IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0337550.html

Validation of an instrument to assess knowledge, attitudes, and practices regarding occupational accident prevention among rice farmers

Author

Listed:
  • My Ha Nguyen
  • Toan Van Ngo
  • Linh Gia Vu
  • Dat Cong Truong
  • Hai Minh Vu

Abstract

Background: Despite the hazardous nature of rice farming, limited evidence exists regarding farmers’ knowledge, attitudes, and practices (KAP) toward accident prevention, and no standardized instrument is currently available to measure these dimensions in Vietnam or comparable contexts. This study aimed to develop and validate a psychometrically sound instrument for assessing rice farmers’ KAP related to occupational accident prevention. Methods: Instrument development and validation were carried out in three stages. First, an initial item pool was generated through an extensive review of existing literature. Second, content validity was established through expert consultation involving professionals in agriculture, occupational health, and public health. Third, a pilot study was conducted with 168 rice farmers in Thai Binh Province, Vietnam, to evaluate the instrument’s psychometric properties. Results: Exploratory factor analysis identified 20 items across five factors in the knowledge domain, nine items forming a single factor for attitudes, and 17 items grouped into four factors for practices, explaining 85.8%, 43.8%, and 72.3% of the total variance, respectively. Confirmatory factor analysis supported these structures, demonstrating satisfactory model fit across domains. The instrument exhibited high internal consistency, with Cronbach’s alpha values ranging from 0.894 to 0.969 for knowledge, 0.833 for attitudes, and 0.805 to 0.933 for practices. Conclusion: The validated instrument provides a reliable and valid measure of rice farmers’ knowledge, attitudes, and practices concerning occupational accident prevention. It offers a robust foundation for future research, monitoring, and targeted interventions aimed at improving safety behaviors and reducing injury risks among agricultural workers.

Suggested Citation

  • My Ha Nguyen & Toan Van Ngo & Linh Gia Vu & Dat Cong Truong & Hai Minh Vu, 2025. "Validation of an instrument to assess knowledge, attitudes, and practices regarding occupational accident prevention among rice farmers," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 20(11), pages 1-15, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0337550
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0337550
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0337550
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0337550&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0337550?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. Huicong Jia & Fang Chen & Enyu Du, 2021. "Adaptation to Disaster Risk—An Overview," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(21), pages 1-21, October.
    2. Alison C. Cullen & C. Leigh Anderson & Pierre Biscaye & Travis W. Reynolds, 2018. "Variability in Cross‐Domain Risk Perception among Smallholder Farmers in Mali by Gender and Other Demographic and Attitudinal Characteristics," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(7), pages 1361-1377, July.
    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. Sisira S. Withanachchi & Ilia Kunchulia & Giorgi Ghambashidze & Rami Al Sidawi & Teo Urushadze & Angelika Ploeger, 2018. "Farmers’ Perception of Water Quality and Risks in the Mashavera River Basin, Georgia: Analyzing the Vulnerability of the Social-Ecological System through Community Perceptions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-26, August.
    2. Yanyan Ma & Xueyan Zhao, 2022. "What Affects the Livelihood Risk Coping Preferences of Smallholder Farmers? A Case Study from the Eastern Margin of the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(8), pages 1-17, April.
    3. Connor, Melanie & de Guia, Annalyn H. & Quilloy, Reianne & Van Nguyen, Hung & Gummert, Martin & Sander, Bjoern Ole, 2020. "When climate change is not psychologically distant – Factors influencing the acceptance of sustainable farming practices in the Mekong river Delta of Vietnam," World Development Perspectives, Elsevier, vol. 18(C).
    4. Hasibuan, Abdul Muis & Gregg, Daniel & Stringer, Randy, 2020. "Accounting for diverse risk attitudes in measures of risk perceptions: A case study of climate change risk for small-scale citrus farmers in Indonesia," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 95(C).
    5. Khor, Ling Yee & Sariyev, Orkhan & Loos, Tim, 2020. "Gender differences in risk behavior and the link to household effects and individual wealth," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 80(C).
    6. Mastenbroek, Astrid & Gumucio, Tatiana & Nakanwagi, Josephine, 2024. "Gender, agricultural risk perceptions, and maize seed systems: A case study of drought-tolerant maize varieties in Uganda," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 217(C).
    7. Michael Siegrist & Joseph Árvai, 2020. "Risk Perception: Reflections on 40 Years of Research," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(S1), pages 2191-2206, November.
    8. Feyisa, Ashenafi Duguma & Maertens, Miet & de Mey, Yann, 2023. "Relating risk preferences and risk perceptions over different agricultural risk domains: Insights from Ethiopia," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 162(C).
    9. Jamleck Osiemo & Ruerd Ruben & Evan Girvetz, 2021. "Farmer Perceptions of Agricultural Risks; Which Risk Attributes Matter Most for Men and Women," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(23), pages 1-26, November.

    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:pone00:0337550. 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.