Evaluating lighting satisfaction in a public library: A study on the reliability and validity of a lighting evaluation questionnaire.

IF 1.7 4区 医学 Q3 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Mohammad Javad SheikhMozafari, Fatemeh Sadat Mirnajafi Zadeh, Ali Mohsenian, Jamal Biganeh
{"title":"Evaluating lighting satisfaction in a public library: A study on the reliability and validity of a lighting evaluation questionnaire.","authors":"Mohammad Javad SheikhMozafari, Fatemeh Sadat Mirnajafi Zadeh, Ali Mohsenian, Jamal Biganeh","doi":"10.1177/10519815251335788","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>BackgroundProper workplace lighting enhances efficiency, productivity, and safety. However, quantitative measurements alone may not reflect lighting quality or user satisfaction completely. Utilizing reliable questionnaires and gathering users' feedback provides a more comprehensive evaluation of lighting conditions.ObjectiveThis study aimed to validate a lighting evaluation questionnaire and employed it to assess lighting conditions and user satisfaction within a public library environment.MethodsThis cross-sectional study, conducted in 2024 at a public library, combined quantitative data from a light meter with qualitative insights from 60 participants via a questionnaire. Lighting optimization was modeled using DIALux software. Questionnaire reliability was assessed through Cronbach's alpha and test-retest methods, while validity was evaluated using CVR and CVI. Relationships between lighting intensity and responses were analyzed using Spearman's rank and Mann-Whitney U tests.ResultsReliability analysis showed alpha values ranging from 0.847 to 0.978, while validity was confirmed with CVI and CVR values within acceptable ranges. Illuminance levels averaged 205, 87, and 407 lux for the site, and 305, 66, and 545 lux for the study hall. Approximately 74% and 94% of measurement points were below minimum and recommended standards. About 80% and 88% of respondents rated their perception of lighting in the site and study hall as average or lower, with 80% and 56% reporting average or low satisfaction. DIALux suggested LEDIUM fixtures to achieve over 500 lux.ConclusionsThis questionnaire is a valuable tool for assessing the quality of lighting. It can be utilized for designing, measuring, and preventing lighting dissatisfaction.</p>","PeriodicalId":51373,"journal":{"name":"Work-A Journal of Prevention Assessment & Rehabilitation","volume":" ","pages":"10519815251335788"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-15","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/10.1177/10519815251335788","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

BackgroundProper workplace lighting enhances efficiency, productivity, and safety. However, quantitative measurements alone may not reflect lighting quality or user satisfaction completely. Utilizing reliable questionnaires and gathering users' feedback provides a more comprehensive evaluation of lighting conditions.ObjectiveThis study aimed to validate a lighting evaluation questionnaire and employed it to assess lighting conditions and user satisfaction within a public library environment.MethodsThis cross-sectional study, conducted in 2024 at a public library, combined quantitative data from a light meter with qualitative insights from 60 participants via a questionnaire. Lighting optimization was modeled using DIALux software. Questionnaire reliability was assessed through Cronbach's alpha and test-retest methods, while validity was evaluated using CVR and CVI. Relationships between lighting intensity and responses were analyzed using Spearman's rank and Mann-Whitney U tests.ResultsReliability analysis showed alpha values ranging from 0.847 to 0.978, while validity was confirmed with CVI and CVR values within acceptable ranges. Illuminance levels averaged 205, 87, and 407 lux for the site, and 305, 66, and 545 lux for the study hall. Approximately 74% and 94% of measurement points were below minimum and recommended standards. About 80% and 88% of respondents rated their perception of lighting in the site and study hall as average or lower, with 80% and 56% reporting average or low satisfaction. DIALux suggested LEDIUM fixtures to achieve over 500 lux.ConclusionsThis questionnaire is a valuable tool for assessing the quality of lighting. It can be utilized for designing, measuring, and preventing lighting dissatisfaction.

公共图书馆照明满意度评价:一份照明评价问卷的信度和效度研究。
适当的工作场所照明可以提高效率、生产力和安全性。然而,单独的定量测量可能不能完全反映照明质量或用户满意度。利用可靠的问卷调查和收集用户反馈,可以对照明条件进行更全面的评估。目的本研究旨在验证一份照明评价问卷,并将其用于评估公共图书馆环境的照明条件和用户满意度。这项横断面研究于2024年在一家公共图书馆进行,结合了来自测光计的定量数据和通过问卷调查从60名参与者那里获得的定性见解。照明优化建模使用DIALux软件。问卷信度采用Cronbach’s alpha法和重测法,效度采用CVR和CVI法。采用Spearman’s rank和Mann-Whitney U检验分析光照强度与反应之间的关系。结果信度分析alpha值在0.847 ~ 0.978之间,CVI和CVR值均在可接受范围内。场地的平均照度为205、87和407勒克斯,自习室的平均照度为305、66和545勒克斯。大约74%和94%的测量点低于最低和推荐的标准。大约80%和88%的受访者将他们对现场和自习室照明的感觉评为平均或更低,80%和56%的受访者表示平均或低满意度。DIALux建议LEDIUM灯具达到500勒克斯以上。结论本问卷是评估照明质量的有效工具。它可以用于设计、测量和防止照明不满意。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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