American Journal of Epidemiology Vol. 148, No. 9: 920-926
Copyright © 1998 by The Johns Hopkins University School of Hygiene and Public Health
other |
Reliability of Reported Occupational History Information for US Coal Miners, 1969–1977
From the Epidemiological Investigations Branch, Division of Respiratory Disease Studies, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health Morgantown, WV
Reprint requests to Patricia S. Brower, Epidemiological Investigations Branch, Division of Respiratory Disease Studies, MS-234, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, 1095 Willowdale Road, Morgantown, WV 26505-2888.
For estimating reliable exposure-response relations it is necessary that random variation in both the response and the exposure variables be sufficiently small. Variability in cumulative exposures can arise from uncertainties in self-reported work histories from interviews. In most epidemiologic surveys, the information gathered from questionnaires is used without knowing the validity or reproducibility of these data. This paper investigates the reliability of occupational histories reported by the same individuals on two occasions separated by 9 years in the US National Study of Coal Workers' Pneumoconiosis and its implications on the exposure-response relation for simple coal workers' pneumoconiosis. For 480 coal miners, from whom occupational histories were obtained twice (in 1969–1971 and 1977–1981), the reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient) of the cumulative exposures generated from each work history was 87%. Logistic model fitting of simple coal workers' pneumoconiosis prevalence to the cumulative coal dust exposure produced almost identical results. After accounting for intersurvey variability in the occupational histories, the authors found that the exposure-response coefficients estimated from information reported at the surveys were attenuated by 12%. In epidemiologic studies, knowledge of the reproducibility of self-reported occupational history information is important to ascertain whether the true exposure effect is underestimated. Am J Epidemiol 1998; 148: 920–6.
occupational exposure; questionnaires; reliability
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  K Teschke, A F Olshan, J L Daniels, A J De Roos, C G Parks, M Schulz, T L Vaughan, and H Kromhout Occupational exposure assessment in case-control studies: opportunities for improvement Occup. Environ. Med., September 1, 2002; 59(9): 575 - 594. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. M Kennedy, N. Le Moual, D. Choudat, and F. Kauffmann Development of an asthma specific job exposure matrix and its application in the epidemiological study of genetics and environment in asthma (EGEA) Occup. Environ. Med., September 1, 2000; 57(9): 635 - 641. [Abstract] [Full Text]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. Brisman, B. Jarvholm, and L. Lillienberg Exposure-response relations for self reported asthma and rhinitis in bakers Occup. Environ. Med., May 1, 2000; 57(5): 335 - 340. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|