ArticleScientific reports2026
Validation of the Persian version of the computer ergonomics knowledge assessment questionnaire among frequent computer users.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. 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.
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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to assess the validity and reliability of the Persian version of the Computer Ergonomics Knowledge Assessment Questionnaire (CEKAQ), designed to evaluate ergonomic knowledge among frequent computer users. The original English questionnaire was translated and culturally adapted following standardized guidelines. Content validity was evaluated through expert review using the Content Validity Ratio (CVR) and Content Validity Index (CVI); 12 items with low CVR were removed, and the remaining 23 items achieved a CVI of 0.99. Reliability was assessed via test-retest with 20 users, using the Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC). Construct validity was examined through exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) on responses from 328 university students. The ICC was 0.813 (p < 0.001), indicating acceptable test-retest reliability. Factor analysis led to the removal of four items with low factor loadings (< 0.3), resulting in a final 19-item version that explained 28.4% of the total variance. CFA confirmed this unidimensional structure with robust fit indices (e.g., CFI = 0.931, RMSEA = 0.039). Internal consistency was acceptable (KR-20 = 0.759). The 19-item Persian CEKAQ demonstrated good content validity, acceptable reliability, and confirmed construct validity. It is a suitable tool for assessing ergonomic knowledge among computer users. Further refinement is recommended by expanding item content and diversifying the study population to enhance construct coverage.
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.