5

Measurement Instruments for Ergonomics

Surveys – Methodological Guidelines
Marina Zambon Orpinelli Coluci
State University of Campinas (UNICAMP)
Brazil

1. Introduction
Ergonomic surveys are very important tools to evaluate and identify problems in
workplaces such as industries, hospitals, and laboratories. Strategies to tackle the ergonomic
issues can be proposed based upon the results of the surveys. Therefore, the surveys should
be carefully prepared to obtain information in a clear and reliable way. Usually, ergonomic
surveys rely upon measurement instruments (questionnaires) that are applied to workers on
the workplace to collect the necessary information.
In this chapter, we present a description of methodological guidelines used to prepare a new
questionnaire or to adapt an already developed one.
The first step in developing a questionnaire is to clearly define the questions (construct) you
want to answer with the ergonomic survey (Snyder et al., 2007). Based upon those
questions, careful searching for questionnaires that have already been used to similar cases
should be done. Having found questionnaires that measure exactly what you want, further
analysis should be carried out about the questionnaire language and the sample which it
was applied.
With the growth of the number of questionnaires developed for a specific culture, their use
in other countries, cultures, and languages has become an important tool with the cross-
cultural adaptation process (Beaton et al., 2002). Minor changes in the original questionnaire
can be done to better adapt it to your purposes.
So, how to decide if it is better to use an existing questionnaire or to create a new one?
There are some advantages in using existing questionnaires: time saving in developing a
questionnaire based upon steps suggested in literature; possible comparisons with
previous studies involving the same questionnaire; psychometrical properties analysis in
different situations; and no necessity to develop the administration and analysis
processes.
Sometimes it is necessary to change some specific terms in existing questionnaires to fulfill
all the requirements of the intended construct. In those cases, a content validity process
should be carried out to check whether the proposed changes are misunderstood (Wynd et
al., 2003).

www.intechopen.com
120 Ergonomics – A Systems Approach

On the other hand, when no questionnaires are found to measure the intended construct, new
questionnaires can be developed. In those cases, there are steps recommended by the scientific
community that guide the development of the questionnaire, such as items selection, domains
development, and evaluation of the psychometric properties (Lynn, 1986; Streiner & Norman,
1995; Polit & Hungler, 1995; Turner et al., 2007; Snyder et al., 2007). In general, developing a
new questionnaire is a long, laborious process. Therefore, a new questionnaire should be
developed only if there are no other questionnaires for the same construct.

2. The importance of a cross-cultural adaptation process of a questionnaire if

the original one was developed to be used in another language/country
Having decided to use an existing questionnaire developed in another language, it is
important to carry out a cross-cultural adaptation. This adaptation allows one to apply the
questionnaire for a different culture and/or tongue, and to compare results among different
countries.
The term cross-cultural adaptation has been used to indicate the process that takes into
account the two languages (original and adapted) and the cultural adaptation during the
development of a new questionnaire to be used in different context (Beaton et al., 2002).
The cross-cultural adaptation process should follow established rules because the
adaptation of a questionnaire to be used in another country, culture, or tongue needs a
method to keep equivalence between the original and the adapted questionnaires (Beaton et
al., 2002). The questionnaire items should be well translated and be culturally adapted to
keep the validity of the instrument (Beaton et al., 2000). Guillemin (1995) have pointed out
that measuring in different locations in equivalent ways is prerequisite in order to compare
results from different cultures.
Before proceeding with the cross-cultural adaptation process it is necessary to request
authorization for the authors of the original questionnaire regarding the use and adaptation of
their instrument. The process is then completed after the following steps have been fulfilled:
a. Translation: this is the first step where two independent translations are recommended
of the original language to the target one used in the current survey. The translations
should be done by bilingual translators where the mother tongue should be the target
tongue. Only one of the translators should present previous experience about the theme
of the survey and may be informed about the aspects to be investigated by the survey.
b. Synthesis: The second step is when the two translators and the principal investigator (or
a third translator) analyze and compare differences between the translations in order to
synthesize the results and obtain a single, definitive version of the adapted
questionnaire (Beaton et al., 2000).
c. Back-translation: the synthesized version should be translated back to the original
language by two translators that have not participated on the first step. Their mother
tongue should be the one of the original questionnaire and should not be informed
about concepts to be explored within the instrument. These translators do the
translations independently, without previous knowledge of the original questionnaire.
d. Content evaluation: After the first three steps, an expert committee is organized to
evaluate the content of the questionnaire. This committee is composed by bilingual

www.intechopen.com
Measurement Instruments for Ergonomics Surveys – Methodological Guidelines 121

