Validation of a self-administered questionnaire for assessing exposure to back pain mechanical risk factors

Abstract

Objective: To validate a self-administered questionnaire assessing exposure to mechanical risk factors, developed for a cohort study aiming at assessing the influence of physical and psycho-social factors on the incidence of low back pain (LBP). Methods: The study first involved a criterion validity test. A sample of the cohort workers (n=152) was observed at the workplace during four 30 min periods randomly distributed along the shift. At the end of the work shift, the questionnaire was filled in both by the worker and the observer. Agreements were tested between self-reports and observations, and between self-reports and observer opinion. Secondly, a comparison of exposure-effect relationships based on self-reports to those based on observations was carried out on the whole study cohort (n=716). Both sets of Relative Risks of being an incident case (LBP lasting at least 7 consecutive days in the follow-up year) were tested for heterogeneity. Results: Self-reports agreement levels were better with observer opinion than with observational data and were higher for answers at a dichotomous level. Vehicle driving, manual handling without estimation of weight and frequencies, or trunk bending without rotation showed a fair to good agreement with the external criteria. Limits in the validation procedure did not allow validating the sitting and standing durations. As regards the health outcome comparison, questionnaire and observations led to homogeneous Relative Risks for the variables tested. Conclusions: Results show that self-reports provide a limited accuracy to assess actual frequencies and durations of work activities. Using a questionnaire, classifying the workers into exposure categories is rather relative, but questionnaire and observations seem similar in their relationships to outcome.

Reliability of job-title based physical work exposures for the upper extremity: comparison to self-reported and observed exposure estimates

“…Our results showed substantially better agreement between job-title based exposure estimates and observed exposures than for self-reported physical exposures. Generally, past studies report less precise exposure estimates from self-reported data,42–44 although worker self-reported ratings have shown more accuracy with forceful tasks 45…”

Comparison of Nurse, System and Quality Patient Care Outcomes in 8-Hour and 12-Hour Shifts

“…It is well documented that employee reporting of occupational injury using institutional mechanisms is low 26,27 and selfreport of employee occupational health outcomes using survey methods has been validated. 28 Therefore, we directly asked respondents their history of occupational injury and absences in the last 4 months. This recall period was chosen because these are somewhat rare events, but the longer the period, the more likely a respondent is to underestimate the occurrence.…”

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.…”