Suppr超能文献

暴露评估者根据职业问卷类型和评估者类型对暴露强度进行评级的有效性和可靠性。

Validity and reliability of exposure assessors' ratings of exposure intensity by type of occupational questionnaire and type of rater.

作者信息

Friesen Melissa C, Coble Joseph B, Katki Hormuzd A, Ji Bu-Tian, Xue Shouzheng, Lu Wei, Stewart Patricia A

机构信息

Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, 6120 Executive Blvd., Bethesda, MD 20892-7240, USA.

出版信息

Ann Occup Hyg. 2011 Jul;55(6):601-11. doi: 10.1093/annhyg/mer019. Epub 2011 Apr 21.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

In epidemiologic studies that rely on professional judgment to assess occupational exposures, the raters' accurate assessment is vital to detect associations. We examined the influence of the type of questionnaire, type of industry, and type of rater on the raters' ability to reliably and validly assess within-industry differences in exposure. Our aim was to identify areas where improvements in exposure assessment may be possible.

METHODS

Subjects from three foundries (n = 72) and three textile plants (n = 74) in Shanghai, China, completed an occupational history (OH) and an industry-specific questionnaire (IQ). Six total dust measurements were collected per subject and were used to calculate a subject-specific measurement mean, which was used as the gold standard. Six raters independently ranked the intensity of each subject's current job on an ordinal scale (1-4) based on the OH alone and on the OH and IQ together. Aggregate ratings were calculated for the group, for industrial hygienists, and for occupational physicians. We calculated intra-class correlation coefficients (ICCs) to evaluate the reliability of the raters. We calculated the correlation between the subject-specific measurement means and the ratings to evaluate the raters' validity. Analyses were stratified by industry, type of questionnaire, and type of rater. We also examined the agreement between the ratings by exposure category, where the subject-specific measurement means were categorized into two and four categories.

RESULTS

The reliability and validity measures were higher for the aggregate ratings than for the ratings from the individual raters. The group's performance was maximized with three raters. Both the reliability and validity measures were higher for the foundry industry than for the textile industry. The ICCs were consistently lower in the OH/IQ round than in the OH round in both industries. In contrast, the correlations with the measurement means were higher in the OH/IQ round than in the OH round for the foundry industry (group rating, OH/IQ: Spearman rho = 0.77; OH: rho = 0.64). No pattern by questionnaire type was observed for the textile industry (group rating, Spearman rho = 0.50, both assessment rounds). For both industries, the agreement by exposure category was higher when the task was reduced to discriminating between two versus four exposure categories.

CONCLUSIONS

Assessments based on professional judgment may reduce misclassification by using two or three raters, by using questionnaires that systematically collect task information, and by defining intensity categories that are distinguishable by the raters. However, few studies have the resources to use multiple raters and these additional efforts may not be adequate for obtaining valid subjective ratings. Thus, improving exposure assessment approaches for studies that rely on professional judgment remain an important research need.

摘要

背景

在依靠专业判断来评估职业暴露的流行病学研究中,评估者的准确评估对于发现关联至关重要。我们研究了问卷类型、行业类型和评估者类型对评估者可靠且有效评估行业内暴露差异能力的影响。我们的目的是确定在哪些方面有可能改进暴露评估。

方法

来自中国上海的三家铸造厂(n = 72)和三家纺织厂(n = 74)的受试者完成了一份职业史(OH)问卷和一份特定行业问卷(IQ)。每位受试者共收集了六次总粉尘测量数据,并用于计算受试者特定的测量均值,该均值用作金标准。六名评估者分别仅根据职业史以及根据职业史和特定行业问卷对每位受试者当前工作的强度按顺序量表(1 - 4)进行排名。计算了该组、工业卫生学家和职业医生的综合评分。我们计算了组内相关系数(ICC)以评估评估者的可靠性。我们计算了受试者特定测量均值与评分之间的相关性以评估评估者的有效性。分析按行业、问卷类型和评估者类型进行分层。我们还检查了按暴露类别划分的评分之间的一致性,其中受试者特定的测量均值被分为两类和四类。

结果

综合评分的可靠性和有效性指标高于个体评估者的评分。三名评估者时该组的表现最佳。铸造行业的可靠性和有效性指标均高于纺织行业。在两个行业中,职业史/特定行业问卷轮次的组内相关系数始终低于职业史轮次。相比之下,铸造行业职业史/特定行业问卷轮次与测量均值的相关性高于职业史轮次(组评分,职业史/特定行业问卷:Spearman rho = 0.77;职业史:rho = 0.64)。纺织行业未观察到按问卷类型的模式(组评分,Spearman rho = 0.50,两个评估轮次)。对于两个行业,当任务简化为区分两类与四类暴露类别时,按暴露类别划分的一致性更高。

