Inter-rater reliability of occupational exposure assessment in a case-control study of female breast cancer. Issue 10 (2nd November 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Batisse, E.; Labrèche, F.; Goldberg, M. S.; Lavoué, J.; Parent, M. E.; Pasquet, R.; Richardson, L.; Siemiatycki, J.; Ho, V.
• Is Part Of: Journal of occupational and environmental hygiene. Volume 18:Issue 10/11(2021)
• Page Start: 522
• Page End: 531
• Publication Date: 2021-11-02
• Subjects: Epidemiology -- hygiene -- occupational health -- retrospective studies -- women; Industrial hygiene -- Periodicals; Environmental health -- Periodicals; Medicine, Industrial -- Periodicals; Occupational Health -- Periodicals; Environmental Exposure -- Periodicals; Environmental Health -- Periodicals; Occupational Exposure -- Periodicals; Hygiène industrielle -- Périodiques; Hygiène du milieu -- Périodiques; Médecine du travail -- Périodiques; 613.62
• DOI: 10.1080/15459624.2021.1976412
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1545-9624

Abstract

Abstract: The objective of this paper was to estimate the inter-rater reliability of expert assessments of occupational exposures. An inter-rater reliability sub-study was conducted within a population-based case-control study of postmenopausal breast cancer. Detailed information on lifetime occupational histories was obtained from participants and two industrial hygienists assigned exposures to 185 jobs using a checklist of 293 agents. Experts rated exposure for each job–agent combination according to exposure status (unexposed/exposed), confidence that the exposure occurred (possible/probable/definite), intensity (low/medium/high), and frequency (% time per week). The statistical unit of observation was each job–agent assessment (185 jobs × 293 agents = 54, 205 assessments per expert). Crude agreement, Gwet AC1/2 statistics, and Cohen's Kappa were used to estimate inter-rater agreement for confidence and intensity; for frequency, the intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) was used. The majority of job–agent combinations were evaluated by the two experts to be not exposed (crude agreement >98% of decisions). The degree of agreement between the experts for the confidence of exposure status was Gwet AC1/2 = 0.99 (95% CI: 0.99–0.99), and for intensity, a Gwet AC2 = 0.99 (95% CI: 0.99–0.99). For frequency, an ICC of 0.31 (95% CI: 0.26–0.35) was found. A sub-analysis restricted to job–agent combinations for which the two experts agreed on exposure status revealed a moderate agreement for confidence of exposure (Gwet AC2 = 0.66) and high agreement for intensity (Gwet AC2 = 0.96). For frequency, the ICC was 0.52 (95% CI: 0.47–0.57). A high level of inter-rater agreement was found for identifying exposures and for coding intensity, but agreement was lower for the coding of frequency of exposure.