Self-administered questionnaire and direct observation by checklist: Comparing two methods for physical exposure surveillance in a highly repetitive tasks plant

Assessing Agreement of Self-reported and Observed Physical Exposures of the Upper Extremity

“…5 There have been many studies evaluating the validity and reliability of self-reported surveys to assess physical exposures that attribute to disorders of the low back, lower extremity and upper extremity. 6 In validity studies, self-reported surveys are often compared to reference methods such as direct observation, [7][8][9] observed videotaped work samples, 3,10 and direct measurement. 11,12 Survey items vary by study addressing issues such as the types of tasks (walking sitting), the characteristics of the exposures (time, intensity, body posture) and the associated injury risks.…”

Self‐reported physical work exposures and incident carpal tunnel syndrome

“…Two previous studies of musculoskeletal disorders included both cross-sectional comparisons of exposure methods and longitudinal comparisons of the exposure-response relationship in the same respective cohorts [Descatha et al, 2009; Somville et al, 2006]. Somville et al (2006) found modest agreement between self-reported and observed estimates, but similar relative risks for incident low back pain between self-reported and observed estimates.…”

“…Previous studies have assessed the validity of self-reported exposures by comparison to observed or directly measured exposures with varied results ranging from poor to good agreement for individual survey items [Descatha et al, 2009; Hansson et al, 2001; Latko et al, 1997; Nordstrom et al, 1998; Pope et al, 1998; Somville et al, 2006; Spielholz et al, 2001; Stock et al, 2005; Viikari-Juntura et al, 1996], leading to the frequent conclusion that self-reports are imprecise. Barrero et al (2009) suggested in a recent review that the often low agreement between self-reported and observed methods may be due to the methodological characteristics of previous studies, such as cross-sectional designs, small sample sizes, and comparison of exposures with different measurement scales, and not due to the true validity of self-reported measures for assessing exposure in working populations.…”

“…Other studies have shown no systematic differences in exposure reporting related to musculoskeletal complaints [Dale et al, 2010; Ditchen et al, 2013; Toomingas et al, 1997]. Some researchers have suggested that self-reports may evaluate a different dimension of exposure and thus may be complementary to observational methods [Descatha et al, 2009]. Most studies of physical work exposures have compared agreement between different exposure methods in cross-sectional studies rather than testing how different exposure methods predict future musculoskeletal disorders in longitudinal studies.…”

Can a Single-Item Measure Assess Physical Load at Work? An Analysis From the GAZEL Cohort

“…Although direct observation or measurement of workers is considered the criterion standard measure for ergonomic strain, self-report measures-which are less intensive and costly to administer-are often used to assess physical exposures in occupational studies. [9][10][11] In addition, self-reported measures of physical strain at work are thought to be well-suited to studies for which the goal is to rank workers by relative physical load on a population level or describe patterns in load distribution, rather than evaluate specific exposure-outcome associations that require a more nuanced exposure assessment. 12,13 In a systematic review of the performance of self-report measures for physical work demands, authors concluded that many such instruments demonstrated satisfactory reliability and validity.…”