The growing psychophysical challenges related to display use in workplaces highlight the need for reliable visual ergonomic assessment tools.
Objective
This study aimed to develop and validate the Evaluating Environmental Conditions Based on Visual Ergonomics (ECVD-20), a novel tool for evaluating visual ergonomic conditions in display-based work environments.
Methods
A cross-sectional study was conducted in 2022. The ECVD-20 was developed through a semi-systematic literature review and expert consultation. Structural validity was examined using exploratory factor analysis (EFA). Three trained experts applied the tool in 236 workplaces. An index was created based on item influence coefficients, and its reliability was assessed.
Results
The ECVD-20 demonstrated strong validity (content validity ratio (CVR) = 0.865, content validity index (CVI) = 0.946) and acceptable internal consistency (Cronbach's α = 0.644). The EFA revealed a four-factor structure luminance, lighting systems, ergonomic work tools, and working postures, explaining 55.58% of variance. The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis established a cutoff score of 31.01, effectively classifying total score of ECVD-20 into requires corrective action and no action needed categories.
Conclusions
The ECVD-20 indicates good validity and reliability for assessing visual ergonomics across diverse settings. Its practical application can guide interventions to improve workplace health and productivity.
AltalhiAKhayyatWKhojahO, et al.Computer vision syndrome among health sciences students in Saudi Arabia: prevalence and risk factors. Cureus2020; 12: e7060.
2.
HuJJiangHXiaoZ, et al.Headtrack: real-time human–computer interaction via wireless earphones. IEEE J Sel Areas Commun2024; 42: 990–1002.
3.
WangTHouBLiJ, et al.TASTA: text-assisted spatial and temporal attention network for video question answering. Adv Intell Syst2023; 5: 2200131.
4.
KhanwalkarPDabirN. Visual ergonomics for changing work environments in the COVID-19 pandemic. WORK2022; 73: S169–SS76.
5.
ZiaeiMYarmohammadiHMoradiM, et al.Prevalence and risk factors of visual fatigue in computer users. Iran J Ergon2014; 1: 47–54.
6.
AnshelJR. Visual ergonomics in the workplace. AAOHN J2007; 55: 414–420.
7.
Al TawilLAldokhayelSZeitouniL, et al.Prevalence of self-reported computer vision syndrome symptoms and its associated factors among university students. Eur J Ophthalmol2020; 30: 189–195.
8.
UsgaonkarUParkarSRSShettyA. Impact of the use of digital devices on eyes during the lockdown period of COVID-19 pandemic. Indian J Ophthalmol2021; 69: 1901–1906.
9.
LongJToomingasAForsmanM, et al.A definition of visual ergonomics. Appl Ergon2014; 45: 3–e1264.
10.
ZetterbergC. The impact of visually demanding near work on neck/shoulder discomfort and trapezius muscle activity: Laboratory studies. Digital Comprehensive Summaries of Uppsala Dissertations from the Faculty of Medicine 1228. Uppsala: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis, 2016.
11.
ShikdarAAAl-KindiMA. Office ergonomics: deficiencies in computer workstation design. Int J Occup Saf Ergon2007; 13: 215–223.
12.
PanYXuJ. Human-machine plan conflict and conflict resolution in a visual search task. Int J Hum Comput Stud2025; 193: 103377.
13.
PretoSGomesCC (eds) Lighting in the workplace: Recommended illuminance (lux) at workplace environs. In: International Conference on Applied Human Factors and Ergonomics; 2018: Springer.
14.
TicleanuC. Impacts of home lighting on human health. Light Res Technol2021; 53: 453–475.
15.
De CarliMDe GiuliVZecchinR. Review on visual comfort in office buildings and influence of daylight in productivity. Indoor Air2008; 2008: 17–22.
16.
ZhangRWangYLiZ, et al.Online adaptive keypoint extraction for visual odometry across different scenes. IEEE Rob Autom Lett2025; 10: 7539–7546.
17.
van EschEMinjockRColarelliSM, et al.Office window views: view features trump nature in predicting employee well-being. J Environ Psychol2019; 64: 56–64.
