Validation of self-reported occupational exposures in meatpacking workers

Lina Lander, Gary Sorock, Terry L Stentz, Ellen A. Eisen, Murray Mittleman, Russ Hauser, Melissa J. Perry

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

6 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective: The ability of workers to accurately recall exposures that occur on the day of their injury is considered a potential limitation of case-crossover studies. This study assessed validity of occupational exposures reported by uninjured workers at a Midwestern meatpacking plant. Methods: One hundred thirty-six workers were observed for 60 min while working and then interviewed within 8 days (median 3 days) about exposures during the observation period. The level of agreement between self-reports and direct observations was assessed using kappas and intraclass correlation coefficients. Results: Excellent agreement was found between observed and reported work location (κ=0.97, 95% CI: 0.92-1.0), task (κ=0.83, 95% CI: 0.76-0.91) and tools used (κ=0.88, 95% CI: 0.81-0.95). Personal protective equipment varied by work type and location, and agreement between observed and reported usage varied from excellent to poor for various items. Excellent agreement was found for tool sharpening (κ=0.89, 95% CI: 0.82-0.97); good agreement for occurrence of break during the observation period (κ=0.60, 95% CI: 0.45-0.74); and poor agreement for equipment malfunction, line stoppages, being tired, unusual task, unusual work method, being distracted, rushing, slipping, or falling. Conclusions: Agreement between observed and reported occupational exposures varied widely. Self-reported exposures are utilized in many occupational studies, and future exposure validity assessment studies should continue to improve retrospective study methods. Valid exposures will allow researchers to better understand injury etiology and ultimately prevent injuries from occurring.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)707-715
Number of pages9
JournalAmerican Journal of Industrial Medicine
Volume52
Issue number9
DOIs
StatePublished - Sep 1 2009

Fingerprint

Occupational Exposure
Workplace
Wounds and Injuries
Observation
Equipment Failure
Cross-Over Studies
Self Report
Retrospective Studies
Research Personnel

Keywords

  • Meatpacking
  • Observation
  • Occupational exposure
  • Validation

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health

Cite this

Lander, L., Sorock, G., Stentz, T. L., Eisen, E. A., Mittleman, M., Hauser, R., & Perry, M. J. (2009). Validation of self-reported occupational exposures in meatpacking workers. American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 52(9), 707-715. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajim.20721

Validation of self-reported occupational exposures in meatpacking workers. / Lander, Lina; Sorock, Gary; Stentz, Terry L; Eisen, Ellen A.; Mittleman, Murray; Hauser, Russ; Perry, Melissa J.

In: American Journal of Industrial Medicine, Vol. 52, No. 9, 01.09.2009, p. 707-715.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Lander, L, Sorock, G, Stentz, TL, Eisen, EA, Mittleman, M, Hauser, R & Perry, MJ 2009, 'Validation of self-reported occupational exposures in meatpacking workers', American Journal of Industrial Medicine, vol. 52, no. 9, pp. 707-715. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajim.20721
Lander, Lina ; Sorock, Gary ; Stentz, Terry L ; Eisen, Ellen A. ; Mittleman, Murray ; Hauser, Russ ; Perry, Melissa J. / Validation of self-reported occupational exposures in meatpacking workers. In: American Journal of Industrial Medicine. 2009 ; Vol. 52, No. 9. pp. 707-715.
@article{d4018445a78e47bc92f75ce09bbee30c,
title = "Validation of self-reported occupational exposures in meatpacking workers",
abstract = "Objective: The ability of workers to accurately recall exposures that occur on the day of their injury is considered a potential limitation of case-crossover studies. This study assessed validity of occupational exposures reported by uninjured workers at a Midwestern meatpacking plant. Methods: One hundred thirty-six workers were observed for 60 min while working and then interviewed within 8 days (median 3 days) about exposures during the observation period. The level of agreement between self-reports and direct observations was assessed using kappas and intraclass correlation coefficients. Results: Excellent agreement was found between observed and reported work location (κ=0.97, 95{\%} CI: 0.92-1.0), task (κ=0.83, 95{\%} CI: 0.76-0.91) and tools used (κ=0.88, 95{\%} CI: 0.81-0.95). Personal protective equipment varied by work type and location, and agreement between observed and reported usage varied from excellent to poor for various items. Excellent agreement was found for tool sharpening (κ=0.89, 95{\%} CI: 0.82-0.97); good agreement for occurrence of break during the observation period (κ=0.60, 95{\%} CI: 0.45-0.74); and poor agreement for equipment malfunction, line stoppages, being tired, unusual task, unusual work method, being distracted, rushing, slipping, or falling. Conclusions: Agreement between observed and reported occupational exposures varied widely. Self-reported exposures are utilized in many occupational studies, and future exposure validity assessment studies should continue to improve retrospective study methods. Valid exposures will allow researchers to better understand injury etiology and ultimately prevent injuries from occurring.",
keywords = "Meatpacking, Observation, Occupational exposure, Validation",
author = "Lina Lander and Gary Sorock and Stentz, {Terry L} and Eisen, {Ellen A.} and Murray Mittleman and Russ Hauser and Perry, {Melissa J.}",
year = "2009",
month = "9",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1002/ajim.20721",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "52",
pages = "707--715",
journal = "American Journal of Industrial Medicine",
issn = "0271-3586",
publisher = "Wiley-Liss Inc.",
number = "9",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Validation of self-reported occupational exposures in meatpacking workers

