BACKGROUND: A method of occupational physical exposure assessment is needed to improve analyses using large data sets (e.g., national surveys) that provide only job title/category information as a proxy for exposure. METHODS: Five ergonomic experts rated and arrived at consensus ratings for job categories used in the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Interrater agreement was examined for initial (pre-consensus) ratings. Correlation between consensus ratings and an independent source of ratings (US Department of Labor (DOL)) was used as a basis of comparison. RESULTS: Interrater agreements for the initial ratings were weak. Highest interrater agreement was for sitting (weighted kappa (kappa(w)) = 0.56). Lowest agreement was for standing (kappa(w) = 0.07). Consensus ratings were well correlated with DOL ratings (correlation coefficients >or=0.6). CONCLUSIONS: The correlation between consensus ratings and DOL ratings support the use of expert consensus to assess physical exposures in national data sets. However, validation of expert consensus ratings is required. (c) 2007 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
BACKGROUND: A method of occupational physical exposure assessment is needed to improve analyses using large data sets (e.g., national surveys) that provide only job title/category information as a proxy for exposure. METHODS: Five ergonomic experts rated and arrived at consensus ratings for job categories used in the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Interrater agreement was examined for initial (pre-consensus) ratings. Correlation between consensus ratings and an independent source of ratings (US Department of Labor (DOL)) was used as a basis of comparison. RESULTS: Interrater agreements for the initial ratings were weak. Highest interrater agreement was for sitting (weighted kappa (kappa(w)) = 0.56). Lowest agreement was for standing (kappa(w) = 0.07). Consensus ratings were well correlated with DOL ratings (correlation coefficients >or=0.6). CONCLUSIONS: The correlation between consensus ratings and DOL ratings support the use of expert consensus to assess physical exposures in national data sets. However, validation of expert consensus ratings is required. (c) 2007 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
Authors: Ann Marie Dale; Angelique Zeringue; Carisa Harris-Adamson; David Rempel; Stephen Bao; Matthew S Thiese; Linda Merlino; Susan Burt; Jay Kapellusch; Arun Garg; Fred Gerr; Kurt T Hegmann; Ellen A Eisen; Bradley Evanoff Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2015-02-19 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Bethany T Gardner; David A Lombardi; Ann Marie Dale; Alfred Franzblau; Bradley A Evanoff Journal: Occup Environ Med Date: 2010-04-21 Impact factor: 4.402
Authors: Anne Møller; Ole Steen Mortensen; Susanne Reventlow; Peder Georg Skov; Johan Hviid Andersen; Tine Steen Rubak; Ase Marie Hansen; Lars L Andersen; Rikke Lund; Merete Osler; Ulla Christensen; Kirsten Avlund Journal: JMIR Res Protoc Date: 2012-07-27
Authors: Emil Sundstrup; Åse Marie Hansen; Erik Lykke Mortensen; Otto Melchior Poulsen; Thomas Clausen; Reiner Rugulies; Anne Møller; Lars Louis Andersen Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2016-07-22 Impact factor: 3.295