结论

基于专业判断的评估可能通过使用两到三名评估者、使用系统收集任务信息的问卷以及定义评估者可区分的强度类别来减少错误分类。然而,很少有研究有资源使用多名评估者,并且这些额外的努力可能不足以获得有效的主观评分。因此,改进依赖专业判断的研究的暴露评估方法仍然是一项重要的研究需求。

相似文献

4
Retrospective Assessment of Occupational Exposures for the GENEVA Study of ALS among Military Veterans.
Ann Work Expo Health. 2017 Apr 1;61(3):299-310. doi: 10.1093/annweh/wxw028.
10
Differences in inter-rater reliability and accuracy for a treatment adherence scale.
Cogn Behav Ther. 2007;36(4):230-9. doi: 10.1080/16506070701584367.

引用本文的文献

1
Exposure modelling in Europe: how to pave the road for the future as part of the European Exposure Science Strategy 2020-2030.
J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol. 2022 Jul;32(4):499-512. doi: 10.1038/s41370-022-00455-4. Epub 2022 Aug 2.
3
Validity of retrospective occupational exposure estimates of lead and manganese in a case-control study.
Occup Environ Med. 2019 Sep;76(9):680-687. doi: 10.1136/oemed-2019-105744. Epub 2019 Jul 15.
4
Validation of self-reported occupational noise exposure in participants of a French case-control study on acoustic neuroma.
Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 2019 Oct;92(7):991-1001. doi: 10.1007/s00420-019-01427-2. Epub 2019 Apr 26.
5
Retrospective Assessment of Occupational Exposures for the GENEVA Study of ALS among Military Veterans.
Ann Work Expo Health. 2017 Apr 1;61(3):299-310. doi: 10.1093/annweh/wxw028.
6
Wishful Thinking? Inside the Black Box of Exposure Assessment.
Ann Occup Hyg. 2016 May;60(4):421-31. doi: 10.1093/annhyg/mev098. Epub 2016 Jan 13.
8
Log-Linear Modeling of Agreement among Expert Exposure Assessors.
Ann Occup Hyg. 2015 Jul;59(6):764-74. doi: 10.1093/annhyg/mev011. Epub 2015 Mar 6.

本文引用的文献

1
Occupational exposure decisions: can limited data interpretation training help improve accuracy?
Ann Occup Hyg. 2009 Jun;53(4):311-24. doi: 10.1093/annhyg/mep011. Epub 2009 Mar 30.
2
Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability.
Psychol Bull. 1979 Mar;86(2):420-8. doi: 10.1037//0033-2909.86.2.420.
3
Inter-rater agreement in the assessment of exposure to carcinogens in the offshore petroleum industry.
Occup Environ Med. 2007 Sep;64(9):582-8. doi: 10.1136/oem.2006.030528. Epub 2007 Jan 16.
4
Impact of the specificity of the exposure metric on exposure-response relationships.
Epidemiology. 2007 Jan;18(1):88-94. doi: 10.1097/01.ede.0000249558.18960.6b.
5
Inter-rater agreement of assessed prenatal maternal occupational exposures to lead.
Birth Defects Res A Clin Mol Teratol. 2006 Nov;76(11):811-24. doi: 10.1002/bdra.20311.
6
Assessing exposure misclassification by expert assessment in multicenter occupational studies.
Epidemiology. 2003 Sep;14(5):585-92. doi: 10.1097/01.ede.0000072108.66723.0f.
7
Validation of a semi-quantitative job exposure matrix at a Söderberg aluminum smelter.
Ann Occup Hyg. 2003 Aug;47(6):477-84. doi: 10.1093/annhyg/meg059.
8
Validation of expert assessment of occupational exposures.
Am J Ind Med. 2003 May;43(5):519-22. doi: 10.1002/ajim.10208.
9
Occupational exposure assessment in case-control studies: opportunities for improvement.
Occup Environ Med. 2002 Sep;59(9):575-93; discussion 594. doi: 10.1136/oem.59.9.575.
10
A training exercise in subjectively estimating inhalation exposures.
Scand J Work Environ Health. 2001 Dec;27(6):395-401. doi: 10.5271/sjweh.632.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验