ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Comparison of expert-rater methods for assessing psychosocial job strain
More details
Hide details
Publication date: 2001-02-01
Corresponding author
Department of Health Care and Epidemiology, 5804 Fairview Avenue, Vancouver BC, V6T 1Z3, Canada. ostry@interchange.ubc.ca
Scand J Work Environ Health 2001;27(1):70-75
KEYWORDS
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.