{"title":"印度上班族运动障碍认知问卷(PBEQ-I)的编制与内容验证","authors":"Sougata Panda","doi":"10.24321/2278.2044.202325","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Physical inactivity worldwide is a major challenge in preventing various non-communicable diseases. In India, physical inactivity is observed in the average population, mostly in office workers involved with sitting or clerical jobs. Studies showed that there are different barriers, facilitators, and preferences for exercises that already exist for office workers. To our knowledge, no questionnaire currently addresses perceived barriers to exercise among Indian office workers. Objective: To measure self-reported perceived barriers to exercise for the employees working in the office. Methodology: This study has two essential components: domain and item development and content validation using the online Delphi method. The questionnaire was validated using the Content Validity Index (CVI) and modified Kappa, the most used quantitative method for calculating content validity. The questionnaire was validated by a panel of 13 experts in two rounds of validation. Results: The initial testing revealed low content validity for individual items (I-CVI range: 0.50 to 1.00) and moderate agreement (Kappa range: 0.27 to 1). After modifying and replacing items, the second round achieved acceptable scores (CVI: 0.85-1 and Kappa: 0.84-1). The final instrument had five domains and twenty-five questions. The domains were as follows: (1) personal barrier; (2) professional barrier; (3) social and family barrier; (4) preferences; and (5) knowledge barrier domain. Conclusions: Using an iterative methodology, the validation of the perceived barriers to exercise questionnaire (PBEQ-I) for Indian office workers revealed a high level of item-content validity for assessing the perceived barriers to exercise among office employees. Further reliability testing is required to validate this instrument’s psychometric qualities. How to cite this article:Panda S, Singh A, Bali3 S, Bhargava A. Development and Content Validation of Perceived Barriers to Exercise Questionnaire (PBEQ-I) for Indian Office Workers. Chettinad Health City Med J. 2023;12(2):33-40. DOI: https://doi.org/10.24321/2278.2044.202325","PeriodicalId":276735,"journal":{"name":"Chettinad Health City Medical Journal","volume":"3 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Development and Content Validation of Perceived Barriers to Exercise Questionnaire (PBEQ-I) for Indian Office Workers\",\"authors\":\"Sougata Panda\",\"doi\":\"10.24321/2278.2044.202325\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background: Physical inactivity worldwide is a major challenge in preventing various non-communicable diseases. In India, physical inactivity is observed in the average population, mostly in office workers involved with sitting or clerical jobs. Studies showed that there are different barriers, facilitators, and preferences for exercises that already exist for office workers. To our knowledge, no questionnaire currently addresses perceived barriers to exercise among Indian office workers. Objective: To measure self-reported perceived barriers to exercise for the employees working in the office. Methodology: This study has two essential components: domain and item development and content validation using the online Delphi method. The questionnaire was validated using the Content Validity Index (CVI) and modified Kappa, the most used quantitative method for calculating content validity. The questionnaire was validated by a panel of 13 experts in two rounds of validation. Results: The initial testing revealed low content validity for individual items (I-CVI range: 0.50 to 1.00) and moderate agreement (Kappa range: 0.27 to 1). After modifying and replacing items, the second round achieved acceptable scores (CVI: 0.85-1 and Kappa: 0.84-1). The final instrument had five domains and twenty-five questions. The domains were as follows: (1) personal barrier; (2) professional barrier; (3) social and family barrier; (4) preferences; and (5) knowledge barrier domain. Conclusions: Using an iterative methodology, the validation of the perceived barriers to exercise questionnaire (PBEQ-I) for Indian office workers revealed a high level of item-content validity for assessing the perceived barriers to exercise among office employees. Further reliability testing is required to validate this instrument’s psychometric qualities. How to cite this article:Panda S, Singh A, Bali3 S, Bhargava A. Development and Content Validation of Perceived Barriers to Exercise Questionnaire (PBEQ-I) for Indian Office Workers. Chettinad Health City Med J. 2023;12(2):33-40. DOI: https://doi.org/10.24321/2278.2044.202325\",\"PeriodicalId\":276735,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Chettinad Health City Medical Journal\",\"volume\":\"3 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-06-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Chettinad Health City Medical Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.24321/2278.2044.202325\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Chettinad Health City Medical Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.24321/2278.2044.202325","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Development and Content Validation of Perceived Barriers to Exercise Questionnaire (PBEQ-I) for Indian Office Workers
Background: Physical inactivity worldwide is a major challenge in preventing various non-communicable diseases. In India, physical inactivity is observed in the average population, mostly in office workers involved with sitting or clerical jobs. Studies showed that there are different barriers, facilitators, and preferences for exercises that already exist for office workers. To our knowledge, no questionnaire currently addresses perceived barriers to exercise among Indian office workers. Objective: To measure self-reported perceived barriers to exercise for the employees working in the office. Methodology: This study has two essential components: domain and item development and content validation using the online Delphi method. The questionnaire was validated using the Content Validity Index (CVI) and modified Kappa, the most used quantitative method for calculating content validity. The questionnaire was validated by a panel of 13 experts in two rounds of validation. Results: The initial testing revealed low content validity for individual items (I-CVI range: 0.50 to 1.00) and moderate agreement (Kappa range: 0.27 to 1). After modifying and replacing items, the second round achieved acceptable scores (CVI: 0.85-1 and Kappa: 0.84-1). The final instrument had five domains and twenty-five questions. The domains were as follows: (1) personal barrier; (2) professional barrier; (3) social and family barrier; (4) preferences; and (5) knowledge barrier domain. Conclusions: Using an iterative methodology, the validation of the perceived barriers to exercise questionnaire (PBEQ-I) for Indian office workers revealed a high level of item-content validity for assessing the perceived barriers to exercise among office employees. Further reliability testing is required to validate this instrument’s psychometric qualities. How to cite this article:Panda S, Singh A, Bali3 S, Bhargava A. Development and Content Validation of Perceived Barriers to Exercise Questionnaire (PBEQ-I) for Indian Office Workers. Chettinad Health City Med J. 2023;12(2):33-40. DOI: https://doi.org/10.24321/2278.2044.202325