Abstract
Background
Complaints of the arm, neck, and shoulder (CANS) in the workplace are becoming more prevalent among employees. The Maastricht Upper Extremity Questionnaire (MUEQ) validates upper extremity complaints in 7 domains—including workstation, body posture, break time, job control, job demands, work environment, and social support. The aim of the present study was to translate, adapt, and validate the Persian Version of MUEQ among Iranian office workers.
Methods
The psychometric evaluation of the Persian version of the MUEQ employed a comprehensive methodological approach comprising face and content validity assessments, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), and Cronbach's alpha. A panel of 10 experts assessed the face and content validity of the instrument. In the second phase, through a cross-sectional study, the validity and reliability of the questionnaire were measured by CFA and Cronbach’s alpha in a sample of 420 people from the target population in Tehran, Iran.
Results
The mean age of the participants was 41.40 ± 7.80 years. Examination of upper limb complaints showed that neck pain was the most common complaint among office workers, with a prevalence of 65%. The CFA results confirmed the questionnaire's structure, with 59 items grouped into 7 subscales, and with fit indices—comparative fit index, 0. 87; root mean square error of approximation, 0.08; goodness of fit index, 0.9. The questionnaire demonstrated strong internal consistency, as all items exhibited Cronbach's alpha values of ≥0.9.
Conclusion
The psychometric evaluation of the Persian version of the MUEQ showed that it is a valid and reliable tool for evaluating psychosocial factors in the work environment. Identifying psychosocial factors influential in musculoskeletal problems will lead to better planning to change behavior and design constructive interventions to improve behavior. By addressing psychosocial determinants of musculoskeletal issues at both the individual and organizational levels, we can enhance employees' awareness, self-efficacy, and ability to manage their musculoskeletal health and make informed decisions about their well-being.
Keywords: Office worker, Psychometric properties, Workplace, Musculoskeletal disorder, CANS, MUEQ
↑What is “already known” in this topic:
Despite the extensive research on musculoskeletal issues, previous work-related musculoskeletal disorders tools have failed to comprehensively address the psychological characteristics of the workplace. To address this gap, we aimed to translate, adapt, and validate the MUEQ among Iranian office workers.
→What this article adds:
The Maastricht Upper Extremity Questionnaire (MUEQ) has demonstrated reliability in assessing the prevalence of neck, shoulder, and arm complaints and psychosocial factors among office workers.
Introduction
Changing working styles and prolonged sitting periods at work have contributed to a range of employee concerns, including weight gain (1) and musculoskeletal disorders (2). Improper posture while working with a computer for long periods (3) and employing a keyboard and mouse can result in neck, arm, shoulder, back, and wrist pain, alongside fatigue (4, 5). Upper extremity musculoskeletal disorders (CANS) are nonacute, nonsystemic musculoskeletal complaints of the neck and upper extremity (6), which reduce the individual’s quality of working life and cause various problems such as illness, absenteeism (7), and job loss (8). CANS imposes a significant economic burden (9) and diminishes performance (7, 10).
During the 1970s, CANS emerged as a significant contributor to occupational disability (11). Recent studies show that many office workers are exposed to problems related to CANS. For example, the frequency of these complaints has been estimated at 42% to 83.5% for neck pain, 40% to 62.3% for shoulder pain, and 13.9% for wrist pain (3, 12). Within Iran, studies have demonstrated a heightened susceptibility of office workers to musculoskeletal disorders. A study by Rahnama et al found the prevalence of CANS to be highest in the neck region (64.4%), followed by the shoulders (60.9%) and the back (52%) (13). Similarly, another study showed a substantial frequency of complaints of neck pain (77%), back pain (73%), and shoulder pain (64%) (14).
Leigh et al's research highlights the overwhelming economic burden of occupational injuries and illnesses, with estimated costs far surpassing those of AIDS by a factor of approximately 5, Alzheimer's disease by a factor of 3, cancer by approximately 91%, and heart diseases by approximately 82% (15). Over the past 28 years, Iran has had the highest percentage increase in years lived with disability due to musculoskeletal disorders worldwide. Back pain stands as the most prominent contributor to this alarming trend. The high prevalence of occupational illnesses in Asia (estimated at 65%) (16) leads to significant financial and human loss, and it is crucial to take measures to prevent these illnesses and injuries.
Identifying risk factors, especially modifiable ones, is the first step in preventing the negative consequences of disease (16). According to previous studies, the significant risk factors for the development of CANS are poor body posture (17), repetitive tasks, and demanding psychosocial work conditions, including high job demands, low job control, and inadequate social support (18, 19). The Maastricht Upper Extremity Questionnaire (MUEQ) is one of the best assessment tools for CANS that considers workplace and psychosocial factors. Its validity and reliability have been measured and confirmed across countries (11, 13, 20). While other tools like the Nordic Musculoskeletal Questionnaire (NMQ) (21) and the Quick Exposure Check (QEC) (22) are also employed to investigate work-related musculoskeletal disorders, they fail to consider the physical and psychological characteristics of the workplace. Given the increasing importance of workplace health promotion, as emphasized in the Ottawa Charter (23), the utilization of psychometrics and the MUEQ in the workplace can help identify risk factors and develop appropriate programs. Therefore, the present study investigates the psychometric properties of the MUEQ in the Iranian office work environment.
