Measurement Consistency Among Observational Job Analysis Methods During an Intervention Study

• Autorzy: Joseph C. , Imbeau D. , Nastasia I.
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

Several observational methods are available for ergonomists to evaluate the exposure to musculoskeletal disorder (MSD) risk factors associated with work. Those methods can be used to evaluate the impact of modifications done at a workstation on the exposure to risk factors. Three methods (QEC, OCRA and 4D Watbak) were used to assess the exposure to MSD risk factors before and after the implementation of changes at a saw and block opening workstation. The results from those 3 methods served to compare the methods and evaluate their consistency. Comparisons among the methods showed positive association between QEC and OCRA indices, and between the QEC back index and 4D Watbak.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

observational methods; OCRA; QEC; 4D Watbak; comparison

• Wydawca: Taylor & Francis
• Czasopismo: International Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics
• Rocznik: 2011
• Tom: Vol. 17, No. 2
• Strony: 139--146
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 29 poz., tab.

Twórcy

autor

Joseph C.

• Department of Industrial & Systems Engineering, University at Buffalo, The State University of New York, Buffalo, USA
• Departement de mathematiques et de genie industriel, Ecole Polytechnique, Campus de l’Universite de Montreal, Montreal, QC, Canada

autor

Imbeau D.

• Departement de mathematiques et de genie industriel, Ecole Polytechnique, Campus de l’Universite de Montreal, Montreal, QC, Canada

autor

Nastasia I.

• Institut de recherche Robert-Sauve en sante et en securite du travail (IRSST), Montreal, QC, Canada

Bibliografia

• 1.Bureau of Labor Statistics. U.S. Department of Labor. Workplace injuries and illnesses—2009. Retrieved February 1, 2011, from: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/ pdf/osh.pdf.
• 2.McAtamney L, Corlett EN. RULA: a survey method for the investigation of work-related upper limb disorders. Appl Ergon. 1993;24:91–9.
• 3.Occhipinti E. OCRA: a concise index for assessment of exposure to repetitive movements of the upper limbs. Ergonomics. 1998;41:1290–311.
• 4.Li G, Buckle P. Evaluating change in exposure to risk for musculoskeletal disorders—a practical tool (HSE Contract report 251/1999). Sudbury, Suffolk, UK: HSE Books; 1999.
• 5.Dempsey PG, McGorry RW, Maynard WS. A survey of tools and methods used by certified professional ergonomists. Appl Ergon. 2005;36:489–503.
• 6.Imbeau D, Nastasia I, Farbos B. Troubles musculo-squelettiques: evaluation et conception du travail [Musculoskeletal disorders: assessment and design of work]. In: Manuel d’hygiene du travail: du diagnostic a la maitrise des facteurs de risque [Textbook of occupational hygiene: from diagnosis to the control of risk factors]. Modulo-Griffon, QC, Canada: Mont-Royal; 2004. p. 321–62.
• 7.Kemmlert K. A method assigned for the identification of ergonomic hazard—PLIBEL. Appl Ergon. 1995;26:199–211.
• 8.Moore JS, Garg A. The strain index: a proposed method to analyze jobs for risk of distal upper extremity disorders. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J. 1995;56:443–58.
• 9.David GC. Ergonomic methods for assessing exposure to risk factors for work-related musculoskeletal disorders. Occup Med (Lond). 2005;55:190–9 (DOI:10.1093/occmed/kqi082). Retrieved February 14, 2011, from: http://occmed.oxfordjournals.org/content/55/3/190.full.pdf+html.
• 10.Coyle A. Comparison of the rapid entire body assessment and the New Zealand manual handling “hazard control record”, for assessment of manual handling hazard in the supermarket industry. Work. 2005;24:111–6.
• 11.Juul-Kristensen B, Fallentin N, Ekdahl C. Criteria for classification of posture in repetitive work by observation methods: a review. Int J Ind Ergon. 1997;19:397–411.
• 12.Jones T, Kumar S. Comparison of ergonomic risk assessment output in a repetive sawmill occupation: trim-saw operator. Work. 2008;31(4):367–76.
• 13.Takala EP, Pehkonen I, Forsman M, Hansson GA, Mathiassen SE, Neumann WP, et al. Systematic evaluation of observational methods assessing biomechanical exposures at work. Scand J Work Environ Health. 2010;36(1):3–24.
• 14.Village J, Backman CL, Lacaille D. Evaluation of selected ergonomic assessment tools for use in providing job accommodation for people with inflammatory arthritis. Work. 2008;31(2):145–57.
• 15.Li G, Buckle P. Current techniques for assessing physical exposure to work-related musculoskeletal risks, with emphasis on posture-based methods. Ergonomics. 1999;42:675–95.
• 16.Marklin RW, Wilzbacher JR. Four assessment tools of ergonomics intervention: case study at an electric utility’s warehouse system. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J. 1999;60:777–84.
• 17.van der Beek AJ, Erik Mathiassen S, Windhorst J, Burdorf A. An evaluation of methods assessing the physical demands of manual lifting in scaffolding. Appl Ergon. 2005;36(2):213–22.
• 18.Waters TR, Putz-Anderson V, Baron S. Methods for assessing the physical demands of manual lifting: a review and case study from warehousing. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J. 1998;59(12):871–81.
• 19.Russell SJ, Winnemuller L, Camp JE, Johnson PW. Comparing the results of five lifting analysis tools. Appl Ergon. 2007;38(1):91–7.
• 20.Drinkaus P, Sesek R, Bloswick D, Bernard T, Walton B, Joseph B, et al. Comparison of ergonomic risk assessment outputs from rapid upper limb assessment and the strain index for tasks in automotive assembly plants. Work. 2003;21:165–72.
• 21.Brown R, Li G. The development of action levels for the “quick exposure check” (QEC) system. In: McCabe PT, editor. Contemporary ergonomics. London, UK: Taylor & Francis; 2003. p. 41–6.
• 22.Kee D, Karwowski W. A comparison of three observational techniques for assessing postural loads in industry. International Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics (JOSE). 2007;13(1):3–14. Retrieved February 14, 2011, from: http://www.ciop.pl/21103.
• 23.Jones T, Kumar S. Comparison of ergonomic risk assessment output in four sawmill jobs. International Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics (JOSE). 2010;16(1):105–11. Retrieved February 14, 2011, from: http://www.ciop.pl/35544.
• 24.Jones T, Kumar S. Comparison of ergonomic risk assessments in a repetitive high-risk sawmill occupation: saw-filer. Int J Ind Ergon. 2007;37(9–10):744–53.
• 25.Neumann WP, Wells RP, Norman RW. 4D WATBAK: adapting research tools and epidemiological findings to software for easy application by industrial personnel. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Computer-Aided Ergonomics and Safety, Barcelona, Spain. 1999.
• 26.The Robens Centre for Health Ergonomics. Quick Exposure Check (QEC) report and toolkit. Available on request from: <[e-mail]>.
• 27.Joseph C, Imbeau D, Nastasia I. Impact of externally and internally driven modifications to a workstation: a case study in the fish processing industry. In: Proceeding of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 53nd Annual Meeting. 2009. Santa Monica, CA, USA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society; 2009. p. 922–4.
• 28.Huck SW. Reading statistics and research. 3rd ed. New York, NY, USA: Addison Wesley Longman; 2000.
• 29.Colombini D, Occhipinti E, Grieco A. risk assessment and management of repetitive movements and exertions of upper limbs: job analysis, OCRA risk indices, prevention strategies and design principles. Oxford, UK: Elsevier; 2002.