Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Development of a Questionnaire Measuring Preventive Behaviors at Work

  • Published:
Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose This study aimed to develop a questionnaire measuring preventive behaviors at work. Methods A three-step design, including qualitative and quantitative methods, was followed: (1) item generation, (2) experts’ validation of content, and (3) pretesting. Results For step 1, 49 relevant existing scales were reviewed, and a pool of 172 items was generated. Redundant items were deleted (n = 48), and unclear items were reworded (n = 27). For step 2, 14 experts (five occupational therapists, four researchers, and five workers) assessed the representativeness, relevance, and clarity of each item through content validity indices (CVIs). An average overall CVI of 0.97 was obtained, and 87.5% of the experts stated that the questionnaire was comprehensive. During this step, 63 items were deleted, and 35 were modified. For step 3, the tool was pretested in the clinical settings of four dyads (occupational therapist–worker). The thematic analysis of interview content allowed several changes to be made to the questionnaire, including the addition of information and format changes. Conclusions Overall, this three-step study led to the construction of a 61-item French questionnaire entitled the Échelle de fréquence des comportements préventifs au travail [Frequency Scale of Preventive Behaviors at Work]. In rehabilitation settings, this tool could be useful to support professionals in enabling workers to adopt preventive behaviors, thereby fostering a healthy, sustainable return to work after a disability period. However, further metrological property assessment is required. A validating study using a large pool of workers is ongoing.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The list of the 49 articles consulted is available in Appendix 1.

References

  1. Hämäläinen P, Takala J, Kiat TB. Global estimates of occupational accidents and work-related illnesses 2017. World. 2017;2017:3–4.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Canadian Mental Health Association. Mental illnesses in the workplace. 2014.

  3. Demerouti E, Bakker AB, Halbesleben JRB. Productive and counterproductive job crafting: a daily diary study. J Occup Health Psychol. 2015;20(4):457–469.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Tompa E, van der beek A, van Tulder M. Economic perspectives on return to work interventions. Handbook of Return to Work. 1. Boston, MA: Springer; 2016.

  5. CNESST. Statistiques annuelles 2018 (Annual Statistics 2018). Québec; 2019.

  6. IRSST. Plan quinquennal 2018–2022 (Five-year plan 2018–2022). Montréal; 2017.

  7. Jensen C, Jensen O, Nielsen C. Sustainability of return to work in sick-listed employees with low-back pain. Two-year follow-up in a randomized clinical trial comparing multidisciplinary and brief intervention. BMC Musculoskel Disord. 2012;13:156.

  8. Berecki-Gisolf J, Clay FJ, Collie A, McClure RJ. Predictors of sustained return to work after work-related injury or disease: insights from workers’ compensation claims records. J Occup Rehabil. 2012;22(3):283–291.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Kelly K. The aging workforce: four steps to maximize older workers in your organization. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina, Kenan-Flagler Business School; 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Durand MJ, Coutu MF, Tremblay D, Sylvain C, Gouin MM, Bilodeau K, et al. Insights into the sustainable return to work of aging workers with a work disability: an interpretative description study. J Occup Rehabil. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-020-09894-y.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Costa-Black KM, Feuerstein M, Loisel P. Work disability models: past and present. Handbook of Work Disability: Springer; 2013. p. 71–93.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  12. Roy M, Cadieux J, Forter L, Leclerc L. Validation d’un outil d’autodiagnostic et d’un modèle de progression de la mesure en santé et sécurité du travail (Validation of a self-diagnostic tool and a progression model for occupational health and safety measures). Montréal: IRSST; 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Roy M, Desmarais L, Cadieux J. Améliorer la performance en SST: les résultats vs les prédicteurs (Improving OHS performance: results vs predictors). Pistes. 2005;7(2) (on line).

  14. Johnson SE. The predictive validity of safety climate. J Safety Res. 2007;38(5):511–521.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Lecours A. Using an occupational perspective to understand behaviours fostering the prevention of work-related health problems: a proposed conceptual model. J Occup Sci. 2020;27(2):222–235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. WHO. Préambule à la Constitution, Conférence internationale sur la Santé (Preamble to the Constitution, International Conference on Health); 1946; New York.

  17. WHO. Workers’ health: global plan of action. 2007. Report No.: OMS: WHA60.26.

  18. Lecours A. Scientific, professional and experiential validation of the model of preventive behaviours at work: protocol of a modified Delphi Study. BMJ Open. 2020;10(e035606):1–7.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Lecours A. Validation du modèle des comportements préventifs au travail: une étude Delphi (Validation of the model of preventive behaviors at work: a Delphi study). Recueil annuel belge d’ergothérapie (Belgian annual collection of occupational therapy) (in press).