Methods
The present study was conducted in 2022 in 2 stages, with a descriptive cross-sectional design. The first stage involved a panel of experts' translation, cross-cultural adaptation, and content validity assessment of the MUEQ. In a subsequent step of the cross-sectional study, the psychometric evaluation of the cross-cultural adaptation of the questionnaire to Persian was conducted after the guidelines proposed by Sousa et al (24). The questionnaire was translated into Persian by a joint effort of an occupational health specialist and an English language expert. Then, the Persian text was back-translated into English to identify any translation flaws. After the final agreement, the initial version of the questionnaire was prepared and provided to another independent translator to check for discrepancies. Finally, the approved version was compared with the original questionnaire and finalized by the research team. The Persian version of the questionnaire is provided in Appendix 1.
A pretest of the initial version of the MUEQ was conducted in a convenience sample to identify ambiguous items and possible errors. The process continued until none of the participants understood the questionnaire's content. Subsequently, the questionnaire was distributed among a panel of experts (in health education and health promotion, ergonomics, occupational health, industrial and organizational psychology) to assess the content validity of the MUEQ. In the second phase, a descriptive cross-sectional study was conducted to obtain a valid sample for confirmatory factor analysis.
Sampling and Data Collection
The target population was the employees working in the administrative departments of universities in Tehran. The inclusion criteria were as follows: office workers aged between 18 and 60 years, with at least 1 year of work experience, who worked in a similar position and used a computer for at least 4 hours during the day. Incomplete questionnaires and withdrawal from the study were the exclusion criteria.
Cluster sampling was employed to select a sample of male and female staff working in university-affiliated entities, including 3 faculties, 3 hospitals, 3 health centers, and 3 departments. The sample was randomly selected from the comprehensive list of employees. The minimum sample size recommended for conducting factor analysis is between 5 and 10 participants per item of the intended instrument (25). Considering the questionnaire consisted of 59 items, a final sample size of 590 was deemed appropriate. Ethical approval for the study protocol was obtained from the ethics committee of Saveh University before data collection. All participants provided informed consent before completing the questionnaire.
Instruments
The original version of the MUEQ consists of 59 items in 7 subscales: workstation (7 items), body posture (11 items), job control (9 items), job demands (7 items), break time (8 items), work environment (9 items), and social support (7 items) (7, 20). Each item was assessed using a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from always to never), or a dichotomous (yes/no) statement.
Statistical Analysis
Two indices were computed to assess the content validity of the study instruments: the item-level content validity index (I-CVI) and the scale-level content validity index (S-CVI). These indices were calculated based on the proportion of participants who responded with a rating of 3 or 4 to each item or scale. Based on the number of panel members (n = 10), items ˃0.7 were considered relevant (26). After data collection, the questionnaire results were entered into SPSS Version 22 for analysis. Frequencies (percentages) were used to describe qualitative variables, and means and standard deviations were employed to describe quantitative variables. A chi-square test was employed to evaluate the association between 2 qualitative variables. However, the Fisher's exact test was employed when the expected frequency for 25% of the cells was ˂5. Moreover, the nonparametric Mann-Whitney U test was used to compare the mean age by sex, given that the normality assumption was not met. The significance level was set at .05 for all tests. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) with the maximum likelihood approach was performed in Amos 24 to assess the instrument's construct validity. A comprehensive set of model fit indices—including the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), nonnormed fit index (NNFI), comparative fit index (CFI), goodness of fit index (GFI), and adjusted goodness of fit index (AGFI)—was employed to assess the adequacy of the data. RMSEA values ˂0.05 indicate good fit, and values between 0.05 and 0.08 indicate reasonable fit; NNFI and CFI values of ≥0.87 indicate good fit, and GFI and AGFI values ˂0.9 are considered acceptable (25). Cronbach's alpha was employed to assess the reliability of the questionnaire in SPSS. All subscales exhibited acceptable internal consistency, with alpha values ˃0.8 (26).
Results
Translation and Cross-Cultural Adaptation
There were no inconsistencies between the initial and final versions of the translated questionnaire (2 primary translations and a back-translation). The 2 versions had semantic, conceptual, and content equivalence, and no changes were needed. Accordingly, the research team used the second translation as the final version of the questionnaire.
Pretest
A total of 20 office workers who met the inclusion criteria participated in the pretest stage and completed the MUEQ Persian version. This study was conducted in the administrative department of the Faculty of Health. Overall, the participants had no problem understanding the questionnaire items' meaning. The pretesting process ensured that the Persian version of the MUEQ accurately reflected the original 59-item questionnaire in both semantic and conceptual terms."
Content Validity
The panel comprised 10 experts from occupational health, ergonomics, health education and health promotion, and industrial and organizational psychology. The content validity assessment returned average item-level and scale-level content validity index (I-CVI and S-CVI) values of 0.95 and 0.91, respectively, substantiating the robust content validity of the study instruments.
