hig.sePublications
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard-cite-them-right
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • sv-SE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • de-DE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
A comparison of two strategies for building an exposure prediction model
University of Gävle, Faculty of Health and Occupational Studies, Department of Occupational and Public Health Sciences, Occupational health science. University of Gävle, Centre for Musculoskeletal Research. University of Gävle, Faculty of Health and Occupational Studies, Department of Occupational and Public Health Sciences, Occupational health science.ORCID iD: 0000-0002-5055-0698
University of Gävle, Faculty of Health and Occupational Studies, Department of Occupational and Public Health Sciences, Occupational health science. University of Gävle, Centre for Musculoskeletal Research. University of Gävle, Faculty of Health and Occupational Studies, Department of Occupational and Public Health Sciences, Occupational health science.ORCID iD: 0000-0003-1443-6211
University of Gävle, Faculty of Health and Occupational Studies, Department of Occupational and Public Health Sciences, Occupational health science. University of Gävle, Centre for Musculoskeletal Research. University of Gävle, Faculty of Health and Occupational Studies, Department of Occupational and Public Health Sciences, Occupational health science. Division of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, UConn Health, Farmington, CT, United States .
University of Gävle, Faculty of Health and Occupational Studies, Department of Occupational and Public Health Sciences, Occupational health science. University of Gävle, Centre for Musculoskeletal Research. University of Gävle, Faculty of Health and Occupational Studies, Department of Occupational and Public Health Sciences, Occupational health science. Centre for Research and Development, Uppsala University/County Council of Gävleborg.
Show others and affiliations
2016 (English)In: Annals of Occupational Hygiene, ISSN 0003-4878, E-ISSN 1475-3162, Vol. 60, no 1, p. 74-89Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Cost-efficient assessments of job exposures in large populations may be obtained from models in which “true” exposures assessed by expensive measurement methods are estimated from easily accessible and cheap predictors. Typically, the models are built on the basis of a validation study comprising “true” exposure data as well as an extensive collection of candidate predictors from questionnaires or company data, which cannot all be included in the models due to restrictions in the degrees of freedom available for modeling. In these situations, predictors need to be selected using procedures that can identify the best possible subset of predictors among the candidates. The present study compares two strategies for selecting a set of predictor variables. One strategy relies on stepwise hypothesis testing of associations between predictors and exposure, while the other uses cluster analysis to reduce the number of predictors without relying on empirical information about the measured exposure. Both strategies were applied to the same dataset on biomechanical exposure and candidate predictors among computer users, and they were compared in terms of identified predictors of exposure as well as the resulting model fit using bootstrapped resamples of the original data. The identified predictors were, to a large part, different between the two strategies, and the initial model fit was better for the stepwise testing strategy than for the clustering approach. Internal validation of the models using bootstrap resampling with fixed predictors revealed an equally reduced model fit in resampled datasets for both strategies. However, when predictor selection was incorporated in the validation procedure for the stepwise testing strategy, the model fit was reduced to the extent that both strategies showed similar model fit. Thus, the two strategies would both be expected to perform poorly with respect to predicting biomechanical exposure in other samples of computer users.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2016. Vol. 60, no 1, p. 74-89
Keywords [en]
Cluster analysis, non-linear effects, bias, shrinkage, statistical performance
National Category
Occupational Health and Environmental Health
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:hig:diva-17363DOI: 10.1093/annhyg/mev072ISI: 000369997400007PubMedID: 26424806Scopus ID: 2-s2.0-84960400056OAI: oai:DiVA.org:hig-17363DiVA, id: diva2:738337
Note

Funding Agency: US CDC/NIOSH

Grant Number:   RO1-0H-08781 

Available from: 2014-08-18 Created: 2014-08-18 Last updated: 2018-03-13Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full textPubMedScopus

Authority records BETA

Heiden, MarinaMathiassen, Svend ErikGarza, JenniferLiv, Per

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Heiden, MarinaMathiassen, Svend ErikGarza, JenniferLiv, Per
By organisation
Occupational health scienceCentre for Musculoskeletal Research
In the same journal
Annals of Occupational Hygiene
Occupational Health and Environmental Health

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn
Total: 786 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard-cite-them-right
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • sv-SE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • de-DE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf