Validity of self-reported durations of tasks andactivities: A systematic literature review
2015 (English)In: Annals of Occupational Hygiene, ISSN 0003-4878, E-ISSN 1475-3162Article in journal (Refereed) Submitted
Objectives: Durations of tasks and activities in a job is an essential interest in occupational epidemiology. Such durations have typically been estimated using self-reports, which raises concerns about validity and differential bias. The present systematic literature review examines the validity of self-reported task durations and factors influencing it.
Methods: The databases Psychinfo, EBSCO HOST, Medline, ISI web of Science and Proquest were searched for articles of relevance. The search included studies of tasks within as well as outside occupational settings.
Results: Fifty-Four articles were identified, twenty-two of which were conducted in occupational settings. Studies differed in key design characteristics and detail of information reported, which hampers aggregation. Examples occurred of task durations being both underestimated (down to -127% of true duration) and overestimated (up to 230% of true duration). Several factors influenced bias, including individual characteristics (e.g., age, gender) and properties of the task (type of task, other tasks in the job, true task duration).
Conclusions: While both personal and task-related factors appeared to influence bias in self reported task durations, the quantitative effect of some modifiers (e.g., MSD status) is uncertain, given the small number of studies and the large variability in study objectives and designs. Future research in this area should include studies specifically designed to examine individual candidate modifiers of bias in self-reported task duration.
Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
self-report bias, task proportion, time perception, exposure modeling
Environmental Health and Occupational Health
IdentifiersURN: urn:nbn:se:hig:diva-20372OAI: oai:DiVA.org:hig-20372DiVA: diva2:858682