A total of 420 employees (127 men and 293 women) completed the questionnaire (response rate, 70%). The mean age of the participants was 41.4 years, with a standard deviation of 7.8 years. Table 1 presents the frequency and percentage distribution for the other demographic characteristics of the study participants.
Table 1. Characteristics of Participants.
| Frequency (%) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variable | Total (N = 420) | Men (N = 127) | Women (N = 293) | P-Value | |
| Marital status | Married | 292 (69.5) | 91 (71.7) | 201 (68.6) | 0.1181 |
| Single | 115 (27.4) | 36 (28.3) | 79 (27.0) | ||
| Divorced | 9 (2.1) | 0 | 9 (2.1) | ||
| Without husband | 4 (1.0) | 0 | 4 (1.4) | ||
| Years in current work position | <5 | 8 (1.9) | 3 (2.4) | 5 (1.7) | 0.0102 |
| 6-10 | 91 (21.7) | 19 (15.0) | 72 (24.6) | ||
| 11-15 | 127 (30.2) | 53 (41.7) | 74 (25.3) | ||
| 16-20 | 176 (41.9) | 48 (37.8) | 128 (43.7) | ||
| >20 | 18 (4.3) | 4 (3.1) | 14 (4.8) | ||
| Number of hours worked per day | 6-8 | 335 (79.8) | 94 (74.0) | 241 (82.3) | 0.0542 |
| >8 | 85 (20.2) | 33 (26.0) | 52 (17.7) | ||
| Smoking | Yes | 8 (1.9) | 3 (2.4) | 5 (1.7) | 0.6522 |
| No | 412 (98.1) | 124 (97.6) | 288 (98.3) | ||
| Age | Mean±SD | 41.40±7.80 | 40.81±7.54 | 41.66±7.90 | 0.4183 |
1Fisher exact test; 2chi-square test; 3Mann-Whitney U test.
The highest prevalence of musculoskeletal disorders among the employees during the previous year was neck, affecting 65.2% of the participants, followed by shoulder pain, which affected 63.8%. Also, pain in the elbow and arm was the least common among computer users (Table 2). Moreover, the average number of reported complaints was higher among men than women.
Table 2. Calculation of CANS Prevalence Rate.
| Localization of complaints | Frequency (%) | P-Value | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total (N=420) | Male (N=127) | Female (N=293) | |||
| Neck | Yes | 274 (65.2) | 79 (62.2) | 195 (65.2) | 0.390 |
| No | 146 (34.8) | 48 (37.8) | 146 (34.8) | ||
| Shoulder | Yes | 272 (64.8) | 85 (66.9) | 187 (63.8) | 0.540 |
| No | 148 (35.2) | 42 (33.1) | 106 (36.2) | ||
| Upper arm | Yes | 132 (31.4) | 43 (33.9) | 89 (31.4) | 0.480 |
| No | 288 (68.6) | 84 (66.1) | 204 (69.6) | ||
| Elbow | Yes | 125 (29.8) | 33 (26.0) | 92 (31.4) | 0.295 |
| No | 295 (70.2) | 94 (74.0) | 201 (70.2) | ||
| Hand | Yes | 202 (48.1) | 54 (42.5) | 148 (50.5) | 0.132 |
| No | 218 (51.9) | 73 (57.5) | 145 (49.5) | ||
| Wrist | Yes | 211 (50.2) | 59 (46.5) | 152 (51.9) | 0.308 |
| No | 209 (49.8) | 68 (53.5) | 141 (48.1) | ||
| Lower arm | Yes | 219 (52.1) | 73 (57.5) | 146 (49.8) | 0.149 |
| No | 201 (47.9) | 54 (42.5) | 147 (50.2) | ||
| CAN (mean ± SD) | 9.10±1.94 | 9.22±1.85 | 9.05±1.99 | 0.423 | |
Table 3 presents the covariance, standard deviation, Z statistic, and correlation coefficient between the MUEQ subscales. The highest correlation coefficient was between the Break time and social support domains, and the lowest was between the body posture and job demand domains. All correlation coefficients between the domains were significant and ˃0.69.
Table 3. The Weights of the Variables.
