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
Influence of task proportion errors on the effectiveness of task-based job exposure modeling
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.ORCID iD: 0000-0003-1443-6211
Centre for Research and Development, Uppsala University / Region Gävleborg, Gävle, Sweden.
2016 (English)Conference paper, Published paper (Refereed)
Abstract [en]

Background.Job-based exposure estimation using the occupational mean (JBM) is associated with substantial error. Many studies have therefore estimated job exposures from workers’ tasks, i.e. task-based modeling (TBM), typically by combining individual workers’ task proportions (TP) in the job with a general task exposure matrix. Studies of postures and muscle activity have, however, shown that TBM may be ineffective; one possible reason being that TPs are not correct. The present simulation study investigated the influence of random and systematic TP error on TBM performance.

Methods.We constructed two virtual two-task jobs with task exposure contrasts of 0.2 and 0.8. In both, TPs and task exposures mimicked likely occupational scenarios. We then simulated four cases of TP error: no error, random error, bias, and bias and random error. For each case, we varied the TP error size, and compared the absolute errors of TBM- and JBM-based job exposures for 10,000 virtual workers.

Results.For the low-contrast job, TBM with error-free TPs was, on average, only 6% more efficient than JBM, and the probability of TBM leading to a more correct job exposure than JBM was 56%. TP errors had negligible effects on effectiveness. With error-free TPs in the high-contrast job, TPM was 75% more efficient than JBM, and led to more correct job exposures for 71% of all workers. TP errors decreased TBM performance, down to being 34% better than JBM when both random and systematic errors were “large”; 62% of all individuals being more correctly assessed by TBM.

Discussion.For jobs with limited task exposure contrast, TBM was essentially equivalent to JBM, while TP errors had marginal impact. In high-contrast jobs, TBM was more effec-tive, but was also more sensitive to both random and systematic TP errors. This may feed further discussion of the cost-efficiency of TBM in occupational settings.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2016.
Keyword [en]
task-based job, job-based exposure, task-based modelling, TBM performance
National Category
Environmental Health and Occupational Health
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:hig:diva-21896OAI: oai:DiVA.org:hig-21896DiVA: diva2:942390
Conference
Ninth International Conference on the Prevention of Work-Related Musculoskeletal Disorders (PREMUS), June 20-23, 2016, Toronto, Canada
Available from: 2016-06-23 Created: 2016-06-23 Last updated: 2017-09-12Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Mathiassen, Svend ErikLiv, Per
By organisation
Occupational health scienceCentre for Musculoskeletal Research
Environmental Health and Occupational Health

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

Total: 234 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