  20. Kwasnicka D, Dombrowski SU, White M, Sniehotta F. Theoretical explanations for maintenance of behaviour change: a systematic review of behaviour theories. Health Psychol Rev. 2016;10(3):277–296.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Bracken BA. Handbook of self-concept: developmental, social, and clinical considerations. New York: Wiley; 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Filiatrault J, Richard L. L’apport des théories des changements comportementaux aux interventions de prévention et de promotion de la santé de l’ergothérapeute (Contribution of behavioral change theories to occupational therapist prevention and health promotion interventions). Can J Occup Ther. 2005;72(1):45–56.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. CAOT. CAOT position statement: occupational therapy and workplace health. Ottawa: Canadian Association of Occupational Therapists; 2015. p. 3.

  24. Lecours A, Therriault P-Y. Development of preventive behavior at work : description of occupational therapists’ practice. Work. 2018;61(3):477–488.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Lecours A, Therriault P-Y. Preventive behavior at work—a concept analysis. Scand J Occup Ther. 2017;24(4):1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Lecours A, Therriault P-Y. French transcultural validation of the Compliance with Safety Behavior Scale. Work. 2016;55(4):805–815.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Griffin MA, Neal A. Perceptions of safety at work: a framework for linking safety climate to safety performance, knowledge, and motivation. J Occup Health Psychol. 2000;5(3):347–358.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Tucker S, Turner N. Young worker safety behaviors: development and validation of measures. Accid Anal Prev. 2011;43(1):165–175.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Hofmann D, Morgeson F, Gerras S. Climate as a moderator of the relationship between leader-member exchange and content specific citizenship: safety climate as an exemplar. J Appl Psychol. 2003;88(1):170–178.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Lupia A, Alter G. Data access and research transparency in the quantitative tradition. Polit Sci Polit. 2014;47(1):54–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Bennett C, Khangura S, Brehaut JC, Graham ID, Moher D, Potter BK, et al. Reporting guidelines for survey research: an analysis of published guidance and reporting practices. PLoS Med. 2010;8(8):e1001069-e.

  32. Tuval-Mashiach R. Raising the curtain: the importance of transparency in qualitative research. Qual Res Psychol. 2017;4(2):126–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Aczel B, Szaszi B, Sarafoglou A, Kekecs Z, Kucharský Š, Benjamin D, et al. A consensus-based transparency checklist. Nat Hum Behav. 2020;4(1):4–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Brady MC, Ali M, Fyndanis C, Kambanaros M, Grohmann KK, Laska A-C, et al. Time for a step change? Improving the efficiency, relevance, reliability, validity and transparency of aphasia rehabilitation research through core outcome measures, a common data set and improved reporting criteria. Aphasiology. 2014;28(11):1385–1392.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Burns KEA, Kho ME. How to assess a survey report: a guide for readers and peer reviewers. Can Med Assoc J. 2015;187(6):198–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Corbière M, Fraccaroli F. La conception, la validation, la traduction et l’adaptation transculturelle d’outils de mesure (The design, validation, translation and cross-cultural adaptation of measurement tools). In: Corbière M, Larivière N, editors. Méthodes qualitatives, quantitatives et mixtes (Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods). Québec: Presses de l’Université du Québec ; 2014. p. 612–613.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Corbière M. L’utilisation d’outils de mesure en milieu clinique: mythe ou nécessité? (The use of measuring tools in clinical settings: myth or necessity?). Le Partenaire. 2011;20(3):4–7.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Di lorio CK. . Measurement in health behavior: methods for research and education. 1st ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Streiner DL, Norman GR, Cairney J. Health measurement scales: a practical guide to their development and use. 5th ed. New-York: Oxford University Press; 2015.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  40. Passmore C, Dobbie AE, Parchman M, Tysinger J. Guidelines for constructing a survey. Ann Fam Med. 2002;34(4):281–6.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Burns KE, Duffett M, Kho ME, Meade MO, Adhikari NK, Sinuff T, et al. A guide for the design and conduct of self-administered surveys of clinicians. Can Med Assoc J. 2008;179(3):245–252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Rattray J, Jones MC. Essential elements of questionnaire design and development. J Clin Nurs. 2007;16(2):234–243.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Weijters B, Cabooter E, Schillewaert N. The effect of rating scale format on response styles: the number of response categories and response category labels. Int J Res Mark. 2010;27(3):236–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Stergiou-Kita M, Mansfield E, Sokoloff S, Colantonio A. Gender influences on return to work after mild traumatic brain injury. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2016;97(2):S40–S45.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Lecours A, Therriault P-Y. Preventive behaviour at work of vocational students. J Vocat Educ Train. 2018;70(3):399–416.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Nunnally J. Psychometric theory. New-York: McGraw-Hill Book; 1978.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Grant JS, Davis LL. Selection and use of content experts for instrument development. Res Nurs Health. 1997;20:269–2674.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Davis LL. Instrument review: getting the most from a panel of experts. Appl Nurs Res. 1992;5(4):194–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. 2006;3(2):77–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Wang S, Moss JR, Hiller JE. Applicability and transferability of interventions in evidence-based public health. Health Promot Int. 2006;21(1):76–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Netemeyer RG, Bearden WO, Sharma S. Scaling procedures: issues and applications. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2003.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  52. Ten CS. steps in scale development and reporting: a guide for researchers. Commun Methods Meas. 2018;12(1):25–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Kuskova VV, Podsakoff NP, Podsakoff PM. Effects of theoretical contribution, methodological rigor, and journal quality, on the impact of scale development articles in the field of entrepreneurship. Strateg Entrepreneurship J. 2011;5(1):10–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Wilding S, Conner M, Prestwich A, Lawton R, Sheeran P. Using the question-behavior effect to change multiple health behaviors: an exploratory randomized controlled trial. J Exp Soc Psychol. 2019;81:53–60.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  55. Geller ES. Behavior-based safety in industry: realizing the large-scale potential of psychology to promote human welfare. Appl Prev Psychol. 2001;10(2):87–105.