| Factor | Covariance | SE | Z=b/SE | Correlation | P-Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Work station↔ Job control | 0.32 | 0.03 | 11.38 | 0.84 | <0.001 |
| Job control↔ Break time | 0.76 | 0.06 | 12.12 | 0.85 | <0.001 |
| Body posture↔ Job demand | 0.59 | 0.06 | 9.79 | 0.69 | <0.001 |
| Job demand ↔ Work environment | 0.74 | 0.07 | 11.17 | 0.76 | <0.001 |
| Work station↔ Job demand | 0.28 | 0.03 | 10.60 | 0.77 | <0.001 |
| Job demand↔ Social support | 0.83 | 0.07 | 11.63 | 0.87 | <0.001 |
| Job control↔ Work environment | 0.90 | 0.07 | 12.56 | 0.89 | <0.001 |
| Body posture↔ Break time | 0.60 | 0.06 | 10.61 | 0.73 | <0.001 |
| Job control↔ Social support | 0.86 | 0.07 | 11.98 | 0.86 | <0.001 |
| Body posture↔ Work environment | 0.74 | 0.07 | 10.76 | 0.80 | <0.001 |
| Work station↔ Break time | 0.28 | 0.02 | 11.24 | 0.78 | <0.001 |
| Work station↔ Work environment | 0.36 | 0.03 | 12.12 | 0.89 | <0.001 |
| Body posture↔ Social support | 0.64 | 0.06 | 10.18 | 0.70 | <0.001 |
| Work station↔ Social support | 0.30 | 0.03 | 11.03 | 0.78 | <0.001 |
| Work station↔ Body posture | 0.27 | 0.03 | 10.43 | 0.78 | <0.001 |
| Body posture↔ Job control | 0.69 | 0.06 | 10.74 | 0.79 | <0.001 |
| Job control↔ Job demand | 0.72 | 0.07 | 10.93 | 0.78 | <0.001 |
| Job demand↔ Break time | 0.79 | 0.06 | 12.10 | 0.91 | <0.001 |
| Break time↔ Social support | 0.86 | 0.07 | 12.80 | 0.93 | <0.001 |
| Break time↔ Work environment | 0.80 | 0.06 | 12.36 | 0.82 | <0.001 |
| Work environment↔ Social support | 0.87 | 0.07 | 12.16 | 0.83 | <0.001 |
Figure 1 shows all the path coefficients and covariance between the latent (standardized) factors. All coefficients are within a reasonable range; in other words, none of the standardized coefficients are more significant than 1 (Table 2).
Figure 1.
Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Maastricht Upper Extremity Questionnaire (Factor loadings of each sectioned item and correlations)
The goodness of fit indicators are as follows: RMSEA, 0.08; GFI, 0. 96; CFI, 0.87. These statistics show that the research model fits the data well. The RMSEA equals 0.08, which is close to the standard value (27) (Table 4).
Table 4. Goodness of Fit Indices for All 7 Sections Obtained by Confirmatory Factor Analysis (N = 420).
| Index | Ch2 | DF | CH2/DF | CFI | PCFI | GFI | AIC | BIC | RMSEA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| value | 6022.14 | 1513 | 3.98 | 0.871 | 0.77 | 0.96 | 6536.14 | 7574.49 | 0.08 |
The standardized weights between the variables and items are reported in Table 5. As the data reveal, all the weights are statistically significant, and no item has been removed from the latent factors (P < 0.001). Furthermore, the item-total correlation, which reflects the association between each item and the overall score of the questionnaire after excluding that item, has been presented separately.
Table 5. Correlation and Cronbach’s α for Questionnaire Items.
| Section (No. of questions) | Estimate | Item Total Correlation | Cronbach’s α if an Item Is Deleted |
|---|---|---|---|
| Workstation (7) | 0.82 | 0.87 | 0.93 |
| 0.46 | |||
| 0.83 | |||
| 0.88 | |||
| 0.95 | |||
| 0.94 | |||
| 0.97 | |||
| Body posture (11) | 0.77 | 0.80 | 0.92 |
| 0.89 | |||
| 0.86 | |||
| 0.84 | |||
| 0.82 | |||
| 0.53 | |||
| 0.75 | |||
| 0.90 | |||
| 0.87 | |||
| 0.89 | |||
| 0.96 | |||
| Job control (9) | 0.88 | 0.87 | 0.91 |
| 0.90 | |||
| 0.77 | |||
| 0.68 | |||
| 0.64 | |||
| 0.90 | |||
| 0.83 | |||
| 0.77 | |||
| 0.88 | |||
| Job demand (7) | 0.81 | 0.83 | 0.91 |
| 0.73 | |||
| 0.83 | |||
| 0.93 | |||
| 0.88 | |||
| 0.93 | |||
| 0.84 | |||
| Break time (8) | 0.93 | 0.89 | 0.91 |
| 0.92 | |||
| 0.94 | |||
| 0.90 | |||
| 0.91 | |||
| 0.33 | |||
| 0.79 | |||
| 0.75 | |||
| Work environment (9) | 0.96 | 0.74 | 0.92 |
| 0.66 | |||
| 0.67 | |||
| 0.64 | |||
| 0.88 | |||
| 0.71 | |||
| 0.70 | |||
| 0.77 | |||
| 0.67 | |||
| Social support (8) | 0.90 | 0.84 | 0.91 |
| 0.90 | |||
| 0.44 | |||
| 0.92 | |||
| 0.86 | |||
| 0.84 | |||
| 0.85 | |||
| 0.80 | |||
| Mean Cronbach’s α for all sections | 0.91 | ||
The questionnaire demonstrated excellent internal consistency, with a Cronbach's alpha of 0.91 for the entire instrument and alpha values ranging from 0.91 to 0.93 for the subscales (Table 5).
Discussion
Despite the extensive research on musculoskeletal complaints, few studies have investigated the psychosocial characteristics of the work environment in Iran. The MUEQ is a reliable tool for evaluating the prevalence of neck, shoulder, and arm complaints and other related factors.