professionals with large experience on the topics covered by the questionnaire. The
professionals receive the translations, the synthesis, the back-translations, and
instructions about how to carry out the evaluation of the questionnaire content. After a
detailed analysis, the professionals produce a pre-final version of the adapted
questionnaire.
e. Pre-test: With the pre-final version of the questionnaire, a pre-testing is carried out in a
sample of typically 40 subjects (Beaton et al., 2000). Each of the subjects fill the
questionnaire and is interviewed about the understanding of the items, words, and
easiness of the filling the questionnaire. During this step, the subjects can point out
difficulties and suggest modifications to improve the instrument. If the suggested changes
are significant and extensive, another analysis of the expert committee is necessary. At the
end of this step a final version of the adapted questionnaire is obtained.
Researchers are following these steps when performing a cross-cultural adaptation process
(Vigatto et al., 2007; Gallasch et al., 2007; Toledo et al., 2008; Coluci & Alexandre, 2009;
Coluci et al., 2009) and it is possible to verify that they used carefully methods in order to
conduct the process in a reliable way.
It is important to note that, often, one can find in the literature questionnaires that measure
the construct to be evaluated with good psychometric properties. After permission of the
original authors of the questionnaire, it is possible to use it without making modifications if
the recommendations presented in the instrument are followed.
However, one must be careful when using an instrument ever built. When it was created,
were the psychometric properties evaluated with the same population you intend to study?
If the answer to this question is "yes", you can use the questionnaire with greater tranquility,
but you must verify whether the cultural context and the situation are similar to yours.
If the answer is "no", you should evaluate the psychometric properties of this questionnaire
to the other population. This probably can occur when you choose to use a questionnaire to
assess a construct in a generic form, i.e., when it is not designed to a specific population. An
example of this situation is the study conducted by Shimabukuro et al. (2011), which aimed
to adapt a generic questionnaire that evaluates the workers’ perception regarding job factors
that can contribute to musculoskeletal symptoms to physical therapists. The authors made
some changes in the questionnaire’s content and evaluated the psychometric properties with
the specific population.
And why is it important to check these properties again? It is simple. Applying a
questionnaire to a population different from that involved in the study during its
development process, one can find different results (better or worse) than the original.
Therefore, such assessment can demonstrate if the questionnaire is also reliable and valid for
the other population.

3. A description of all steps for developing a new measuring instrument

When a new questionnaire is necessary, researchers should follow standard and systematic
methods that aim to improve the quality of measuring instruments (Haynes et al., 1995;
Keszei et al., 2010; Pittman & Bakas, 2010).

www.intechopen.com
122 Ergonomics – A Systems Approach

The following steps are suggested: definition of the conceptual structure; definition of the
target population and the objectives of the instrument; development of the domains and
selection of the items; organization of the instrument; evaluation of the content validity and
pre-test; and finally the evaluation of the psychometric properties.
a. Definition of the conceptual structure: This step aims to help an initial development of the
items and domains. Some methods can be used in this stage such as literature search,
interviews with specialists in the field and/or with subjects of the target population,
focus groups, other questionnaires analysis, and meetings with a referee committe
(Benson & Clark, 1982; Berk, 1990; Turner et al., 2007).
b. Definition of the target population and the objectives of the instrument: It is important to
characterize the target population in order to justify the relevance of a specific
questionnaire (Turner et al., 2007). It is also fundamental to establish a link between
the concepts involved and the development of the questionnaire (Fagarasanu &
Kumar, 2002).
c. Development of the domains and selection of the items: The domains to be investigated with
the questionnaire are listed based on the relevance of the proposed survey (Snyder et
al., 2007). The selection of the items of the questionnaire can be obtained through
literature search and interviews with subjects of the target population and specialists in
the field (Streiner & Norman, 2002; Turner et al., 2007). The literature search should be
carried out in databases, looking for related constructs and questionnaires in order to
determine reference constructs. The interviews with the target population aim to
determine individual perceptions about the involved aspects and provide important
preliminary data during the development of the questionnaire. The interviews with
specialists allow to verify the content to be explored with the questionnaire.
d. Organization of the instrument: At this step, the items are organized in their respective
domains and a final form for the questionnaire is prepared which includes title,
instructions, and response scale. The response scale type and scores are determined
based upon the easiness for understanding and answering by the subjects, and
evaluating by the researchers (Turner et al., 2007).
e. Evaluation of the content validity: This is an essential step in the development of a new
questionnaire. It allows associating abstract concepts with measurable and observable
quantities (Kirshner & Guyatt, 1985). Details of this step will be provided in section 8 of
this chapter.
f. Pre-test: The pretest should be applied in a sample of the population in order to verify the
understanding of the new questionnaire. After the administration of the questionnaire,
the investigator should interview each subject individually and ask him/her about the
understanding of words and items as well as about the procedures of filling in their
answers. Modifications can be made according to the suggestions of these subjects. When
the changes are significant, it is important to be evaluated and approved again by the
expert committee that carried out the content validity. After this phase, the measuring
instrument is completed and its psychometric properties can be studied.
g. Evaluation of the psychometric properties: The evaluation of the psychometric properties of
a new questionnaire is one of the most important steps because it allows verifying the
validity and reliability of the instrument to be used in other research and/or
ergonomics practices. When we create a questionnaire, we intend to disclose it to the
scientific community. If the questionnaire shows good psychometric properties, it can

