Group-based measurement strategies in exposure assessment explored by bootstrapping.

OBJECTIVES The precision of mean exposure to pushing was examined in 2 occupational groups using various combinations of the number of workers and measurements per worker. METHODS The frequency and duration of pushing of the 2 occupational groups was assessed using onsite observation. All data were divided into successive periods of 30 minutes of observation. The precision of the group mean exposure to pushing was expressed by 90% confidence intervals obtained by bootstrapping. The effect on the confidence interval of varying numbers of workers and numbers of periods per worker was examined. RESULTS For both occupational groups there was little precision to be gained when >10 workers were observed. Within the maximum number of workers used in the bootstrap simulations, it appeared that, beyond 10 workers, the confidence intervals decreased by <5% for every worker that was added, when each worker was observed at least 8 periods of 30 minutes. If workers were observed exactly 4 periods of 30 minutes per worker, an additional 4 workers were required to compensate for the loss of precision. An unbalanced strategy with approximately 8 periods of 30 minutes per worker hardly decreased the precision of the group mean, however. CONCLUSIONS The precision of the group-based mean exposure to pushing is influenced by the number of workers observed and by the number of repeated measurements per worker. In the planning of measurement strategies, it is advisable to account for possible sources of variance in advance and to assess the exposure variability.

[1]  T. Armstrong,et al.  A conceptual model for work-related neck and upper-limb musculoskeletal disorders. , 1993, Scandinavian journal of work, environment & health.

[2]  A J van der Beek,et al.  Assessment of mechanical exposure in ergonomic epidemiology. , 1998, Occupational and environmental medicine.

[3]  A H Briggs,et al.  Pulling cost-effectiveness analysis up by its bootstraps: a non-parametric approach to confidence interval estimation. , 1997, Health economics.

[4]  Huub M. Toussaint,et al.  Evaluation of the Probability of Spinal Damage Caused by Sustained Cyclic Compression Loading , 1997, Hum. Factors.

[5]  Monique H. W. Frings-Dresen,et al.  The TRAC-system: An observation method for analysing work demands at the workplace , 1995 .

[6]  A Burdorf,et al.  Reducing random measurement error in assessing postural load on the back in epidemiologic surveys. , 1995, Scandinavian journal of work, environment & health.

[7]  G K Lemasters,et al.  Statistical methods for describing occupational exposure measurements. , 1985, American Industrial Hygiene Association journal.

[8]  Robert Tibshirani,et al.  Bootstrap Methods for Standard Errors, Confidence Intervals, and Other Measures of Statistical Accuracy , 1986 .

[9]  A J van der Beek,et al.  Working postures and activities of lorry drivers: a reliability study of on-site observation and recording on a pocket computer. , 1992, Applied ergonomics.

[10]  Å. Kilbom,et al.  Assessment of physical exposure in relation to work-related musculoskeletal disorders--what information can be obtained from systematic observations? , 1994, Scandinavian journal of work, environment & health.

[11]  L. Sheppard,et al.  Maximizing accuracy and precision using individual and grouped exposure assessments. , 1996, Scandinavian journal of work, environment & health.

[12]  Alex Burdorf,et al.  Design of strategies to assess lumbar posture during work , 1996 .

[13]  S E Mathiassen,et al.  Assessment of physical work load in epidemiologic studies: concepts, issues and operational considerations. , 1994, Ergonomics.

[14]  A. Burdorf,et al.  Positive and negative evidence of risk factors for back disorders. , 1997, Scandinavian journal of work, environment & health.

[15]  L. Kupper,et al.  Individual-based and group-based occupational exposure assessment: some equations to evaluate different strategies. , 1998, The Annals of occupational hygiene.