AbstractBackgroundAssessment by experts may be the best method available for retrospective occupational exposure measurement in community‐based studies. This study was undertaken to examine the validity of occupational exposure assessment by comparing the ratings of experienced raters with previously recorded industrial hygiene measurements.MethodsWe obtained 50 measurements from industrial hygiene records, covering a variety of jobs and substances and created 47 job descriptions around these measurements. Three raters were asked to assess exposure to a checklist of 19 substances (including those substances which had been measured). We estimated the sensitivity of the raters in correctly detecting those substances known to have been present.ResultsUsing a liberal criterion for the ratings, the average sensitivity among the raters was 90%. Using a more stringent criterion, the average sensitivity was 73%. Among substances coded as present, the raters were quite accurate in rating the relative concentration and frequency of exposure.ConclusionsThis trial demonstrated that a team of experienced raters could successfully characterize jobs in which important exposures occurred. Am. J. Ind. Med. 43:519–522, 2003. © 2003 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.