AU - Lander, Lina

AU - Sorock, Gary

AU - Stentz, Terry L

AU - Eisen, Ellen A.

AU - Mittleman, Murray

AU - Hauser, Russ

AU - Perry, Melissa J.

PY - 2009/9/1

Y1 - 2009/9/1

N2 - Objective: The ability of workers to accurately recall exposures that occur on the day of their injury is considered a potential limitation of case-crossover studies. This study assessed validity of occupational exposures reported by uninjured workers at a Midwestern meatpacking plant. Methods: One hundred thirty-six workers were observed for 60 min while working and then interviewed within 8 days (median 3 days) about exposures during the observation period. The level of agreement between self-reports and direct observations was assessed using kappas and intraclass correlation coefficients. Results: Excellent agreement was found between observed and reported work location (κ=0.97, 95% CI: 0.92-1.0), task (κ=0.83, 95% CI: 0.76-0.91) and tools used (κ=0.88, 95% CI: 0.81-0.95). Personal protective equipment varied by work type and location, and agreement between observed and reported usage varied from excellent to poor for various items. Excellent agreement was found for tool sharpening (κ=0.89, 95% CI: 0.82-0.97); good agreement for occurrence of break during the observation period (κ=0.60, 95% CI: 0.45-0.74); and poor agreement for equipment malfunction, line stoppages, being tired, unusual task, unusual work method, being distracted, rushing, slipping, or falling. Conclusions: Agreement between observed and reported occupational exposures varied widely. Self-reported exposures are utilized in many occupational studies, and future exposure validity assessment studies should continue to improve retrospective study methods. Valid exposures will allow researchers to better understand injury etiology and ultimately prevent injuries from occurring.

AB - Objective: The ability of workers to accurately recall exposures that occur on the day of their injury is considered a potential limitation of case-crossover studies. This study assessed validity of occupational exposures reported by uninjured workers at a Midwestern meatpacking plant. Methods: One hundred thirty-six workers were observed for 60 min while working and then interviewed within 8 days (median 3 days) about exposures during the observation period. The level of agreement between self-reports and direct observations was assessed using kappas and intraclass correlation coefficients. Results: Excellent agreement was found between observed and reported work location (κ=0.97, 95% CI: 0.92-1.0), task (κ=0.83, 95% CI: 0.76-0.91) and tools used (κ=0.88, 95% CI: 0.81-0.95). Personal protective equipment varied by work type and location, and agreement between observed and reported usage varied from excellent to poor for various items. Excellent agreement was found for tool sharpening (κ=0.89, 95% CI: 0.82-0.97); good agreement for occurrence of break during the observation period (κ=0.60, 95% CI: 0.45-0.74); and poor agreement for equipment malfunction, line stoppages, being tired, unusual task, unusual work method, being distracted, rushing, slipping, or falling. Conclusions: Agreement between observed and reported occupational exposures varied widely. Self-reported exposures are utilized in many occupational studies, and future exposure validity assessment studies should continue to improve retrospective study methods. Valid exposures will allow researchers to better understand injury etiology and ultimately prevent injuries from occurring.

KW - Meatpacking

KW - Observation

KW - Occupational exposure

KW - Validation

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=68949146763&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=68949146763&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1002/ajim.20721

DO - 10.1002/ajim.20721

M3 - Article

VL - 52

SP - 707

EP - 715

JO - American Journal of Industrial Medicine

JF - American Journal of Industrial Medicine

SN - 0271-3586

IS - 9

ER -