@article{ref1,
title="Comparison of expert-rater methods for assessing psychosocial job strain",
journal="Scandinavian journal of work, environment and health",
year="2001",
author="Ostry, A. S. and Marion, S. A. and Demers, P. A. and Hershler, R. and Kelly, S. and Teschke, K. and Mustard, Cameron A. and Hertzman, C.",
volume="27",
number="1",
pages="70-75",
abstract="OBJECTIVES: This study tested the reliability and validity of industry- and mill-level expert methods for measuring psychosocial work conditions in British Columbia sawmills using the demand-control model. METHODS: In the industry-level method 4 sawmill job evaluators estimated psychosocial work conditions at a generic sawmill. In the mill-level method panels of experienced sawmill workers estimated psychosocial work conditions at 3 sawmills. Scores for psychosocial work conditions were developed using both expert methods and applied to job titles in a sawmill worker database containing self-reported health status and heart disease. The interrater reliability and the concurrent and predictive validity of the expert rater methods were assessed. RESULTS: The interrater reliability and concurrent reliability were higher for the mill-level method than for the industry-level method. For all the psychosocial variables the reliability for the mill-level method was greater than 0.90. The predictive validity results were inconclusive. CONCLUSIONS: The greater reliability and concurrent validity of the mill-level method indicates that panels of experienced workers should be considered as potential experts in future studies measuring psychosocial work conditions.<p /><p>Language: en</p>",
language="en",
issn="0355-3140",
doi="",
url="http://dx.doi.org/"
}