Skip to main content
Log in

Validity of a diary estimating exposure to tasks, activities, and postures of the trunk

  • Original Article
  • Published:
International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The validity of a diary that estimates exposure to tasks, activities, and postures of the trunk was determined by comparing these self-reported exposure data with observational data of a whole working day. Two populations were studied: 32 professional drivers and five nurses. The nurses and 16 drivers also filled out a shortened version of the diary during another working day. Both versions of the diary showed poor agreement with observations over the same period. However, for variables concerning activities and postures of the trunk agreement was improved by the shortening of the diary. It is concluded that in epidemiologic studies observational measurements of exposure cannot validly be replaced by diaries or similar self-reported exposure data, because the self-reports easily lead to misclassification.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Ahlbom A, Axelson O, Støttrup Hansen E, Hogstedt C, Jensen UJ, Olsen J (1990) Interpretation of “negative” studies in occupational epidemiology. Scand J Work Environ Health 16:153–157

    Google Scholar 

  2. Ahlborg GA Jr (1990) Validity of exposure data obtained by questionaire: two examples from occupational reproductive studies. Scand J Work Environ Health 16:284–288

    Google Scholar 

  3. Armstrong TJ, Buckle P, Fine LJ, Hagberg M, Johnson B, Kilbom Å, Kuorinka IAA, Silverstein BA, Sjogaard G, ViikariJuntura ERA (1993) A conceptual model for work-related neck and upper-limb musculoskeletal disorders. Scand J Work Environ Health 19:73–84

    Google Scholar 

  4. Armstrong BK, White E, Saracci R (1992) Principles of exposure measurement in epidemiology. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  5. Baty D, Buckle PW, Stubbs DA (1986) Posture recording by direct observation, questionaire assessment and instrumentation: a comparison based on a recent field study. In: Wilson JR, Corlett EN, Manenica I (eds) The ergonomics of working postures. Proceedings of the 1st International Occupational Ergonomics Symposium, April 1985. Taylor & Francis, London New York Philadelphia, pp 283–292

    Google Scholar 

  6. Borg GAV (1982) A category scale with ratio properties for intermodal and interindividual comparisons. In: Geissler HG, Petzhold P (eds) Psychophysical judgement and the process of perception. VEB Deutscher Verlag der Wissenschaften, Berlin, pp 25–34

    Google Scholar 

  7. Burdorf A (1992) Exposure assessment of risk factors for disorders of the back in occupational epidemiology. Scand J Work Environ Health 18:1–9

    Google Scholar 

  8. Burdorf A, Laan J (1991) Comparison of methods for the assessment of postural load on the back. Scand J Work Environ Health 17:425–429

    Google Scholar 

  9. Colombini D, Occhipinti E, Molteni G, Grieco A, Pedotti A, Boccardi S, Frigo C, Menoni O (1985) Posture analysis. Ergonomics 28:275–284

    Google Scholar 

  10. De Looze MP, Toussaint HM, Ensink J, Mangnus C, Van der Beek AJ (1994) The validity of visual observation to assess posture in a laboratory-simulated material handling task. Ergonomics (in press)

  11. Douwes M, Dul J (1991) Validity and reliability of estimating body angles by direct and indirect observations. In: Quéinnec Y, Daniellou F (eds) Designing for everyone. Proceedings of the 11th Congress of the International Ergonomics Association, July 1991. Taylor & Francis, London New York Philadelphia, pp 885–887

    Google Scholar 

  12. Genaidy AM, Simmons RJ, Guo L, Hidalgo JA (1993) Can visual perception be used to estimate body part angles? Ergonomics 36:323–329

    Google Scholar 

  13. Hildebrandt VH, Douwes M (1991) Vragenlijst bewegingsapparaat: de validiteit van gerapporteerde romphoudingen en rugklachten bij vergelijking van beroepsgroepen. DirectorateGeneral of Labour, The Hague (S 122-3)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Kant IJ, Notermans JHV, Borm PJA (1990) Observations of working postures in garages using the Ovako Working Posture Analysing System (OWAS) and consequent workload reduction recommendations. Ergonomics 33:209–220

    Google Scholar 

  15. Kiegeland P (1990) Anforderungen, Beanspruchung and verkehrsrelevante Einstellungen von Berufskraftfährem. Verlag TUV Rheinland, Köln

    Google Scholar 

  16. Kivi P, Matilla M (1991) Analysis and improvement of work postures in the building industry: application of the computerised OWAS method. Appl Ergon 21:43–48

    Google Scholar 

  17. Lammi S, Viikari-Juntura E, Kuosma E, Häkkänen M, Ahonen M, Riihimäki H, Takala E-P, Saarenmaa K (1993) Validation of a questionnaire for estimation of self-reported physical load against observation analysis. In: Proceedings of the 24th Congress of the International Commission of Occupational Health, September 1993. ICOH, Nice, p 151

    Google Scholar 

  18. Maclure M, Willett WC (1987) Misinterpretation and misuse of the kappa statistic. Am J Epidemiol 126:161–169

    Google Scholar 

  19. Ridd JE, Nicholson AS, Montan AJ (1989) A portable microcomputer bases system for “on site” activity and posture recording. In: Megaw ED (ed) Contemporary ergonomics 1989. Proceedings of the Ergonomics Society Conference, April 1989. Taylor & Francis, London New York Philadelphia, pp 366–371

    Google Scholar 

  20. Rossignol M, Baetz J (1987) Task-related risk factors for spinal injury: validation of a self-administered questionnaire on hospital employees. Ergonomics 30:1531–1540

    Google Scholar 

  21. Rothman KJ (1986) Modern epidemiology. Little, Brown and Company, Boston Toronto

    Google Scholar 

  22. Suen HK, Ary D (1989) Analyzing quantitative behavioral observation data. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale

    Google Scholar 

  23. Van der Beek AJ, Van Gaalen LC, Frings-Dresen MHW (1992) Working postures and activities of lorry drivers: a reliability study of on-site observation and recording on a pocket computer. Appl Ergon 23:331–336

    Google Scholar 

  24. Wiktorin C, Karlqvist L, Winkel J, Stockholm MUSIC I study group (1993) Validity of self-reported exposures to work postures and manual materials handling. Scand J Work Environ Health 19:208–214

    Google Scholar 

  25. Woodcock Webb K (1988) Self-reports in ergonomics: agreement between workers and ergonomist. In: Aghazadeh F (ed) Trends in ergonomics/human factors V. Elsevier Science, Amsterdam, pp 387–394

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Van der Beek, A.J., Braam, I.T.J., Douwes, M. et al. Validity of a diary estimating exposure to tasks, activities, and postures of the trunk. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 66, 173–178 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00380776

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00380776

Key words

Navigation