Reconstructing past occupational exposures : how reliable are women's reports of their partner's occupation?
Tagiyeva, Nara, Semple, Sean, Devereux, Graham, Sherriff, Andrea, Henderson, John (A. John), Elias, Peter, 1946- and Ayres, J. G.. (2011) Reconstructing past occupational exposures : how reliable are women's reports of their partner's occupation? OEM Online, Vol.68 (No.6). pp. 452-456. ISSN 1470-7926
WRAP_Elias_Occup_Environ_Med-2010-Tagiyeva-oem.2009.052506.pdf - Published Version - Requires a PDF viewer such as GSview, Xpdf or Adobe Acrobat Reader
Official URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/oem.2009.052506
Objectives Most of the evidence on agreement between self- and proxy-reported occupational data comes from interview-based studies. The authors aimed to examine agreement between women’s reports of their partner’s occupation and their partner’s own description using questionnaire-based data collected as a part of the prospective, population-based Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children. Methods Information on present occupation was self-reported by women’s partners and proxy-reported by women through questionnaires administered at 8 and 21 months after the birth of a child. Job titles were coded to the Standard Occupational Classification (SOC2000) using software developed by the University of Warwick (Computer-Assisted Structured Coding Tool). The accuracy of proxy-report was expressed as percentage agreement and kappa coefficients for four-, three- and two-digit SOC2000 codes obtained in automatic and semiautomatic (manually improved) coding modes. Data from 6016 couples at 8 months and 5232 couples at 21 months postnatally were included in the analyses. Results The agreement between men’s self-reported occupation and women’s report of their partner’s occupation in fully automatic coding mode at four-, threeand two-digit code level was 65%, 71% and 77% at 8 months and 68%, 73% and 76% at 21 months. The accuracy of agreement was slightly improved by semiautomatic coding of occupations: 73%/73%, 78%/ 77% and 83%/80% at 8/21 months respectively. While this suggests that women’s description of their partners’ occupation can be used as a valuable tool in epidemiological research where data from partners are not available, this study revealed no agreement between these young women and their partners at the two-digit level of SOC2000 coding in approximately one in five cases. Conclusion Proxy reporting of occupation introduces a statistically significant degree of error in classification. The effects of occupational misclassification by proxy reporting in retrospective occupational epidemiological studies based on questionnaire data should be considered.
|Item Type:||Journal Article|
|Subjects:||H Social Sciences > HM Sociology
R Medicine > R Medicine (General)
|Divisions:||Faculty of Social Sciences > Institute for Employment Research|
|Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH):||Occupations -- Classification, Health surveys, Fathers|
|Journal or Publication Title:||OEM Online|
|Publisher:||B M J Group|
|Page Range:||pp. 452-456|
|Access rights to Published version:||Restricted or Subscription Access|
|References:||1. Office for National Statistics. Social and Vital Statistics Division and Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency. Colchester: Central Survey Unit, Labour Force Survey Two-Quarter Longitudinal Dataset, 2009. Essex UK Data Archive distributor. [SN: 6278]. 2. Ferrante N, Ranaldi R. The proxy responses: an analysis of the problem in the Italian Labour Force Survey. European Conference on Quality in Survey Statistics. Session 12: Data Collection (Measurement Error). 24 Apr 2006, Cardiff. 3. Boyle CA, Brann EA. Proxy respondents and the validity of occupational and other exposure data. The Selected Cancers Cooperative Study Group. Am J Epidemiol 1992;136:712e21. 4. Nam JM, Rice C, Gail MH. Comparison of asbestos exposure assessments by nextof- kin respondents, by an occupational hygienist, and by a job-exposure matrix from the National Occupational Hazard Survey. Am J Ind Med 2005;47:443e50. 5. Hansen J, Boffetta P, Andersen A, et al. Comparison of information on occupation and lifestyle habits obtained from European man-made vitreous fibre production workers and their relatives. Int J Epidemiol 1997;26:1009e16. 6. Henneberger PK. Collection of occupational epidemiologic data: the use of surrogate respondents to provide occupational histories. Occup Med 1996;11:393e401. 7. Perruccio AV, Badley EM. Proxy reporting and the increasing prevalence of arthritis in Canada. Can J Public Health 2004;95:169e73. 8. Navarro AM. Smoking status by proxy and self report: rate of agreement in different ethnic groups. Tob Control 1999;8:182e5. 