ArticleIndustrial health2015
Determinants of the accuracy of occupational hygiene expert judgment.
Article in Industrial health, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.