. The content validation was conducted using the Content Validity Questionnaire with eight expert panels' responses. 120 AHP working in Malacca were recruited using purposive sampling and took part in the study, completing the online questionnaires. To evaluate the validity based on relationships with other measures, the SMEQ scale was also administered. AMOS Version 24 and IBM SPSS Version 26 were used in data analysis.ResultsThe instrument showed good content validity (CVI > 0.74). After the deletion of six items, the instrument has good convergent validity (AVE > 0.5), discriminant validity (HTMT Ratio < 0.85), composite reliability (CR > 0.7), internal consistency (alpha > 0.7), construct validity the ratio (1.865), CFI (0.900), PCFI (0.821), PNFI (0.738), RMSEA (0.085), IFI (0.90) and test-retest reliability (ICC > 0.6). The study found a positive correlation with the Malay version of SMEQ. This study also found that the AHP in the laboratory group have higher work stress and experiences more cognitive load effects, leading to lower personal well-being.ConclusionOverall, the final version of a scale measuring the cognitive workload is valid and reliable in assessing cognitive ergonomics among AHP. Testing cognitive workload on different work populations, including manual and non-manual workers, is recommended for future studies.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Work-A Journal of Prevention Assessment & Rehabilitation
Work-A Journal of Prevention Assessment & Rehabilitation PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
30.40%
发文量
739
期刊介绍: WORK: A Journal of Prevention, Assessment & Rehabilitation is an interdisciplinary, international journal which publishes high quality peer-reviewed manuscripts covering the entire scope of the occupation of work. The journal''s subtitle has been deliberately laid out: The first goal is the prevention of illness, injury, and disability. When this goal is not achievable, the attention focuses on assessment to design client-centered intervention, rehabilitation, treatment, or controls that use scientific evidence to support best practice.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信