9. Golding J, Pembrey M, Jones R. ALSPAC-the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children. I. Study methodology. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol 2001;15:74e87. 10. Office for National Statistics. Standard Occupational Classification 2000. http:// www.ons.gov.uk/about-statistics/classifications/archived/SOC2000/index.html. 2008 (accessed Sep 2010). 11. Jones R, Elias P. CASCOT: Computer-Assisted Structured Coding Tool. Coventry, UK: Institute for Employment Research, University of Warwick, http://www2.warwick.ac. uk/fac/soc/ier/publications/software. 2010 (accessed Sep 2010). 12. Tagiyeva N, Devereux G, Semple S, et al. Parental occupation is a risk factor for childhood wheeze and asthma. Eur Respir J 2010;35:987e93. 13. Altman DG. Practical Statistics for Medical Research. London: Chapman & Hall, 1991. 14. Lerchen ML, Samet JM. An assessment of the validity of questionnaire responses provided by a surviving spouse. Am J Epidemiol 1986;123:481e9. 15. McKean-Cowdin R, Preston-Martin S, Pogoda JM, et al. Reliability of demographic, smoking and occupational data provided by mothers vs fathers in a childhood cancer study. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol 2000;14:257e62. 16. Schnitzer PG, Olshan AF, Savitz DA, et al. Validity of mother’s report of father’s occupation in a study of paternal occupation and congenital malformations. Am J Epidemiol 1995;141:872e7. 17. Fryzek JP, Lipworth LL, Garabrant DH, et al. Comparison of surrogate with selfrespondents for occupational factors. J Occup Environ Med 2000;42:424e9. 18. Hatch MC, Misra D, Kabat GC, et al. Proxy respondents in reproductive research: a comparison of self- and partner-reported data. Am J Epidemiol 1991;133:826e31. 19. Coggon D, Pippard EC, Acheson ED. Accuracy of occupational histories obtained from wives. Br J Ind Med 1985;42:563e4. 20. Shalat SL, Christiani DC, Baker EL Jr. Accuracy of work history obtained from a spouse. Scand J Work Environ Health 1987;13:67e9. 21. Colt JS, Engel LS, Keifer MC, et al. Comparability of data obtained from migrant farmworkers and their spouses on occupational history. Am J Ind Med 2001;40:523e30. 22. Elias P. Occupational Classification (ISCO-88): Concepts, Methods, Reliability and Cross-National Comparability. Labour Market and Social Policy Occasional Paper N 20. OCDE/GD(97)112. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 1996. 23. Nelson LM, Longstreth WT Jr, Koepsell TD, et al. Proxy respondents in epidemiologic research. Epidemiol Rev 1990;12:71e86. 24. Wang FL, Semchuk KM, Love EJ. Reliability of environmental and occupational exposure data provided by surrogate respondents in a caseecontrol study of Parkinson’s disease. J Clin Epidemiol 1994;47:797e807. 25. Tielemans E, Heederik D, Burdorf A, et al. Assessment of occupational exposures in a general population: comparison of different methods. Occup Environ Med 1999;56:145e51. 26. Stewart P, Rice C, Beatty P, et al. A qualitative evaluation of questions and responses from five occupational questionnaires developed to assess exposures. Appl Occup Environ Hyg 2002;17:444e53. 27. Hubbard R, Lewis S, Richards K, et al. Occupational exposure to metal or wood dust and aetiology of cryptogenic fibrosing alveolitis. Lancet 1996;347:284e9. 28. Blatter BM, Roeleveld N, Zielhuis GA, et al. Assessment of occupational exposure in a population based caseecontrol study: comparing postal questionnaires with personal interviews. Occup Environ Med 1997;54:54e9. 29. Elias P, Purcell K. Occupational Change and the Expansion of Higher Education in the UK: The Impact on Graduate Earnings. The International Conference on the Development of Competencies in the World of Work and Education, Ljubljana: Warwick Institute for Employment Research (IER), 23 September 2009. 30. Parks CG, Cooper GS, Nylander-French LA, et al. Comparing questionnaire-based methods to assess occupational silica exposure. Epidemiology 2004;15:433e41. 31. Soll-Johanning H, Hannerz H. A validation of information on occupation-data from a nested caseecontrol study. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 2002;75:511e14. 32. de Vocht F, Zock JP, Kromhout H, et al. Comparison of self-reported occupational exposure with a job exposure matrix in an international community-based study on asthma. Am J Ind Med 2005;47:434e42. 33. Greenberg ER, Rosner B, Hennekens C, et al. An investigation of bias in a study of nuclear shipyard workers. Am J Epidemiol 1985;121:301e8. 34. Johnson RA, Mandel JS, Gibson RW, et al. Data on prior pesticide use collected from self- and proxy respondents. Epidemiology 1993;4:157e64. 35. Brown LM, Dosemeci M, Blair A, et al. Comparability of data obtained from farmers and surrogate respondents on use of agricultural pesticides. Am J Epidemiol 1991;134:348e55.|
Actions (login required)