Laptop use may be associated with poor health among University students. However, no psychometrically-sound instrument is available to measure biomechanical issues during laptop computer use in this population.
OBJECTIVE:
To evaluate the test-retest reliability of the Student Laptop Use and Musculoskeletal Posture (SLUMP) questionnaire among undergraduate University students.
PARTICIPANTS:
We invited 179 undergraduate students from two Health Sciences courses at the University of Ontario Institute of Technology to participate in the study in October 2015.
METHODS:
We conducted a test-retest reliability study. The SLUMP questionnaire, which includes 51 questions, was administered twice at a seven-day interval. We used weighted Kappa statistics to calculate test-retest reliability.
RESULTS:
Ninety-one students completed the study. 72.5% of the 51 questions achieved a Kw≥0.60 with 29.4% of questions achieving a Kw≥0.80. The reliability was similar for males and females.
CONCLUSION:
The SLUMP offers a promising method to measure biomechanical issues during laptop use among University students.
DockrellS, BennettK, Culleton-QuinnE. Computer use and musculoskeletal symptoms among undergraduate University students. Comput Educ. 2015;85:102–9.
2.
ThomeeS, EklofM, GustafssonE, NilssonR, HagbergM. Prevalence of perceived stress, symptoms of depression and sleep disturbances in relation to information and communication technology (ICT) use among young adults-an explorative prospective study. Computers in Human Behavior. 2007;23(3):1300–21.
3.
MorasR, GamarraT. A survey of ergonomic issues associated with a University laptop program. JEHD. 2007;1(2):1–15.
4.
ObembeAO, JohnsonOE, TanimowoTO, OnigbindeAT, EmecheteAA. Musculoskeletal pain among undergraduate laptop users in a Nigerian University. J Back Musculoskelet Rehabil. 2013;26(4):389–95.
5.
KatzJN, AmickBC, HupertN, CortesMC, FosselAH, ColeyCM. Prevalence of upper extremity musculoskeletal disorders in college students. Am J Med. 2000;109(7):586–8.
6.
SommerichCM, KorkmasSV. Survey response comparisons between student and teacher participants in a mobile instructional technology program in a high school setting. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting. 2008.
7.
PalmerK, CiccarelliM, FalkmerT, ParsonsR. Associations between exposure to Information and Communication Technology (ICT) and reported discomfort among adolescents. Work. 2014;48(2):165–73.
8.
KayR, LauricellaS. Gender Differences in the use of Laptops in Higher Education: A Formative Analysis. Journal of Educational Computing Research. 2011;44(3):361–80.
9.
BubricK, HedgeA. Differential patterns of laptop use and associated musculoskeletal discomfort in male and female college students. Work. 2016;55(3):1–9.
10.
KayR, LauricellaS. Assessing laptop use in higher education: The Laptop Use Scale. JCHE. 2015;27(3):1–27.
11.
MenendezCC, AmickBCIII, JenkinsM, JanowitzI, RempelDM, RobertsonM, et al.A multi-method study evaluating computing-related risk factors among college students. Work. 2007;28(4):287–97.
12.
RudolfM, GriffithsY. Evaluating the ergonomics of a student learning environment. Work. 2009;34(4):475–80.
13.
SzetoGP, LeeR. An ergonomic evaluation comparing desktop, notebook, and subnotebook computers. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2002;83(4):527–32.
14.
WerthA, Babski-ReevesK. Effects of portable computing devices on posture, muscle activation levels and efficiency. Appl Ergon. 2014;45(6):1603–9.
15.
TaibMF, BahnS, YunMH. The effect of psychosocial stress on muscle activity during computer work: Comparative study between desktop computer and mobile computing products. Work. 2016;54(3):543–55.
16.
D’SilvaC, CôtéP, MurphyB, Barakat-HaddadC. Developing and evaluating the feasibility of administering the SLUMP questionnaire for evaluating ergonomic exposures to laptop use in University students. Work. 2018;60:235–61.
17.
GrayD.Development of Instruments to Assess Physiological and Physical Neck Pain Risk Factors (Unpublished master’s thesis). 2011. University of Ontario Institute of Technology, Oshawa, Ontario.
18.
ShoukriM, AsyaliM, DonnerA. Sample size requirements for the design of reliability study: Review and new results. Stat Methods in Med Res. 2014;13(4):251–71.
19.
FleissJL, CohenJ. The equivalence of weighted kappa and the intraclass correlation coefficient as measures of reliability. Educ Psychol Meas. 1973;33(3):613–9.
CohenJ. Weighted kappa: Nominal scale agreement but low kappa: II. Resolving the paradoxes. Psychol Bull. 1968;70(4):213.
22.
CanoSJ, LampingDL, BamberL, SmithS. The Anti-Clot Treatment Scale (ACTS) in clinical trials: Cross-cultural validation in venous thromboembolism patients. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2012;10(1):1.
23.
McHughML. Interrater reliability: The kappa statistic. Bio-chemia Medica. 2012;22(3):276–82.
24.
IBM Corp. Released 2015. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 23.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp.
25.
SAS Insititute Inc. Released 2011. SAS Statistics for Windows, Version 9.3. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc.
26.
ArmstrongBG. Effect of measurement error on epi-demiological studies of environmental and occupational exposures. Occupational and Environmental Medicine. 1998;55(10):651–6.
