Comparison of expert-rater methods for assessing psychosocial job strain

Scand J Work Environ Health. 2001 Feb;27(1):70-5. doi: 10.5271/sjweh.589.

Abstract

Objectives: This study tested the reliability and validity of industry- and mill-level expert methods for measuring psychosocial work conditions in British Columbia sawmills using the demand-control model.

Methods: In the industry-level method 4 sawmill job evaluators estimated psychosocial work conditions at a generic sawmill. In the mill-level method panels of experienced sawmill workers estimated psychosocial work conditions at 3 sawmills. Scores for psychosocial work conditions were developed using both expert methods and applied to job titles in a sawmill worker database containing self-reported health status and heart disease. The interrater reliability and the concurrent and predictive validity of the expert rater methods were assessed.

Results: The interrater reliability and concurrent reliability were higher for the mill-level method than for the industry-level method. For all the psychosocial variables the reliability for the mill-level method was greater than 0.90. The predictive validity results were inconclusive.

Conclusions: The greater reliability and concurrent validity of the mill-level method indicates that panels of experienced workers should be considered as potential experts in future studies measuring psychosocial work conditions.

Publication types

  • Comparative Study
  • Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

MeSH terms

  • Adult
  • British Columbia
  • Confidence Intervals
  • Data Collection
  • Female
  • Forestry*
  • Humans
  • Logistic Models
  • Male
  • Middle Aged
  • Occupational Diseases / diagnosis*
  • Occupational Health*
  • Odds Ratio
  • Predictive Value of Tests
  • Psychology
  • Reproducibility of Results
  • Sensitivity and Specificity
  • Stress, Psychological / diagnosis*
  • Task Performance and Analysis*
  • Workload*