The original version of the MUEQ has been translated into different languages such as Brazilian Portuguese (20), Arabic (9), and Greek (28), and the numerous translations of the questionnaire globally are a testament to its relevance and applicability. Cross-cultural adaptation of the questionnaire was successful, indicating that physical and psychosocial factors related to computer use are perceived similarly across cultures.
There are various tools for assessing musculoskeletal disorders in employees. For example, the QEC assesses work exposure to ergonomic risk factors (29). In addition, the Job Factors Questionnaire is a general tool for evaluating work-related factors that contribute to the development of musculoskeletal disorders (30). Moreover, the NMQ is used to analyze workers' symptoms of musculoskeletal disorders (31). However, the MUEQ remains the sole instrument that explicitly assesses biopsychosocial risk factors, particularly in computer users.
Risk factors of musculoskeletal disorders include psychosocial, organizational, and physical aspects of the work environment, such as time spent on the computer, body posture, repetitive movements, break time, and demographic and personal characteristics. It is accepted that the progression and chronicity of musculoskeletal disorders are influenced by physical activity, posture, and working conditions (32).
A substantial body of research has established a link between job characteristics, including high job demands, low job control, limited break opportunities, and the development of neck pain (11). Examination of musculoskeletal disorders in this study showed that pain was more frequent in the neck and shoulder regions than in the arm, hand, and elbow. According to previous studies, the highest prevalence of musculoskeletal disorders in computer users is observed in the neck (55%-69%) and upper extremities (15%-52%) (33). In a 2015 study by Faryza et al, the MUEQ was used to investigate office workers' musculoskeletal disorders. Neck pain was the most prevalent CANS, followed by shoulder pain (34). The prevalence of CANS among computer workers ranges from 54% to 64% in Europe, similar to Asia, with 64% (7).
Our findings align with previous research, which has consistently demonstrated a higher prevalence of neck and upper extremity musculoskeletal symptoms among women than men (35, 36). On average, women are more likely to do repetitive tasks, while men are less likely to sit for prolonged periods compared with women. In addition, women are more exposed to stress from housekeeping and child care (11).
The goodness of fit indicators and factor analysis showed that the MUEQ confirmed the validity of the 7 subscales of this instrument, which is consistent with the findings of Bekiari et al (28). The values obtained for the GFI (0.96), RMSEA (0.08) and CFA (0.87) indicated that the model fits the observed data well. The CFI, GFI, and NNFI were used for the Brazilian Portuguese version of this questionnaire, and the value was equal to 0.9 (20).
Additionally, the Cronbach’s alphas obtained in this study indicated the internal consistency of the items. More specifically, the Cronbach’s alpha for all the subscales was more significant than 0.9, while it was between 0.52 and 0.89 for the Greek version of the questionnaire (28), between 0.54 and 0.85 for the Dutch version (11), and between 0.48 and 0.94 for the Arabic version (9). In a psychometric study conducted among 282 informatics employees in Iran, the reliability of the MUEQ was estimated to be ˃0.7 (37). A coefficient of at least 0.7 has been suggested as acceptable by Bett et al (38), while in the present study, the reliability of the subscales was more significant than 0.9.
Conclusion
The present research is the validation study for Iran's Maastricht Upper Extremity Questionnaire among office workers. The psychometric properties of the questionnaire in the study show that the MUEQ is a valid and reliable instrument for assessing the psychosocial factors of the work environment. It can be used in occupational health screenings to identify musculoskeletal complaints in office workers and design ergonomic interventions to detect which workgroups need comprehensive ergonomic analysis and intervention.
Conflict of Interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Funding
Vice-Chancellor of Saveh University of Medical Sciences Research and Technology
Acknowledgment
The authors express their gratitude to the Vice-Chancellor of Saveh University of Medical Sciences Research and Technology for the financial support of this study in the form of project number IR.SAVEHUMS.REC.1400.016.
Authors Contributions
Study concept and design, P.H & Z.M; Analysis and interpretation of data, R.N; Drafting of the manuscript, P.H; & Z.M, Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content, M.K and P.H.
Ethical Considerations
This study received ethics approval from the Medical Science University of Saveh ethics board located in Saveh, Iran (Ethic Code: IR.SAVEHUMS.REC.1400.019). Moreover, written consent was obtained from the workers before the participant could take part in this study.
Appendix 1.
