ArticleBMC public health2024
The Ergonomic Behaviors Evaluation Tool (EBET) based on social cognitive theory for the assembly line workers: development and psychometric assessment.
Article in BMC public health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Assessing the impact of a social cognitive theory-based educational intervention on ergonomic behaviors: a randomized controlled trial utilizing a learning-by-doing approach.BMC public health · 2025Trial
- Predictive factors of ergonomic behaviors based on social cognitive theory among women workers on assembly lines: application of Bayesian networks.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundErgonomic behaviors play a crucial role in preventing work-related musculoskeletal disorders (WMSDs). To measure these behaviors, this research aimed to develop and evaluate an ergonomic behaviors tool (EBET) based on the Social Cognitive Theory (SCT) among women workers on assembly lines (WwAL).
methodsThe study was conducted from December 2022 to January 2023 with a focus on the psychometric assessment of EBET. Initially, a literature review and interviews were carried out to identify crucial concepts and primary items. The questionnaire's validity was evaluated using the Content Validity Ratio (CVR) and the Content Validity Index (CVI). To determine the domains of the tool, construct validity was examined by administering the items to 270 eligible women. The reliability of the tool was assessed using McDonald's Omega coefficient.
resultsFrom a total of 67 primary items, 50 were confirmed. The study demonstrated good validity with CVR = 0.92 and CVI = 0.97, along with reliable results indicated by McDonald's Omega coefficient of 0.74. The exploratory factor analysis (EFA) revealed ten distinct dimensions: outcome expectations, outcome expectancies, normative beliefs, perceived barriers, social support, observational learning, reinforcement, behavioral skills, self-efficacy, and intention. Together, these dimensions accounted for 66.25% of the variance in the data. Additionally, the confirmatory factor analysis results supported the presence of these ten constructs and demonstrated a satisfactory fit.
conclusionsEBET is a dependable and valid instrument for evaluating the ergonomic behaviors of workers, utilizing the principles of SCT. Researchers can employ EBET to gather data and implement suitable training interventions to enhance ergonomic behavior among WwAL. However, it is crucial to recognize that EBET may not encompass all facets of ergonomic behaviors. Therefore, it is imperative for future research to prioritize the evaluation of EBET's suitability among diverse worker populations and to consider additional dimensions of ergonomics to ensure its wider applicability and effectiveness.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.