18.
JamrozikAClementsNHasanSS, et al.Access to daylight and view in an office improves cognitive performance and satisfaction and reduces eyestrain: a controlled crossover study. Build Environ2019; 165: 106379.
19.
KrálikováRLumnitzerEDžuňováL, et al.Analysis of the impact of working environment factors on employee’s health and wellbeing; workplace lighting design evaluation and improvement. Sustainability2021; 13: 8816.
20.
FigueiroMGReaMSReaAC, et al. (eds) Daylight and productivity: a field study. ACEEE Summer Study. Washington, WA, USA: ACEEE, 2002.
21.
ZhangCMaoXPangL, et al.Effects of lighting on visual ergonomics, visual perception and psychological responses in windowless offices. Light Res Technol2025; 57: 229–249.
22.
DayJKFutrellBCoxR, et al.Blinded by the light: occupant perceptions and visual comfort assessments of three dynamic daylight control systems and shading strategies. Build Environ2019; 154: 107–121.
23.
HellandMHorgenGKvikstadTM, et al.Musculoskeletal, visual and psychosocial stress in VDU operators after moving to an ergonomically designed office landscape. Appl Ergon2008; 39: 284–295.
24.
HemphäläHEklundJ. A visual ergonomics intervention in mail sorting facilities: effects on eyes, muscles and productivity. Appl Ergon2012; 43: 217–229.
25.
SukJY. Luminance and vertical eye illuminance thresholds for occupants’ visual comfort in daylit office environments. Build Environ2019; 148: 107–115.
26.
FournierCWirz-JusticeA. Light, health and wellbeing: implications from chronobiology for architectural design. World Health Des Archit Culture Technol2010; 3: 44–49.
27.
VeitchJAStokkermansMGNewshamGR. Linking lighting appraisals to work behaviors. Environ Behav2013; 45: 198–214.
28.
WangJWangCGuoL, et al.MDKAT: Multimodal decoupling with knowledge aggregation and transfer for video emotion recognition. IEEE Trans Circuits Syst Video Technol2025; 1.
29.
HeidenMZetterbergCLindbergP, et al.Validity of a computer-based risk assessment method for visual ergonomics. Int J Ind Ergon2019; 72: 180–187.
30.
González-PérezMSusiRAntonaB, et al.The computer-vision symptom scale (CVSS17): development and initial validation. Invest Ophthalmol Visual Sci2014; 55: 4504–4511.
31.
DavidGWoodsVLiG, et al.The development of the Quick Exposure Check (QEC) for assessing exposure to risk factors for work-related musculoskeletal disorders. Appl Ergon2008; 39: 57–69.
32.
del Mar SeguíMCabrero-GarcíaJCrespoA, et al.A reliable and valid questionnaire was developed to measure computer vision syndrome at the workplace. J Clin Epidemiol2015; 68: 662–673.
33.
HabibiERajabiHArbabiM. An examination of the relationship between visual fatigue symptoms with flicker value variations in video display terminal users. Iran J Health Saf Environ2015; 2: 211–216.
34.
EsmaeiliSVEsmaeiliRShakerianM, et al.A method for rapid assessment of visual ergonomics and lighting conditions (RAVEL): an in-depth development and psychometrics study. WORK2025; 80: 441–460.
35.
LecceseFSalvadoriGRoccaM. Visual ergonomics of video-display-terminal workstations: field measurements of luminance for various display settings. Displays2016; 42: 9–18.
36.
BoomsmaA. Nonconvergence, improper solutions, and starting values in lisrel maximum likelihood estimation. Psychometrika1985; 50: 229–242.
37.
BollenKA. Structural equations with latent variables. John Wiley & Sons, 1989.
38.
SnyderH. Literature review as a research methodology: an overview and guidelines. J Bus Res2019; 104: 333–339.
39.
TaherdoostH. What is the best response scale for survey and questionnaire design; review of different lengths of rating scale/attitude scale/Likert scale. Int J Acad Res Manage2019; 8.
40.
