Design and validation of instruments of working conditions associated with silica and asbestos exposure

Our plain-English summary of Design and validation of instruments of working conditions associated with silica and asbestos exposure, by C. Antolinez-Figueroa, L.Y.C. Castillo, J.M. Sierra, et al (Annals of Work Exposures and Health, 2026).

The study

• Authors: C. Antolinez-Figueroa, L.Y.C. Castillo, J.M. Sierra, E.A.I. Pinilla, E.M.T. Ávila, R.M. Palma, M.E. Varona, E.M. Torres, J.M. Rojas
• Journal: Annals of Work Exposures and Health
• Published: 2026;70(8)
• Read it: PubMed · Publisher · Free full text

Abstract

The objective of this study is to design and validate two instruments for characterizing on- and off-the-job working conditions associated with exposure to silica and asbestos in the construction sector. The approach involved four phases: (1) literature review to identify key variables related to exposure, (2) development of the survey instruments, (3) content validation by a panel of experts; and (4) pilot testing with workers and occupational health and safety leaders. Two instruments were constructed. Instrument A, aimed at leaders, had 42 items and instrument B, aimed at workers, had 31 items. Instrument A had a content validity coefficient greater than 0.9 for the 100% of the items in the criteria of relevance, adequacy, pertinence, and coherence, and greater than 0.9 in the criterion of clarity for the 95% of the items. Instrument B had greater variability in the content validity coefficient for the criteria of relevance, adequacy, pertinence, coherence, and clarity, with scores greater than 0.9 for the 71%, 42%, 58%, 48%, and 25% of the items, respectively. The pilot test demonstrated participant understanding of 90% of the items in instrument A and 97% in instrument B. The instruments developed can be used to identify working conditions associated with occupational exposure to silica and asbestos in the sector, thereby facilitating evaluation of working conditions.

© The Author(s) 2026. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Occupational Hygiene Society.

In plain English

This Colombian study described how the authors designed and checked two questionnaires about working conditions linked to silica and asbestos exposure in the construction sector. It did not measure exposure or disease. Instrument A, for occupational health and safety leaders, had 42 items. Instrument B, for workers, had 31 items. The items were based on a scoping review that found 179 articles (83 on asbestos and 96 on silica). Seven expert judges rated each item for relevance, sufficiency, pertinence, coherence and clarity. In instrument A, all items scored 90% or higher on the first four criteria, and 2 items scored lower than 90% for clarity. Instrument B varied more, with some items scoring between 50% and 70%. In a pilot test with managers and workers from three construction companies, 38 of the 42 instrument A questions (90%) and 30 of the 31 instrument B questions (97%) were totally comprehensible. Items were reworded but none were removed. The authors concluded the instruments were valid and understandable. They noted that the pilot involved few companies.

We wrote this plain-English summary from the full article with the help of AI, and a second AI model checked each sentence against the article. It is not the authors' wording; the abstract and the article are their own account.

What the study did and found

• Design: Instrument design and content-validation study in four phases: scoping literature review, questionnaire construction, expert-panel content validation, and pilot test of comprehensibility
• Who was studied: Seven expert judges (nine were invited) for content validation. A pilot test with occupational health and safety managers (3, per Table 2) and workers (6, per Table 2) from three construction companies in three different regions of Colombia. The companies had scored at or above the median (88/100) in 2023 contractor-register audits.
• Exposure: Working conditions associated with occupational exposure to crystalline silica dust and asbestos fibers in the construction sector, plus exposure outside work (for example, place of residence, home renovation, washing work clothes). No fiber types or doses were measured.
• Main results:
  • The scoping review found 179 articles: 83 on asbestos and 96 on silica.
  • Instrument A (for leaders) had 2 dimensions, 4 subdimensions, 9 item groups and 42 items.
  • Instrument B (for workers) had 2 dimensions, 4 subdimensions, 8 item groups and 31 items.
  • Seven of the nine invited expert judges took part in content validation.
  • Instrument A, expert ratings: in Table 5, every item scored 90% or higher on relevance, sufficiency, pertinence and coherence. Some items scored exactly 90, for example item 11 on all five criteria. The Results prose instead says 'higher than 90%'.
  • Instrument A, clarity: 2 items scored lower than 90%. In Table 5 these are items 4 and 21, each at 87.
  • Instrument B, expert ratings: relevance was between 60% and 70% for 6.5% of items, and sufficiency was between 60% and 70% for 9.7% of items.
  • Instrument B, clarity: scored between 50% and 60% for 3.2% of items, and between 60.1% and 70% for 6.5% of items.
  • After expert review, no items were eliminated. The lower-scoring items in instrument B were modified.
  • Pilot test, instrument A: 38 of the 42 questions (90%) were totally comprehensible to participants.
  • Pilot test, instrument B: 30 of the 31 questions (97%) were totally comprehensible.
  • Pilot test, instrument B, item 2: 50% of participants found it understandable, 17% partially understandable and 33% not understandable.
  • Estimated time to complete: 40 to 50 minutes for instrument A and 30 to 40 minutes for instrument B.
• The authors' conclusion: The authors concluded that the two instruments were valid and understandable for characterizing working conditions linked to silica and asbestos exposure in construction.
• Limitations the authors state:
  • The pilot test involved a small number of companies compared with the total number of construction companies in the country. The authors said the instruments need to be applied to other similar populations.
  • The instruments do not replace direct quantitative measurement of exposure. Exposure-estimation and measurement tools were not integrated, given the study's scope.

Topics

The National Library of Medicine indexes this study under subjects our site covers: Construction.

Medical terms in this study, explained in our Lexicon: Asbestos Exposure, Occupational Exposure.

Related studies

• Silica exposure and altered regulation of autoimmunity — S. Lee, H. Matsuzaki, et al. (2014)
• Design and validation of a self-administered questionnaire as an aid to detection of occupational exposure to lung carcinogens — C. Pélissier, V. Dutertre, et al. (2017)
• Work-related respiratory health conditions among construction workers: a systematic narrative review — E.F. Boadu, S.R. Okeke, et al. (2023)
• Assessing occupational erionite and respirable crystalline silica exposure among outdoor workers in Wyoming, South Dakota, and Montana — C. Beaucham, B. King, et al. (2018)
• Respiratory symptoms and functional status in workers exposed to silica, asbestos, and coal mine dusts — X.R. Wang, D.C. Christiani (2000)
• Silica and asbestos exposure in ANCA-associated vasculitis with pulmonary involvement — Z. Rihova, D. Maixnerova, et al. (2005)

Browse more research in Annals of Work Exposures and Health, or return to medical research.