www.intechopen.com
Measurement Instruments for Ergonomics Surveys – Methodological Guidelines 123

be widely used by other researchers. Therefore, its use can be widespread whether it is
well constructed and evaluated.
The techniques to verify the psychometric properties will be explained in sections 8 and 9 of
this chapter.
It can be noted that recent studies involving the development of new questionnaires are
following these steps (Farias et al., 2008; Buysse et al., 2010; Bergman et al., 2011; Giesler et
al., 2011; Marant et al., 2011; Young et al., 2011). These studies showed the steps of literature
review on the topic being discussed and literature review on other scales that could be used
for the same purpose. Furthermore, some researchers consulted experts with experience on
the area of interest during the selection of domains and items (Farias et al., 2008; Bergman et
al., 2011); others conducted focus groups and semi-structured interviews to obtain relevant
information for the generation of items (Buysse et al., 2010; Young et al., 2011); and others
have conducted interviews with a sample of the target population in order to obtain
important suggestions during the developing of the conceptual model of the questionnaire
(Giesler et al., 2011; Marant et al., 2011).

4. Content validity – How to do and how to evaluate this validity using

qualitative and quantitative methods?
There are controversies about the terminology and the concept of content validity (Sireci,
1998; Haynes et al., 1995). For some authors, content validity is associated in determining in
which fraction the selected items represent appropriately the important aspects of the
concept to be evaluated (Contandriopoulos et al., 1999). It aims to verify the extension of the
items that determine the same content (Rubio et al., 2003). For other authors, the content
validity is an answer for the following question: Are the items of the questionnaire
representative among all the questions that can be formulated about the topic in analysis?
(Polit & Hungler, 1995).
Another way to define the content validity is the process to evaluate the degree of relevance
and representativeness of each element of the questionnaire with respect to a specific
construct (Haynes et al., 1995). The elements of the questionnaire include the items,
instructions, and format of the answers because all of them can influence the data collection.
For some authors the content validity comprises only the evaluation by an expert committee
(Dempsey & Dempsey, 1996; Fitzner, 2007). However, the content validity has been described
as judgment process composed by two distinct parts: (i) the development of the questionnaire,
and (ii) its evaluation by an expert committee (Lynn, 1986; Polit & Beck, 2006).
The number and qualification of the judges of the committee is controversial. Lynn (1986)
suggests a number between 5 and 10 whereas Haynes et al. (1995) suggest a number
between 6 and 20 with groups of at least 3 individuals of each field. Other aspects such as
the characteristics of the questionnaire, formation, qualification and availability of the
judges can be taken into account (Lynn, 1986; Grant & Davis, 1997).
Different criteria can be used to select the group of specialists such as clinical experience,
research and publication on the field, expertise on the involved conceptual structure, and
methodological knowledge about development of questionnaires and scales (Berk, 1990;

