ArticleCureus2024
Knowledge, Awareness, and Practice of Safety and Emergency Response Among Scuba Divers in Malaysia: Questionnaire Development and Validation.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionSafety has become paramount to ensure that scuba diving continues to expand into new markets, with minimal risks, and that scuba diving translates into a safe and relaxed adventure in response to growing market demands. Research focusing on assessing the knowledge, awareness, and practices (KAP) regarding safety and emergency response among scuba divers has been limited, and there is a need for validated assessment tools in this area.
methodsThis study involved 555 scuba divers in Malaysia, and the questionnaire underwent a thorough development and validation process, including content and face validity assessments, as well as exploratory factor analysis. The validation of the knowledge domain was conducted using Item Response Theory (IRT) analysis, while awareness and practice were validated through exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses (EFA and CFA).
resultsThe content validity of the instrument was confirmed, with all items scoring over 80% for Item Content Validity Index (I-CVI), Scale Content Validity Index (S-CVI), and Scale Content Validity Index/Average (S-CVI/AVE). The initial draft comprises three domains: knowledge, awareness, and practice. Knowledge items were analyzed using IRT and demonstrated acceptable difficulty and discrimination levels. For the awareness and practice domains, EFA showed a Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure (KMO) of 0.83 and 0.79, respectively, with a significant Bartlett's test of Sphericity (P < 0.001). EFA yielded three factors for both awareness and practice domains with a total of 12 items for awareness and 13 items for practice, with satisfactory factor loadings (≥0.3). The final model of CFA showed good fits for both awareness and practice domains in terms of absolute, parsimonious, and comparative measures. The composite reliability of awareness was acceptable with Raykov's rho of 0.71, whereas the practice domain fell slightly below the acceptable threshold at 0.55. This was attributed to low factor loading and a limited number of items within each factor. The final questionnaire now consists of 20 items for knowledge, 10 items for awareness, and 12 items for the practice domain.
conclusionThe results of this validation and reliability study indicate that the newly developed questionnaire possesses favorable psychometric properties for assessing KAP related to safety and emergency response in the scuba diving context. This research is essential for harmonizing the perspectives of crucial stakeholders within the recreational scuba diving industry.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.