ParkYCKanbaSChongM-Y, et al.To use the brief psychiatric rating scale to detect disorganized speech in schizophrenia: findings from the REAP-AP study. Kaohsiung J Med Sci2018; 34: 113–119.
41.
HabibiEPourabdianSRajabi-VardanjaniH, et al.Development and validation of a visual fatigue questionnaire for video display terminal users. Tahghighat Nezam Salamat J2011; 7: 493–503.
42.
LawsheCH. A quantitative approach to content validity. Pers Psychol1975; 28: 563–575.
43.
WaltzCFBausellBR. Nursing research: design statistics and computer analysis. Philadelphia, PA: F.A. Davis Fa, 1981.
44.
MohajanHK. Two criteria for good measurements in research: validity and reliability. Ann Spiru Haret Univ Econ Ser2017; 17: 59–82.
45.
AhmedAMaruodW. Comparative analysis of varimax and Promax rotation methods in exploratory factor analysis. Edelweiss Appl Sci Technol2025; 9: 501–513.
46.
GliemJAGliemRR (eds) Calculating, interpreting, and reporting Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient for Likert-type scales2003: Midwest Research-to-Practice Conference in Adult, Continuing, and Community ….
47.
SijtsmaK. On the use, the misuse, and the very limited usefulness of cronbach’s alpha. psychometrika2009; 74: 107–120.
48.
HusseyIAlsaltiTBoscoF, et al.An aberrant abundance of cronbach’s alpha values at .70. Adv Methods Pract Psychol Sci2025; 8: 25152459241287123.
49.
LanceCEButtsMMMichelsLC. The sources of four commonly reported cutoff criteria: what did they really say?Organ Res Methods2006; 9: 202–220.
50.
MasJF. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis. In: Camacho OlmedoMTPaegelowMMasJ-FEscobarF (eds) Geomatic approaches for modeling land change scenarios. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2018, pp.465–467.
51.
FierzW. Likelihood ratios of quantitative laboratory results in medical diagnosis: the application of Bézier curves in ROC analysis. PLOS ONE2018; 13: e0192420.
52.
TafiadisDKosmaEIChronopoulosSK, et al.Voice handicap index and interpretation of the cutoff points using receiver operating characteristic curve as screening for young adult female smokers. J Voice2018; 32: 64–69.
53.
SonneMVillaltaDLAndrewsDM. Development and evaluation of an office ergonomic risk checklist: ROSA–Rapid office strain assessment. Appl Ergon2012; 43: 98–108.
54.
ZetterbergCHeidenMLindbergP, et al.Reliability of a new risk assessment method for visual ergonomics. Int J Ind Ergon2019; 72: 71–79.
55.
PereiraMJStrakerLMComansTA, et al.Inter-rater reliability of an observation-based ergonomics assessment checklist for office workers. Ergonomics2016; 59: 1606–1612.
56.
ChoiJ-H. Investigation of human eye pupil sizes as a measure of visual sensation in the workplace environment with a high lighting colour temperature. Indoor Built Environ2017; 26: 488–501.
57.
HemphäläH. How visual ergonomics interventions influence health and performance: doctoral thesis. Lund, Sweden: Faculty of Engineering, Lund University, 2014.
58.
XuJParkSHZhangX. A temporally irreversible visual attention model inspired by motion sensitive neurons. IEEE Trans Ind Inf2020; 16: 595–605.
59.
ZhouZLiZZhouW, et al.Resource-Saving and high-robustness image sensing based on binary optical computing. Laser Photonics Rev2025; 19: 2400936.
60.
BukhtTFNAlazebAMudawiNA, et al.Robust human interaction recognition using extended Kalman filter. Comput Mater Continua2024; 81. doi:10.32604/cmc.2024.053547
61.
LiuXYLiGZhouXH, et al.A weight-aware-based multisource unsupervised domain adaptation method for human motion intention recognition. IEEE Trans Cybern2025; 55: 3131–3143.
62.
GuKLiuHLiuY, et al.Perceptual information fidelity for quality estimation of industrial images. IEEE Trans Circuits Syst Video Technol2025; 35: 477–491.