www.intechopen.com
124 Ergonomics – A Systems Approach

Grant & Davis, 1997). It is also suggested the participation of lay persons related to the
target population of the questionnaire (Tilden et al., 1990; Rubio et al., 2003).
In cases involving cross-cultural adaptation, a multidisciplinary committee is suggested
(Hutchinson et al., 1996). In this case, the committee would be formed by bilingual
specialists that know the concepts and measures involved (Guillemin et al., 1993).
The evaluation by the judges can involve both quantitative and qualitative procedures (Tilden
et al., 1990; Burns & Grove, 1997; Hyrkäs et al., 2003). The process begins with an invitation of
the judges that receive instructions and a specific questionnaire for the evaluation (Grant &
Davis, 1997). A letter of invitation should explain the reason because the specialist was chosen,
the relevance of the involved concepts, and overall explanation of the questionnaire (Lynn,
1986; Grant & Davis, 1997), including the aim of the survey, the scales used, and the adopted
score (Davis, 1992; Rubio et al., 2003). The letter can also include conceptual and theoretical
foundations from the questionnaire (Davis, 1992) and information about the target population.
If lay persons will compose the committee, a description of the educational level of the
members can be specified in the letter (Rubio et al., 2003).
Initially, the judges should analyze the coverage of the questionnaire, i.e., if each domain has
been covered by the selected set of items (Tilden et al., 1990). In this stage, the committee can
include or remove items of the questionnaire (Rubio et al., 2003). Then, a detailed analysis of
the items is performed individually. The committee should evaluate the clarity on the writing
of each item to guarantee that each item is not misunderstood (Grant & Davis, 1997). The
committee also should analyze if the number of items are adequate and relevant to reach the
aims of the survey (Grant & Davis, 1997; McGilton, 2003). Suggestions by the judges to
improve specific items can be done at this stage (Tilden et al., 1990; Rubio et al., 2003).
The dynamics of the evaluation process by the judges can occur either individually by each
judge followed by a group discussion or interactively through interviews and discussions
about the controversial points (Grant & Davis, 1997).
To quantify the level of agreement among the specialists during the evaluation of the
content validity, different methods can be used:
a. Percent agreement score: The agreement between the specialists (in percentage) is
quantified by the ratio of the number of specialists that agree with each other and the
total number of specialists (Tilden et al., 1990; Hulley et al., 2003). This is the simplest
method to determine the level of agreement (Topf, 1986) and has been used on the
initial determination of the items (Tilden et al., 1990; Grant & Davis, 1997). The
simplicity in the calculation is an advantage of this method. However, some limitations
forbid the use of this method in all cases (Topf, 1986). This methods should be used
considering an agreement of 90% among the specialists (Topf, 1986; Polit & Beck, 2006).
b. Content validity index: This method quantifies the proportion of judges that agree about
some specific aspect of the questionnaire and its items. It is used commonly on the
health field (Wynd & Schaefer, 2002; Hyrkäs et al., 2003; McGilton, 2003).
The method allows analyzing each item individually and also the questionnaire as a whole
through the use of a Likert-like scale with score from 1 to 4. The numbers express the level of
changes/understanding the judge had about the item. For example, the following definitions
can be applied: (i) 1 = not representative, 2 = needs major revision to become representative,

www.intechopen.com
Measurement Instruments for Ergonomics Surveys – Methodological Guidelines 125

3 = needs minor revision to become representative, 4 = representative (Lynn, 1986; Rubio et al.,
2003), or (ii) 1 = not clear, 2 = unclear without item revision, 3 = clear but needs minor
modifications, 4 = very clear (Hyrkäs et al., 2003; Wynd et al., 2003; DeVon et al., 2007).
The content validity index for each item of the questionnaire is then calculated by the ratio
of the number of answer with scores “3” and “4” and the total number of answers (Grant &
Davis, 1997; Wynd et al., 2003). Items with score “1” and “2” should be revised or even
removed.
To evaluate the questionnaire as a whole, different ways can be used. For instance, Polit and
Beck (2006) presented three ways: (i) use of the average of the proportions of the items
considered by the specialists; (ii) use of the sum of all indexes calculated separately divided
by total number of items analyzed; and (iii) use of the ratio of the total number of items
considered as relevant by the specialists and the total number of items.
It is also important to define acceptable agreement rate. Some authors consider the number
of specialists on the evaluation of the individual items. When the number of specialists is
less than 5, all should agree (rate equal to 1) for an item to be considered as relevant. For a
number of 6 or more specialists, the rate should not be less than 0.78 (Lynn, 1986; Polit &
Beck, 2006). Some authors suggest a minimal rate of 0.80 to check the validity of new
instruments (Davis, 1992; Grant & Davis, 1997) however the recommended rates should be
larger than 0.90 (Polit & Beck, 2006).
c. Kappa coefficient: The kappa coefficient is the ratio of the proportion of the number of
specialists that agreed and the maximum proportion that the specialist could agree
(Hulley et al., 2003, Siegel & Castellan, 2006). It is useful when the data are divided in
categories and represented nominally (Siegel & Castellan, 2006). The values of kappa
are in the range of -1 (no agreement) to 1 (total agreement) (Hulley et al., 2003).