    Google Scholar 

  56. de Wit S, Dickinson A. Associative theories of goal-directed behaviour: a case for animal–human translational models. Psychol Res. 2009;73(4):463–476.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  57. Lally P, Van Jaarsveld CH, Potts HW, Wardle J. How are habits formed: modelling habit formation in the real world. Eur J Soc Psychol. 2010;40(6):998–1009.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Vézina N, Calvet B, Roquelaure Y. Vers des programmes de gestion intégrée de la prévention aux niveaux primaire, secondaire et tertiaire (Towards integrated prevention management programs at primary, secondary and tertiary levels). In: Durand M-J, editor. Incapacité au travail au Québec: éléments de réflexion et d'intervention quant aux nouveaux défis [Incapacity at work in Quebec: elements of reflection and intervention regarding new challenges]. Sherbrooke, Québec: Centre d’action en prévention et réadaptation de l’incapacité au travail (Action center for prevention and rehabilitation of incapacity at work); 2018.

  59. Daigneault P-M, Jacob S. Unexpected but most welcome: mixed methods for the validation and revision of the participatory evaluation measurement instrument. J Mix Methods Res. 2013;8(1):6–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Yilmaz K. Comparison of quantitative and qualitative research traditions: epistemological, theoretical, and methodological differences. Eur J Educ. 2013;48(2):311–325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Koskey KLK, Sondergeld TA, Stewart VC, Pugh KJ. Applying the mixed methods instrument development and construct validation process: the transformative experience questionnaire. J Mix Methods Res. 2016;12(1):95–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Choy L. The strengths and weaknesses of research methodology: comparison and complimentary between qualitative and quantitative approaches. J Humanit Soc Sci. 2014;19:99–104.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Lynn MR. Determination and quantification of content validity. Nurs Res. 1986;35(6):382–385.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgment

The authors would like to acknowledge all individuals who participated in the study.

Funding

This work was supported by a research grant from the FRQS-Quebec Rehabilitation Research Network.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Département de réadaptation, Université Laval, Pavillon Ferdinand-Vandry 1050, Avenue de la Médecine, Québec, QC, G1V 0A6, Canada

    Alexandra Lecours

  2. Center for Interdisciplinary Research in Rehabilitation and Social Integration, Québec, Canada

    Alexandra Lecours, Alex-Anne Beaulieu & Valérie Poulin

  3. Département d’ergothérapie, Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières, Trois-Rivières, Canada

    Valérie Poulin

  4. Institut de Recherche Robert-Sauvé en Santé et Sécurité du Travail, Montréal, Canada

    Iuliana Nastasia

  5. Équipe sur les organisations en santé, École de gestion, Université de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Canada

    Alexandra Lecours & France St-Hilaire

  6. Département de management et gestion des ressources humaines, École de gestion, Université de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Canada

    France St-Hilaire

Authors
  1. Alexandra Lecours
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Alex-Anne Beaulieu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Valérie Poulin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Iuliana Nastasia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. France St-Hilaire
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alexandra Lecours.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

None of the authors have any conflicts of interest to declare.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. This study received ethical approval from the ethics board of the Centre intégré universitaire en santé et services sociaux de la Capitale-Nationale, project #2019-1814.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lecours, A., Beaulieu, AA., Poulin, V. et al. Development of a Questionnaire Measuring Preventive Behaviors at Work. J Occup Rehabil 31, 570–580 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-020-09955-2

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-020-09955-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation