Determinants of the accuracy of occupational hygiene expert judgment

• Published in: Industrial Health Vol. 53; no. 2; pp. 184 - 191
• Main Authors: SAKHVIDI, Mohammad Javad Zare, MIHANPOOR, Hamideh, MOSTAGHACI, Mehrdad, MEHRPARVAR, AmirHooshang, BARKHORDARI, Abolfazl
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Japan National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health 2015; National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health, Japan
• Subjects: Adult; Analysis; Construction Materials; Data Accuracy; Environmental Monitoring; Expert judgment; Expert Testimony; Exposure assessment; Female; Field Report; Humans; Hygiene; Inhalation Exposure - analysis; Inhalational exposure; Judgment; Male; Management; Manufacturing Industry; Observer Variation; Occupational Exposure - analysis; Occupational Health - education; Occupational health and safety; Occupational hygiene
• ISSN: 0019-8366; 1880-8026
• DOI: 10.2486/indhealth.2014-0066

An experimental study was performed to determine the applicability and accuracy of occupational hygienist’s expert judgment in occupational exposure assessment. The effect of tier 1 model application on improvement of expert judgments were also realized. Hygienists were asked to evaluate inhalation exposure intensity in seven operating units in a tile factory before and after an exposure training session. Participants’ judgments were compared to air sampling data in the units; then after relative errors for judgments were calculated. Stepwise regressions were performed to investigate the defining variables. In all situations there were almost a perfect agreement (ICC >0.80) among raters. Correlations between estimated mean exposure and relative percentage error of participants before and after training were significant at 0.01 (correlation coefficients were −0.462 and −0.443, respectively). Results showed that actual concentration and experience resulted in 22.4% prediction variance for expert error as an independent variable. Exposure rating by hygienists was susceptible to error from several sources. Experienced subjects had a better ability to predict the exposures intensity. In lower concentrations, the rating error increased significantly. Leading causes of judgment error should be taken into account in epidemiological studies.