5. The reliability assessment: Importance and procedures to evaluate it in a

new questionnaire
Reliability is the ability to consistently reproduce a result in time and space, or using
different observers (Contandriopoulos, 1999). It indicates aspects about the questionnaire
coherence, precision, stability, equivalence, and homogeneity (Lobiondo & Haber, 2001).
It can be evaluated by three different methods: the stability (test-retest), the homogeneity,
and the equivalence (inter-observer).
The stability aims to analyze the consistency of the instrument when repeating the measures
using a test-retest design (Polit & Hungler, 1995). When you decide to use this method, the
situation that is being measured must be in the same conditions in both test, and some
differences between tests must be due to random errors (Burns & Grove, 1997).
The homogeneity or internal consistency can be evaluated to verify whether all items of a
questionnaire are related to different aspects of the same construct (Streiner & Norman,
1995). Using this method, you can verify if the questions of the instrument measure the
same concept (Lobiondo & Haber, 2001).
The equivalence reliability is an inter-observer measure and it allows verifying whether the
administration of a specific instrument by two different persons will provide the same results.

www.intechopen.com
126 Ergonomics – A Systems Approach

6. Validity concepts: Types, importance, and procedures to evaluate the

psychometric properties
Validity is an important psychometric property used to evaluate the quality of an
instrument (Polit & Hungler, 1995). It is related to the fact that a questionnaire should really
measure what is intended to, i.e., the validity can show if the questionnaire represents the
concept that it is trying to measure (Lobiondo & Haber, 2001).
Content validity was already defined in section 8 and it aims to analyze whether the
questionnaire items are relevant to measure the proposed content.
Criterion validity is used when there is a “gold standard” questionnaire to compare with
your questionnaire. This method indicates whether the results obtained with the target
questionnaire corresponds to the results obtained with another observation/instrument that
measures the same content of interest (Guillemin, 1995).
Construct validity is one of the most important characteristics of an instrument because it
evaluates how much the instrument measures the construct of interest. It involves the
generation of a hypothetical model to describe the constructs to be assessed and to
determine their relationships (Fayers & Machin, 2000).
This type of validity covers a variety of techniques aimed, therefore, to assess whether the
theoretical construct appears to be an appropriate model and whether the measuring
instrument corresponds to the construct.
Factor analysis is one of the most important and powerful methods to establish the construct
validity (Fayers & Machin, 2000). This type of analysis allows us to establish whether there
is strong correlation between variables within the same group, but weak correlations
between variables from outside the group (Fayers & Machin, 2000).
The factor analysis can be exploratory when you are developing a new questionnaire and
there is no prior knowledge of the structure to be used, i.e., it creates a structure for the
instrument (Fayers & Machin, 2000). It can also be confirmatory when the goal is to test
whether the correlations correspond to the predefined structure of the questionnaire,
confirming the number of items previously developed as well grouping the items into
factors or domains (Fayers & Machin, 2000).
There is also the construct validity that uses the known-group technique, which consists of
looking for different results when applying a questionnaire to groups with contrasting
characteristics (Polit & Hungler, 1995; Dempsey & Dempsey, 2000).
The convergent validity is also another technique to verify the construct validity. It consists
in showing that a dimension of the new instrument correlates with other dimensions of
questionnaires theoretically related (Fayers & Machin, 2000). In contrast, the divergent
validity assesses the questionnaire domains correlating them to other domains of
questionnaires which content should not be related to the investigation.
Depending upon the type of the questionnaire, we should choose different techniques to
evaluate the reliability and validity. This choice should be based on the availability of key
technical aspects for each type of technique. For example, if you are developing a new
measuring instrument which construct was not measured by any other questionnaire,
probably you will not be possible to perform criterion validity.

www.intechopen.com
Measurement Instruments for Ergonomics Surveys – Methodological Guidelines 127

7. The questionnaire application methods and the procedures to decide the

better way to assess a population
During the development of a new questionnaire, the researcher has to think about how to
apply it. The type of application method can influence which questions can be asked and in
what format (Streiner & Norman, 2002). It is possible to choose one of these four types of
methods: face-to-face interviews, self-administration, over the telephone, and by mail.
a. Face-to-face interviews: This method is used when the author decides to interview each
subject individually. The researcher must recruit each subject, explain the importance of
research and how to proceed, and, from the consent of the subject, perform the
questions and record the answers of the subjects. This method has the advantage of a
greater participation of the subjects because the researcher has the opportunity to
personally explain the importance of his/her study. In addition, the researcher can
clarify doubts during the administration of the questionnaire when the subject
demonstrates any difficult on answering it.
It is important to consider another aspect of this method. If the researcher has any link with
the research site or any of the subjects who participate in the study, it is recommended that
the researcher do not conduct the interviews. In order to minimize any interference in the
responses of the subjects, the researcher must instruct another person to apply the survey.
This person must be able to answer any questions presented by the subjects.
b. Self-administration: This technique can be chosen when the researcher has sufficient
knowledge whether the subjects are able to answer the questionnaire by themselves.
Therefore, one should consider the educational level of the population studied and
whether the terms used in the questionnaire will be understood by the subjects. You can
apply this technique in two ways. In both the researcher can explain the importance of
the survey in person and give instructions on how to complete the survey. Then, the
researcher can choose to leave the questionnaire with the subject and set a date and
time to collect it. Or the researcher can ask the subject to answer the questionnaire in
his/her presence. The disadvantage of this method is that the researcher can not clarify
any doubt of the subjects, even if the researcher is present. The advantage is that there is
less bias to answer, i.e., less interference from the researcher in the subject's response.
c. Over the telephone: This method can be an interesting alternative when there is difficulty
in performing a presence interview. There are some advantages such as reduction of
blank answers, clarification of doubts, and recruitment of a larger number of subjects
for participation in the research. However, there may be difficulty in obtaining the
informed consent of subjects for study participation and some people may suspect the
intention of the researcher as they do not see him/her personally. In addition, the
questionnaire applied over the telephone can be useful when the questionnaire has only
open-ended questions and when it is not too long, as most people do not appreciate to
stay long time on the telephone.
d. By mail: This technique can be the cheapest one and it allows the recruitment of a large
number of subjects for participation in research. You can also send along with the
questionnaire a formal request for written consent of the subjects. In addition to these
documents, a letter explaining the importance of research and how the subject should
respond to the questionnaire should also be included. However, the most important
disadvantage of this method is the highest number of denied participation in the