| مرد □ زن □ | جنس |
|---|---|
| سن | |
| وضعیت تأهل | |
| سابقه خدمت | |
| ساعت کاری | |
| خیر
□
بله□ |
مصرف سیگار |
| اطلاعات مربوط به ایستگاه کار | ||
|---|---|---|
| خیر
□
بله □ |
میز کار من دارای ارتفاع مناسب و راحت است | 10 |
| خیر
□
بله □ |
می توانم ارتفاع صندلی خود را تنظیم کنم | 11 |
| خیر
□
بله □ |
وقتی که از موس استفاده میکنم، ساعدم بر روی میز کار قرار دارد | 12 |
| خیر
□
بله □ |
صندلی من در محیط کار برای ناحیه کمر تکیه گاه مناسبی دارد | 13 |
| خیر
□
بله □ |
صفحه کلید رایانه در هنگام کار دقیقا در مقابل من قرار دارد | 14 |
| خیر
□
بله □ |
صفحه نمایشگر رایانه در هنگام کار دقیقا در مقابل من قرار دارد. | 15 |
| خیر
□
بله □ |
در دفتر کار فضای کافی برای انجام کار در اختیار دارم. | 16 |
| هرگز | به ندرت | گاهی | اغلب | همیشه | وضعیت بدنی در هنگام انجام کار | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| وضیعت بدنی راحت و مناسب را در هنگام انجام کار حفظ میکنم | 17 | |||||
| مدت زیادی در هنگام کار در یک وضعیت خاص می نشینم | 18 | |||||
| بیش از دو ساعت در روز در وضعیتی که شانه های خود را بالا کشیده ام، مینشینم. | 19 | |||||
| به هنگام کار کردن، در وضعیت بدنی نامناسبی می نشینم. | 20 | |||||
| در هنگام کار، وظایف تکراری انجام می دهم | 21 | |||||
| از لحاظ فیزیکی، کار من خسته کننده است | 22 | |||||
| زمانیکه با صفحه کلید کار میکنم دست و ساعد من در یک راستا قرار دارند. | 23 | |||||
| سر من در هنگام کار با رایانه، خمیده است | 24 | |||||
| در هنگام کار با رایانه سر به طرف چپ یا راست خم شده است | 25 | |||||
| تنه در هنگام کار به سمت راست یا چپ خم شده است | 26 | |||||
| تنه من در هنگام کار در حالتی نامتقارن قرار دارد | 27 | |||||
| کنترل شغلی | ||||||
| من شخصا در مورد نحوه اجرای امور کاری خود تصمیم می گیرم. | 28 | |||||
| من در تصمیمگیری با دیگران شرکت میکنم | 29 | |||||
| در مورد تغییر وظایفم، شخصا تصمیم میگیرم. | 30 | |||||
| من شخصا زمان و سرعت انجام وظایفم را تعیین میکنم | 31 | |||||
| من شخصا مشکلات کاری خود را حل میکنم | 32 | |||||
| شغل من باعث افزایش تواناییهای من میشود | 33 | |||||
| من در کار خود، چیزهای جدید یاد میگیرم | 34 | |||||
| من باید در کار خود خلاق باشم | 35 | |||||
| من در کار خود وظایف متفاوتی را انجام میدهم. | 36 | |||||
| نیاز شغلی | ||||||
| من تحت فشار کاری زیادی کار میکنم | 37 | |||||
| برایم سخت است که وظایف کاری ام را به موقع به پایان برسانم | 38 | |||||
| من برای انجام وظایف کاری نیاز به اضافه کاری دارم | 39 | |||||
| من زمان کافی برای اتمام وظایف کاری خود ندارم | 40 | |||||
| من برای اتمام وظایف خود در موعد مقرر با سرعت بیشتری کار میکنم | 41 | |||||
| وظایف شغلی من دشوار هستند | 42 | |||||
| وظایف شغلی بسیار زیادی دارم | 43 | |||||
| زمان استراحت | ||||||
| من می توانم زمان استراحت خود را شخصا برنامه ریزی کنم | 44 | |||||
| من می توانم زمان کاری خود را تقسیم بندی کنم | 45 | |||||
| من می توانم زمان استراحت خود را تعیین کنم | 46 | |||||
| من وضعیت بدنی خود را در حین کار تغییر میدهم | 47 | |||||
| من می توانم ترتیب انجام وظایف شغلی خود را تغییر دهم | 48 | |||||
| من وظایف شغلی خود را بدون رایانه انجام میدهم | 49 | |||||
| بعد از دو ساعت کار، من ده دقیقه استراحت می کنم | 50 | |||||
| من به اندازه کافی زمان استراحتدارم | 51 | |||||
| محیط کار من مناسب است | 52 | |||||
| هوای داخل دفتر بیش از اندازه خشک است | 53 | |||||
| هوای داخل دفتر کارم بیش از اندازه سرد است | 54 | |||||
| هوای نامطبوع در داخل دفتر وجود دارد | 55 | |||||
| هوای تازه در محیط کار من در دسترس است | 56 | |||||
| محیط کار من پر سرو صداست | 57 | |||||
| محیط کار من بیش از اندازه روشن است | 58 | |||||
| من به صفحه رایانه خیره میشوم | 59 | |||||
| صفحه رایانه نور اتاق کار منعکس میکند | 60 | |||||
| حمایت اجتماعی | ||||||
| امور کاری روان پیش می روند | 61 | |||||
| من می توانم در کار خود پرس و جو کنم | 62 | |||||
| وظایف کاری من به همکاران دیگر وابسته است | 63 | |||||
| جو کاری من راحت است | 64 | |||||
| اگر در انجام وظایف کاری خود مرتکب اشتباه شوم، از حمایت همکارانم برخوردار میشوم. | 65 | |||||
| اگر در وظایف کاری خود مرتکب اشتباه شوم، از حمایت سرپرست خود برخوردار میشوم. | 66 | |||||
| همکاران من صمیمی هستند | 67 | |||||
| سرپرستان من صمیمی هستند | 68 | |||||
Cite this article as : Hosseini Koukamari P, Nikbakht R, Karimy M, Mohammadi Z. Psychosocial Factors and Musculoskeletal Symptoms in Office Workers: Validating the Maastricht Upper Extremity Questionnaire. Med J Islam Repub Iran. 2024 (18 Mar);38:29. https://doi.org/10.47176/mjiri.38.29
References
- 1.Arippa F, Nguyen A, Pau M, Harris-Adamson. Postural strategies among office workers during a prolonged sitting bout. Appl Ergon. 2022;102:103723. doi: 10.1016/j.apergo.2022.103723. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Arora SN, Khatri, Health P. Prevalence of work-related musculoskeletal disorder in sitting professionals. Int J Community Med Public Health. 2022;9(2):892. [Google Scholar]
