IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0256636.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A unique double tango: Construct validation and reliability analysis of risk perception, attitude and practice (RPAP) questionnaire on dengue infection

Author

Listed:
  • Mohd ‘Ammar Ihsan Ahmad Zamzuri
  • Mohd Nazrin Jamhari
  • Hasanain Faisal Ghazi
  • Muhamad Hazizi Muhamad Hasani
  • Noor Khalili Mohd Ali
  • Mohammad Faid Abd. Rashid
  • Rozita Hod
  • Rahmat Dapari
  • Mohd Rohaizat Hassan

Abstract

Introduction/background: Dengue fever remains a public health threat despite being preventable. A solution to the constant problem of dengue infection will require active intervention and a paradigm shift. Assessing perceived risk and correlating it with the attitude and practice of the community will help in designing appropriate measures. However, possible instruments for these assessments come with limitations. Objective: The aim is to develop and validate a new scoring-based questionnaire, using dual statistical approaches to measure risk perception, attitude, and practices (RPAP) related to dengue in the community. Methods: The RPAP questionnaire was developed bilingually using the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcome Research (ISPOR) guidelines. Content analysis was reviewed scrupulously by four expert panels. The initial 35-item scale was tested among 253 Malaysian respondents recruited non-probabilistically via multiple online platforms. Two statistical methods were employed to measure the construct validity: Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) as part of the Classical Test Theory (CTT) measurement, while Rasch Measurement Analysis (Rasch) was performed for the Item Response Theory (IRT) measurement. All results were cross-validated with their counterpart to ensure stability. Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was used to obtain a model fit index. Results: 29 questions were retained after the final analysis. Both EFA and Rasch analysis detect multidimensionality. Nine latent factors were extracted from EFA, while only eight factors remained in the final model following CFA: 1) perceived susceptibility; 2) perceived severity; 3) perceived barrier; 4) perceived benefit; 5) cues to action; 6) self-efficacy; 7) attitude; and 8) practice. All items had adequate factor loadings and showed good internal consistency. The final model after CFA achieved a good fit with an RMSEA value of 0.061, SRMR of 0.068, PNFI of 0.649, and GFI of 0.996. Conclusion: The RPAP questionnaire contains 29 items and is a reliable and accurate psychometric instrument for measuring the risk perception of dengue fever, attitude, and practice of the community in dengue prevention. The Rasch measurement provides additional rigour to complement the CTT analysis. This RPAP questionnaire is suitable for use in studies related to dengue prevention in the community.

Suggested Citation

  • Mohd ‘Ammar Ihsan Ahmad Zamzuri & Mohd Nazrin Jamhari & Hasanain Faisal Ghazi & Muhamad Hazizi Muhamad Hasani & Noor Khalili Mohd Ali & Mohammad Faid Abd. Rashid & Rozita Hod & Rahmat Dapari & Mohd Ro, 2021. "A unique double tango: Construct validation and reliability analysis of risk perception, attitude and practice (RPAP) questionnaire on dengue infection," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(8), pages 1-19, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0256636
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0256636
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0256636
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0256636&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0256636?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0256636. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.