www.intechopen.com
128 Ergonomics – A Systems Approach

research. It is almost impossible to recover the questionnaire whether the subject, even
with reminders sent by the researcher, does not return the instrument. Another
disadvantage is the number of blank or invalid answers, because the subject can try to
answer the questionnaire in a sequence different from what the researcher would like
and this may influence the responses.

8. Summary
This chapter provides useful information for researchers interested in evaluating surveys on
ergonomics. The instrument used to obtain data – questionnaires – should be carefully
chosen based on the target population, constructs intended to be measured, existence of
similar questionnaires, methods of administration, and psychometric properties. For
questionnaires previously developed for a different language and/or culture, the chapter
also presents the steps to a cross-cultural adaptation. If a new questionnaire is really
necessary, which is decided after a careful analysis, the procedures to develop it are also
explained. Finally, in order to show that the questionnaire is suitable for the target
population and whether it measures what is intended to, the types of evaluation of the
psychometric properties - reliability and validity - are described.

9. References
Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Guillemin F & Ferraz MB. (2000). Guidelines for the process of
cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine, Vol. 25, No. 24, pp. (3185-91).
Beaton D, Bombardier C, Guillemin F & Ferraz MB. (2002). Recommendations for the cross-
cultural adaptation of health status measures. Am Acad Orthop Surg, pp. (1-9).
Benson J & Clark F. (1982). A guide for instrument development and validation. Am J Occup
Ther, Vol. 36, No. 12, pp. (789-800).
Bergman HE, Reeve BB, Moser RP, Scholl S & Klein WMP. (2011). Development of a
comprehensive heart disease knowledge questionnaire. Am J Health Educ, Vol. 42,
No. 2, pp. (74–87).
Berk RA. (1990). Importance of expert judgment in content-related validity evidence. West J
Nurs Res, Vol. 12, No. 5, pp. (659-71).
Burns N & Grove SK. (1997). The practice of nursing research. (3rd ed.), Saunders,
Philadelphia.
Buysse DJ, Yu L, Moul DE, Germain A, Stover A, Dodds NE & et al. (2010). Development
and validation of patient-reported outcome measures for sleep disturbance and
sleep-related impairments. SLEEP, Vol. 33, No. 6, pp. (781-92).
Coluci MZO & Alexandre NMC. (2009). Cross-cultural adaptation of an instrument to
measure work-related activities that may contribute to osteomuscular symptoms.
Acta Paul Enferm, Vol. 22, No. 2, pp. (149-54).
Coluci MZO, Alexandre NMC & Rosecrance J. (2009). Reliability and validity of an
ergonomics-related Job Factors Questionnaire. Int J Ind Ergon, Vol. 39, No. 6, pp.
(995-1001).
Contandriopoulos AP. (1999). How to prepare a research. (3rd ed.), Hucitec/Abrasco, São Paulo.
Davis LL. (1992). Instrument review: getting the most from a panel of experts. Appl Burs Res,
Vol. 5, pp. (194-7).
Dempsey PA & Dempsey AD. (1996). Using nursing research. (5th ed.), Lippincott, Philadelphia.

www.intechopen.com
Measurement Instruments for Ergonomics Surveys – Methodological Guidelines 129