- 3.Kluay-On P, Chaikumarn M. Construct validity, internal consistency and test-retest reliability of ergonomic risk assessment for musculoskeletal disorders in office workers (ERAMO) Theor Issues Ergon Sci. 2022;23(1):121. [Google Scholar]
- 4.Rasool A, Bashir MS, Noor R. Musculoskeletal disorders of the neck and upper extremity in computer workers. Rawal Med J. 2018;43(1):52. [Google Scholar]
- 5.AS, Elkhateeb, Kamal NN, Gamal El-Deen, and Reda. Musculoskeletal health disorders associated with computer use among Minia University employees. Egypt J Occup Med. 2018;42(3):399–410. [Google Scholar]
- 6.Miedema HS, Verhagen AP, Koes BW, Verhaar JA. Multidisciplinary consensus on the terminology and classification of complaints of the arm, neck and/or shoulder. Occup Environ Med. 2007;64(5):313. doi: 10.1136/oem.2005.023861. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Mohan V, Inbaraj LR, George CE, Norman G. Prevalence of complaints of arm, neck, and shoulders among computer professionals in Bangalore: A cross-sectional study. J Family Med Prim Care. 2019;8(1):171. doi: 10.4103/jfmpc.jfmpc_253_18. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Hutting N, Staal JB, Heerkens YF, Engels JA, Nijhuis-van der. A self-management program for employees with complaints of the arm, neck, or shoulder (CANS): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials J. 2013;14(1):1–11. doi: 10.1186/1745-6215-14-258. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Eltayeb SM, Staal JB, Hassan AA, Awad SS, de Bie. Complaints of the arm, neck and shoulder among computer office workers in Sudan: a prevalence study with validation of an Arabic risk factors questionnaire. Environ Health. 2008;7(1):1–11. doi: 10.1186/1476-069X-7-33. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Bongers PM, Ijmker S, Van den, Blatter BM. Epidemiology of work related neck and upper limb problems: psychosocial and personal risk factors (part I) and effective interventions from a bio behavioural perspective (part II) J Occup Rehabil. 2006;16(3):272. doi: 10.1007/s10926-006-9044-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Eltayeb S, Staal JB, Kennes J, Lamberts PH, de Bie. Prevalence of complaints of arm, neck and shoulder among computer office workers and psychometric evaluation of a risk factor questionnaire. BMC Musculoskelet. Disord. 2007;8(1):1–11. doi: 10.1186/1471-2474-8-68. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Keyaerts S, Godderis L, Delvaux E, Daenen L. The association between work-related physical and psychosocial factors and musculoskeletal disorders in healthcare workers: Moderating role of fear of movement. J Occup Health. 2022;64(1):e12314. doi: 10.1002/1348-9585.12314. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Rahnama R, Nikbakht R, Hosseini-Koukamari P. Work-Related Musculoskeletal Disorders Among a sample of Iranian Computer Users. Int j musculoskelet pain prev. 2020;5(3):367. [Google Scholar]
- 14.Vahdatpour B, Bozorgi M, Taheri. Investigating musculoskeletal discomforts and its relation to workplace ergonomic conditions among computer office workers at alzahra hospital, Isfahan, Iran J Isfahan Med Sch. 2015;33(346):1299. [Google Scholar]
- 15.Leigh JP, Markowitz SB, Fahs M, Landrigan PJ. University of Michigan Press; 2000. Costs of occupational injuries and illnesses. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Kaya Aytutuldu, Birinci T, Tarakcı E. Musculoskeletal pain and its relation to individual and work-related factors: a cross-sectional study among Turkish office workers who work using computers. Int J Occup Saf Ergon. 2022;28(2):790. doi: 10.1080/10803548.2020.1827528. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Hosseini-Koukamari P, Ghaffari M, Tavafian SS, Ramezankhani A. Using Theoretical Domains Framework for Exploring Appropriate Sitting Posture Determinants Among Office Workers: A Content Analysis Study. Health Scope. 2021;10(1) [Google Scholar]
- 18.Theorell T. Psychosocial factors in research on work conditions and health in Sweden. Scand J Work Environ Health. 2007:20. [PubMed]
- 19.Shahrezaee M, Keshtkari S, Moradi-Lakeh M, Abbasifard M, Alipour V, Amini S. et al. Burden of musculoskeletal disorders in Iran during 1990–2017: estimates from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017. Arch Osteoporos. 2020;15(1):1–10. doi: 10.1007/s11657-020-00767-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Turci AM, Bevilaqua-Grossi D, Pinheiro CF, Bragatto MM, Chaves TC. The Brazilian Portuguese version of the revised Maastricht Upper Extremity Questionnaire (MUEQ-Br revised): translation, cross-cultural adaptation, reliability, and structural validation. