IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0331764.html

Psychometric properties of the earthquake knowledge questionnaire: Development for the Persian population

Author

Listed:
  • Leila Jahangiry
  • Javad Babaei
  • Mitra Baghaeian
  • Hosna RashidiBirgani
  • Neda Gilani

Abstract

Background: Disaster management, as defined by the United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNDRR) involves foresighted planning to prevent, prepare for, respond to, and recover from disasters. Research proves that earthquake knowledge significantly contributes to preparedness behavior. The aim of this research is to develop a psychometrically valid questionnaire following UNDRR guidelines to assess earthquake awareness. Method: An exploratory sequential mixed-methods study was conducted between April and July 2024 in Tabriz, Iran. In the initial phase of the study, a comprehensive literature review and qualitative research were conducted to develop a preliminary item pool related to earthquake knowledge. Subsequently, the face validity, content validity, and construct validity of the items were assessed, followed by an evaluation of reliability through internal consistency, McDonald’s omega and test-retest methods. Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) using polychoric correlations and parallel analysis was conducted to determine factor structure. A polychoric correlation matrix was estimated from the sample of 350 respondents with 1000 iterations and using the principal factors method. Results: A polychoric correlation matrix was computed in R software (version 4.4.1) to estimate the non-linear relations between 14 ordinal items of the earthquake knowledge scale, of a sample of 350 participants. Parallel analysis using principal axis factoring determined three factors with adjusted eigenvalues greater than zero (observed eigenvalues: 7.5, 1.8, and 1.2 for the first, second, and third factor, respectively), which were retained as significant. The 14-item earthquake knowledge questionnaire (14-EKQ) was organized into three factors: Geological Knowledge, Mitigation Measures, and Preparedness Knowledge, reflecting various dimensions of earthquake awareness. EFA revealed that these three factors collectively accounted for 83.6% of the total variance. The RMSEA value of (RMSE = 0.070) falls within the acceptable range (≤ 0.08), indicating a reasonable fit. The CFI (CFI = 0.916) value is close to the threshold of 0.95, indicating a relatively good fit. The TLI value (TLI = 0.908) is slightly below the threshold of 0.95 but still suggests an acceptable fit. The internal consistency and internal correlation coefficient of EKQ indicated acceptable reliability. Conclusion: This study successfully developed and validated a 14-item EKQ. The scale was organized into three distinct factors: Geological knowledge, Mitigation measures, and preparedness knowledge, which collectively accounted for 83.6% of the total variance, demonstrating strong explanatory power. The use of polychoric correlation matrices, parallel analysis, and principal axis factoring (PAF) improved the factor extraction process by appropriately accounting for the ordinal nature of the questionnaire data. Model fit indices, including RMSEA and TLI, indicated an acceptable to good fit of the scale to the data. Additionally, the scale demonstrated acceptable reliability, as evidenced by internal consistency measures, McDonald’s omega, and test-retest reliability. The study’s EKQ makes a significant contribution to earthquake education by providing a validated tool to assess public awareness across geological knowledge, mitigation strategies, and preparedness knowledge, aligning with UNDRR guidelines. Further research is recommended to confirm its generalizability across diverse populations and contexts.

Suggested Citation

  • Leila Jahangiry & Javad Babaei & Mitra Baghaeian & Hosna RashidiBirgani & Neda Gilani, 2025. "Psychometric properties of the earthquake knowledge questionnaire: Development for the Persian population," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 20(10), pages 1-14, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0331764
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0331764
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0331764
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0331764&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0331764?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Matthew Spittal & Frank Walkey & John McClure & Richard Siegert & Kimberley Ballantyne, 2006. "The Earthquake Readiness Scale: The Development of a Valid and Reliable Unifactorial Measure," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 39(1), pages 15-29, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Enrica Verrucci & Gabriela Perez-Fuentes & Tiziana Rossetto & Luke Bisby & Muki Haklay & David Rush & Patrick Rickles & Gretchen Fagg & Helene Joffe, 2016. "Digital engagement methods for earthquake and fire preparedness: a review," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 83(3), pages 1583-1604, September.
    2. Barbara Ryan & Rachel King, 2020. "How ready is ready? Measuring physical preparedness for severe storms," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 104(1), pages 171-199, October.
    3. Nicolás C. Bronfman & Pamela C. Cisternas & Paula B. Repetto & Javiera V. Castañeda & Eliana Guic, 2020. "Understanding the Relationship Between Direct Experience and Risk Perception of Natural Hazards," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(10), pages 2057-2070, October.
    4. Panpan Lian & Zhenyu Zhuo & Yanbin Qi & Dingde Xu & Xin Deng, 2021. "The Impacts of Training on Farmers’ Preparedness Behaviors of Earthquake Disaster—Evidence from Earthquake-Prone Settlements in Rural China," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 11(8), pages 1-17, July.
    5. Anne M. Sanquini & Sundar M. Thapaliya & Michele M. Wood, 2016. "A survey instrument to isolate effectiveness of a novel risk communication intervention," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 82(1), pages 59-72, May.
    6. Nicholas W. Talisman & Cynthia A. Rohrbeck & Philip J. Moore & Jennifer E. Marceron & Katherine M. Burns, 2024. "Measuring personal emergency preparedness: validation and application of the emergency preparedness checklist," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 120(9), pages 8505-8520, July.
    7. Nuriye Sancar & Nadire Cavus, 2023. "A Novel Scale for Evaluating Digital Readiness toward Earthquakes: A Comprehensive Validity and Reliability Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(1), pages 1-26, December.
    8. Ceren Türkdoğan Görgün & İlknur Koçak Şen & Jim McLennan, 2023. "The validity and reliability of the Turkish version of the psychological preparedness for disaster threat scale," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 118(1), pages 331-346, August.
    9. Nicolás C Bronfman & Pamela C Cisternas & Paula B Repetto & Javiera V Castañeda, 2019. "Natural disaster preparedness in a multi-hazard environment: Characterizing the sociodemographic profile of those better (worse) prepared," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(4), pages 1-18, April.
    10. Harvey Henson & Justin McDaniel & Rajvee Subramanian & Tishauna Edwards, 2020. "Intervention and assessment of earthquake knowledge at rural schools near the New Madrid seismic zone, USA," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 104(2), pages 1315-1329, November.
    11. Helene Joffe & Gabriela Perez-Fuentes & Henry W. W. Potts & Tiziana Rossetto, 2016. "How to increase earthquake and home fire preparedness: the fix-it intervention," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 84(3), pages 1943-1965, December.
    12. Onuma, Hiroki & Shin, Kong Joo & Managi, Shunsuke, 2016. "Household preparedness for natural disasters:Impact of disaster experience and implications for future disaster risks in Japan," MPRA Paper 77634, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    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:pone00:0331764. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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.