Dempsey PA & Dempsey AD. (2000). Using nursing research: process, critical evaluation, and
utilization. (3 ed.), Lippincott, Philadelphia.
DeVon HA, Block ME, Moyle-Wright P, Ernst DM, Hayden SJ, Lazzara DJ & et al. (2007). A
psychometric toolbox for testing validity and reliability. J Nurs Scholarsh, Vol. 39,
No. 2, pp. (155-64).
Fagarasanu M & Kumar S. (2002). Measurement instruments and data collection: a
consideration of constructs and biases in ergonomics research. Int J Ind Ergon, Vol.
30, pp. (355-69).
Farias ST, Mungas D, Reed BR, Cahn-Weiner D, Jagust W, Baynes K & et al. (2008). The
measurement of everyday cognition (ecog): scale development and psychometric
properties. Neuropsychology, Vol. 22, No. 4, pp. (531–44).
Fayers PM & Machin D. (2000). Quality of life: assessment, analysis and interpretation. John
Wiley & Sons Ltd, Chichester.
Fitzner K. (2007). Reliability and validity. Diabetes Educ, Vol. 33, No. 5, pp. (775-80).
Gallasch CH, Alexandre NMC & Amick B. (2007). Cross-cultural adaptation, reliability, and
validity of the Work Role Functioning Questionnaire to Brazilian Portuguese. J
Occup Rehabil, Vol. 17, No. 4, pp. (701-11).
Giesler M, Forster J, Biller S & Fabry G. (2011). Development of a questionnaire to assess
medical competencies: reliability and validity of the questionnaire. GMS Zeitschrift
für Medizinische Ausbildung, Vol. 28, No. 2, pp. (1-15).
Grant JS & Davis LL. (1997). Selection and use of content experts for instrument
development. Res Nurs Health, Vol. 20, pp. (269-74).
Guillemin F, Bombardier C & Beaton D. (1993). Cross-cultural adaptation of health-related
quality of life measures: literature review and proposed guidelines. J Clin Edipemiol,
Vol. 46, No. 12, pp. (1417-32).
Guillemin F. (1995). Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of health status measures. J
Rheumatol, Vol. 24, pp. (61-3).
Haynes SN, Richard DCS & Kubany ES. (1995). Content validity in psychological
assessment: a functional approach to concepts and methods. Psychol Assess, Vol. 7,
No. 3, pp. (238-47).
Hulley SB, Cummings SR, Browner WS, Grady D, Hearst N & Newman TB. (2003).
Outlining the clinical research. (2nd ed.), Artmed, Porto Alegre.
Hutchinson A, Bentzen N & König-Zahn C. (1996). Cross cultural health outcome assessment; a
user´s guide. ERGHO, The Netherlands.
Hyrkas K, Appelqvist-Schmidlechner K & Oksa L. (2003). Validating an instrument for
clinical supervision using an expert panel. Int J Nurs Stud, Vol. 40, pp. (619-25).
Keszei A, Novak M & Streiner DL. (2010). Introduction to health measurement scales. J
Psychosom Res, Vol. 68, No. 4, pp. (319-23).
Kirshner B & Guyatt G. (1985). A methodological framework for assessing health indices. J
Chron Dis, Vol. 38, No. 1, pp. (27-36).
Lobiondo G & Haber J. (2001). Research in nursing: methods, critical evaluation, and utilization.
(4th ed.), Guanabara Koogan, Rio de Janeiro.
Lynn MR. (1986). Determination and quantification of content validity. Nurs Res, Vol. 35,
No. 6, pp. (382-5).
Marant C, Arnould B, Marrel A, Spizak C, Colombel JF, Faure P & et al. (2011). Assessing
patients’ satisfaction with anti-TNFα treatment in Crohn’s disease: qualitative steps of
the development of a new questionnaire. Clin Exp Gastroenterol, Vol. 4, pp. (173–80).

www.intechopen.com
130 Ergonomics – A Systems Approach

McGilton K. (2003). Development and psychometric evaluation of supportive leadership