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2015;16(1):1–12. doi: 10.1186/s12891-015-0497-2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Kuorinka I, Jonsson B, Kilbom A, Vinterberg H, Biering-Sørensen F, Andersson G, Jørgensen K. Standardised Nordic questionnaires for the analysis of musculoskeletal symptoms. Appl Ergon. 1987;18(3):233. doi: 10.1016/0003-6870(87)90010-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Li G, Buckle P, editors. A practical method for the assessment of work-related musculoskeletal risks-Quick Exposure Check (QEC) Proceedings of the human factors and ergonomics society annual meeting; SAGE Publications Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA. 1998;42(19) doi: 10.1177/154193129804201905. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Masanotti GM, Briziarelli. Workplace health promotion in the context of public health. Ital J Public Health. 2012;7(4) [Google Scholar]
- 24.Sousa VD, Rojjanasrirat W. Translation, adaptation and validation of instruments or scales for use in cross‐cultural health care research: a clear and user‐friendly guideline. J Eval Clin Pract. 2011;17(2):268. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2753.2010.01434.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Kellar SP, Kelvin EA. 6th. Wolters Kluwer Health/Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2012. Munro's statistical methods for health care research. [Google Scholar]
- 26.Jay Lynn, Surya Das, Hallquist MN, Williams JC. Mindfulness, acceptance, and hypnosis: Cognitive and clinical perspectives. Int J Clin Exp Hypn. 2006;54(2):143. doi: 10.1080/00207140500528240. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Hooper D, Coughlan J, Mullen M, editors. Evaluating model fit: a synthesis of the structural equation modelling literature. 7th European Conference on research methodology for business and management studies. 2008 doi: 10.21427/D79B73. [DOI]
- 28.Bekiari E, Lyrakos G, Damigos D, Mavreas V, Chanopoulos K, Dimoliatis IJ. A validation study and psychometrical evaluation of the Maastricht Upper Extremity Questionnaire (MUEQ) for the Greek-speaking population. J Musculoskelet Neuronal Interact. 2011;11(1):52–76. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Comper MLC, Costa LO, Padula RS. Quick exposure check (QEC): a crosscultural adaptation into Brazilian-Portuguese. Work. 2012;41(Supplement 1):2056. doi: 10.3233/WOR-2012-0430-2056. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Coluci MZ, Alexandre NM, Rosecrance. Reliability and validity of an ergonomics-related Job Factors Questionnaire. Int J Ind Ergon. 2009;39(6):995–1001. [Google Scholar]
- 31.De Barros, Alexandre NM. Cross‐cultural adaptation of the Nordic musculoskeletal questionnaire. Int Nurs Rev. 2003;50(2):101. doi: 10.1046/j.1466-7657.2003.00188.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Basakci Calik, Yagci N, Oztop M, Caglar DJ. Effects of risk factors related to computer use on musculoskeletal pain in office workers. Int J Occup Saf Ergon. 2022;28(1):269. doi: 10.1080/10803548.2020.1765112. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Kashif M, Anwar M, Noor H, Iram H, Hassan HM. Prevalence of musculoskeletal complaints of arm, neck and shoulder and associated risk factors in computer office workers. Phys Med Rehab Kuror. 2020;30(05):299–305. [Google Scholar]
- 34.Faryza E, Murad MS, Anwar S. A study of work related complaints of arm, neck and shoulder (CANS) among office workers in Selangor and Kuala Lumpur. Malays J Public Health Med. 2015;15:8–16. [Google Scholar]
- 35.Shariat A, Cardoso JR, Cleland JA, Danaee M, Ansari NN, Kargarfard M, Mohd Tamrin. Prevalence rate of neck, shoulder and lower back pain in association with age, body mass index and gender among Malaysian office workers. Work. 2018;60(2):191. doi: 10.3233/WOR-2738. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36.Ghezelbash F, Shirazi-Adl A, Arjmand N, El-Ouaaid Z, Plamondon A, Meakin JR. Effects of sex, age, body height and body weight on spinal loads: Sensitivity analyses in a subject-specific trunk musculoskeletal model. J Biomech. 2016;49(14):3492. doi: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2016.09.026. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37.Ghasemi M, Kamalikhah T, Salesi M, Rahmati F. Evaluation of psychometric properties of the maastricht upper extremity questionnaire (MUEQ) in iranian computer users. J Educ Health Promot. 2021;10:245. doi: 10.4103/jehp.jehp_1096_20. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38.Bot S, Terwee C, Van der, Feleus A, Bierma-Zeinstra S, Knol DL. et al. Internal consistency and validity of a new physical workload questionnaire. J Occup Environ Med. 2004;61(12):980. doi: 10.1136/oem.2003.011213. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]