medigraphic.com

2007, Number 3

<< Back Next >>

Rev Med Inst Mex Seguro Soc 2007; 45 (3)

Reliability and Validity of a Generic Job Exposure Matrix Applied on a Small-Business

Haro-García L, Celis-Quintal G, López-Rojas P, Sánchez-Román FR, Juárez-Pérez CA

Language: Spanish
References: 21
Page: 255-263
PDF size: 184.32 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Objective: to evaluate the reliability and validity of a generic job exposure matrix (JEM) applied in a small business.
Methodology: procedures to evaluate a JEM integrated by six sections: the number of exposed workers per area, frequency of exposure, time of exposure time, level of exposure, safety controls, and proximity to source of exposure, was evaluated. The JEM also obtains information about possible health effects from exposure to occupational/environment agents. Two observers estimated the risk of exposure to epoxy resins on 31 workers of an epoxy resin facility in Mexico City. The rater agreements between the two observers were assessed through percent agreement (PA), weighted kappa (kw) and the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC).
Results: disagreements were greater for the number of exposed workers (PA = 61.3, kw = 0.24, ICC = 0.33), level of exposure (PA= 66.7, kw = 0.25, ICC= 0.56), and safety controls (PA = 54.8, kw = 0.23, ICC = 0.69) sections. Percent agreement and kw were 64 % and 0.58, respectively. In accordance with Landis and Koch, Altman, Fleiss, and Byrt classifications for the interpretation of kappa value, the weighted kappa (0.58) ranged from moderate to a fair good level.
Conclusions: despite the discordance in some sections, the JEM proved to be useful to identify the risk of exposure in this type of small business.


REFERENCES

  1. Teschke K, Olshan AF, Daniels JL, De Roos AJ, Parks CG, Schulz M et al. Occupational exposure assessment in case-control studies: opportunities for improvement. Occup Environ Med 2002;59: 575-594.

  2. London L, Myers JE. Use of a crop and job specific exposure matrix for retrospective assessment of long term exposure in studies of chronic neurotoxic effects of agrochemicals. Occup Environ Med 1998;55:194-201.

  3. Adegoke OJ, Blair A, Shu XO, Sanderson M, Addy CL, Dosemeci M et al. Agreement of job-exposure matrix (JEM) assessed exposure and self-reported exposure among adult leukemia patients and controls in Shanghai. Am J Ind Med 2004;45:281-288.

  4. Goldberg M, Kromhout H, Guenel P, Fletcher AC, Gerin M, Glass DC et al. Job exposure matrices in industry. Int J Epidemiol 1993;22(Suppl 2):S10-S15.

  5. Dickel H, Kuss O, Scmidt A, Diepgen TL. Occupational relevance of positive standard patch-test results in employed persons with an initial report of an occupational skin disease. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 2002;75(6):423-434.

  6. Lewis RJ, Friedlander BR, Bhojani FA, Schorr WP, Salatich PG, Lawhorn EG. Reliability and validity of an occupational health history questionnaire. J Occup Environ Med 2002;44(1):39-47.

  7. Yeung SS, Genaidy AM, Karwowski W, Leung PC. Reliability and validity of self-reported assessment of exposure and outcome variables for manual lifting tasks: a preliminary investigation. Appl Ergon 2002;33(5):463-469.

  8. Bouyer J, Hemon D. Studying the performance of a job exposure matrix. Int J Epidemiol 1993;22(Suppl 2):S65-S71.

  9. Sánchez RR, Aguilar MG, Juárez PC, Haro GL, Borja AVH. Occupational Health in Mexico. Int J Occup Environ Health 2006. En prensa.

  10. Hawkins N, Norwood S, Rock J. A strategy of occupational exposure assessment. AIHA Exposure Assessment Strategy Committee 1986-1989.Akron, Ohio: American Industrial Hygiene Association; 1991. p. 11, 29.

  11. Szklo M, Nieto J. Epidemiology. Beyond the basics. Geithersburg, MD: Jones and Bartlett Publishers, Inc.; 2004. p. 343.

  12. Fajardo GA, Yamamoto KLT, Garduño EJ, Hernández HDM, Martínez GMC. Consistencia y validez de una medición en la investigación clínica pediátrica. Definición, evaluación y su interpretación. Bol Med Hosp Infant Mex 1991;48(5):367-380.

  13. Feinstein AR. Clinimetrics. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press; 1987. p. 141.

  14. Maher N. The application of a job exposure matrix in the natural gas industry. AIHA J 2003; 64(6):806-814.

  15. Semple SE, Dick F, Cherrie JW. Geoparkinson Study Group. Exposure assessment for a population-based case-control study combining a job-exposure matrix with interview data. Scand J Work Environ Health 2004;30(3):241-248.

  16. Benke G, Sim M, Fritschi L, Aldred G. Beyond the job exposure matrix (JEM): the task exposure matrix (TEM). Ann Occup Hyg 2000;44(6):475-482.

  17. Johansen C, Raaschou-Nielsen O, Skotte J, Thomsen BL, Olsen JH. Validation of a job-exposure matrix for assessment of utility worker exposure to magnetic fields. Appl Occup Environ Hyg 2002;17(4):304-310.

  18. de Vocht F, Zock JP, Kromhout H, Sunyer J, Anto JM, Burney P, Kogevinas M. Comparison of self-reported occupational exposure with a job exposure matrix in an international community-based study on asthma. Am J Ind Med 2005;47(5):434-442.

  19. Friesen MC, Demers PA, Spinelli JJ, Le ND. Validation of a semi-quantitative job exposure matrix at a Soderberg aluminum smelter. Ann Occup Hyg 2003;47(6):477-484.

  20. Wood D, Astrakianakis G, Lang B, Le N, Bert J. Development of an agricultural job-exposure matrix for British Columbia. Can J Occup Environ Med 2002;44(9):865-873.

  21. Fritschi L, Siemiatycki J, Richardson L. Self-assessed versus expert-assessed occupational exposures. Am J Epidemiol 1996;144(5):521-527.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com