scales. Can J Nurs Res, Vol. 35, No. 4, pp. (72-86).
Pittman J & Bakas T. (2010). Measurement and instrument design. J Wound Ostomy
Continence Nurs, Vol. 37, No. 6, pp. (603-7).
Polit DF & Hungler BP. (1995). Fundamentals of nursing research. (3rd ed.), Artes Médicas,
Porto Alegre.
Polit DF & Beck CT. (2006). The content validity index: are you sure you know what’s being
reported? Critique and recomendationas. Res Nurs Health, Vol. 29, pp. (489-97).
Rubio DM, Berg-Weger M, Tebb SS, Lee S & Rauch S. (2003). Objectifying content validity:
conducting a content validity study in social work research. Soc Work Res, Vol. 27,
No. 2, pp. (94-105).
Shimabukuro VGP, Alexandre NMC, Coluci MZO, Rosecrance JC & Gallani MCJB. (2011).
Validity and Reliability of a “Job Factors Questionnaire” related to the working
tasks of physical therapists. Int J Occup Saf Ergon (in press).
Siegel S & Castellan HJ. (2006). Nonparametric statistics for the behavioral sciences. (2nd ed),
Artmed, Porto Alegre.
Sireci SG. (1998). The construct of content validity. Soc Indic Res, Vol. 45, pp. (83-117).
Snyder CF, Watson ME, Jackson JD, Cella D, Halyard MY & Mayo/FDA Patient-Reported
Outcomes Consensus Meeting Group. (2007). Patient-reported outcome instrument
selection: designing a measurement strategy. Value Health, Vol. 10(Suppl. 2), pp.
(S76–85).
Streiner DL & Norman GR. (1995). Health measurement scales: a practical guide to their
development and use. (2ed.), Oxford University Press, New York.
Tilden VP, Nelson CA & May BA. (1990). Use of qualitative methods to enhance content
validity. Nurs Res, Vol. 39, No. 3, pp. (172-5).
Toledo RCMR, Alexandre NMC & Rodrigues RCM. (2008). Avaliação das qualidades
psicométricas de uma versão brasileira do Spitzer Quality of Life Index em
pacientes com dor lombar. Rev Lat Am Enfermagem, Vol. 16, No. 6, pp. (943-50).
Topf M. (1986). Three estimates of interrater reliability for nominal data. Nurs Res, Vol.35,
No. 4, pp. (253-5).
Turner R, Quittner AL, Parasuraman BM, Kallich JD, Cleeland CS & Mayo/FDA Patient-
Reported Outcomes Consensus Meeting Group. (2007). Patient-reported outcomes:
instrument development and selection issues. Value Health, Vol. 10(Suppl. 2), pp.
(S86–93).
Vigatto R, Alexandre NMC & Correa Filho HR. (2007). Development of a Brazilian
Portuguese version of the Oswestry Disability Index: cross-cultural adaptation,
reliability, and validity. Spine, Vol. 32, No. 4, pp. (481-6).
Wynd CA & Schaefer MA. (2002). The Osteoporosis Risk Assessment Tool: establishing
content validity through a panel of experts. Appl Nurs Res, Vol. 16, No. 2, pp. (184-8).
Wynd CA, Schmidt B & Schaefer MA. (2003). Two quantitative approaches for estimating
content validity. West J Nurs Res, Vol. 25, No. 5, pp. (508-18).
Young JM, Walsh J, Butow PN, Solomon MJ & Shaw J. (2011). Measuring cancer care
coordination: development and validation of a questionnaire for patients. BMC
Cancer, Vol. 11, pp. (298).

www.intechopen.com
 Ergonomics - A Systems Approach
Edited by Dr. Isabel L. Nunes

ISBN 978-953-51-0601-2
Hard cover, 232 pages
Publisher InTech
Published online 25, April, 2012
Published in print edition April, 2012

This book covers multiple topics of Ergonomics following a systems approach, analysing the relationships
between workers and their work environment from different but complementary standpoints. The chapters
focused on Physical Ergonomics address the topics upper and lower limbs as well as low back musculoskeletal
disorders and some methodologies and tools that can be used to tackle them. The organizational aspects of
work are the subject of a chapter that discusses how dynamic, flexible and reconfigurable assembly systems
can adequately respond to changes in the market. The chapters focused on Human-Computer Interaction
discuss the topics of Usability, User-Centred Design and User Experience Design presenting framework
concepts for the usability engineering life cycle aiming to improve the user-system interaction, for instance of
automated control systems. Cognitive Ergonomics is addressed in the book discussing the critical thinking
skills and how people engage in cognitive work.

How to reference
In order to correctly reference this scholarly work, feel free to copy and paste the following:

Marina Zambon Orpinelli Coluci (2012). Measurement Instruments for Ergonomics Surveys - Methodological
Guidelines, Ergonomics - A Systems Approach, Dr. Isabel L. Nunes (Ed.), ISBN: 978-953-51-0601-2, InTech,
Available from: http://www.intechopen.com/books/ergonomics-a-systems-approach/measurement-instruments-
for-ergonomics-surveys-methodological-guidelines

InTech Europe InTech China

University Campus STeP Ri Unit 405, Office Block, Hotel Equatorial Shanghai
Slavka Krautzeka 83/A No.65, Yan An Road (West), Shanghai, 200040, China
51000 Rijeka, Croatia
Phone: +385 (51) 770 447 Phone: +86-21-62489820
Fax: +385 (51) 686 166 Fax: +86-21-62489821
www.intechopen.com