Anthropometric Database for the Learning Environment of High School and University Students

• Autorzy: Dawal S. Z. M. , Zadry H. R. , Azmi S. N. S. , Rohim S. R. , Sartika S. J.
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

This paper presents an anthropometric database of high school and university students from Kuala Lumpur,Malaysia. Forty-one high school participants (21 males and 20 females), 13–17 years old, and 143 university students (74 males and 69 females) took part in the study. Twenty-one static body dimensions were measured. The greatest mean differences in the anthropometric data between male and female high school students were found in the sitting elbow height. In addition, a comparison of anthropometric data of male and female university students showed that data for males and females were significantly different, except for buttock–popliteal length, sitting elbow height and thigh clearance. The primary aim of this study was to develop an anthropometric database that could be used as a primary reference in designing products, devices and equipment for ergonomic learning environments.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

anthropometry; high school students; university students; computer workstation

• Wydawca: Taylor & Francis
• Czasopismo: International Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics
• Rocznik: 2012
• Tom: Vol. 18, No. 4
• Strony: 461--472
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 25 poz., rys., tab.

Twórcy

autor

Dawal S. Z. M.

• Faculty of Engineering, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

autor

Zadry H. R.

• Faculty of Engineering, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

autor

Azmi S. N. S.

• Faculty of Engineering, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

autor

Rohim S. R.

• Faculty of Engineering, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

autor

Sartika S. J.

• Faculty of Engineering, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Bibliografia

• 1.Pimentel D, Pimentel M. Global environmental resources versus world population growth. Ecol Econ. 2006;59(2):195–8.
• 2.Gouvali MK, Boudolos K. Match between school furniture dimensions and children’s anthropometry. Appl Ergon. 2006;37(6):765–73.
• 3.Klamklay J, Sungkhapong A, Yodpijit N, Patterson PE. Anthropometry of the southern Thai population. Int J Ind Ergon. 2008;38(1):111–8.
• 4.Pheasant S. Bodyspace: Anthropometry, ergonomics and design of work. 2nd ed. New York, NY, USA: Taylor & Francis; 1996.
• 5.Bridger RS. Introduction to ergonomics. Singapore: McGraw-Hill; 1995.
• 6.Niebel B, Freivalds A. Methods, standards, and work design. 11th ed. Singapore: McGraw-Hill; 2003.
• 7.Nowak E. The role of anthropometry in design of work and life environments of the disabled population. Int J Ind Ergon. 1996; 17(2):113–21.
• 8.Jarosz E. Anthropometry of elderly women in Poland: dimensions for design. Int J Ind Ergon. 1999;25(2):203–13.
• 9.Liu WCV, Sanchez-Monroy D, Parga G. Anthropometry of female maquiladora workers. Int J Ind Ergon. 1999;24(3):273–80.
• 10.Panagiotopoulou G, Christoulas K, Papanckolaou A, Mandroukas K. Classroom furniture dimensions and anthropometric measures in primary school. Appl Ergon. 2004;35(2):121–8.
• 11.Liu BS. Incorporating anthropometry into design of ear-related products. Appl Ergon. 2008;39(1):115–121.
• 12.Mandahawi N, Imrhan S, Al-Shobaki S, Sarder B. Hand anthropometry survey for the Jordanian population. Int J Ind Ergon. 2008;38(11–12):966–76.
• 13.Mokdad M, Al-Ansari M. Anthropometrics for the design of Bahraini school furniture. Int J Ind Ergon. 2009;39(5):728–35.
• 14.Dewangan KN, Owary C, Datta RK. Anthropometric data of female farm workers from north eastern India and design of hand tools of the hilly region. Int J Ind Ergon. 2008;38(1):90–100.
• 15.Parcells C, Stommel M, Hubbard RP. Mismatch of classroom furniture and student body dimensions—empirical findings and health implications. J Adolescent Health. 1999;24(4):265–73.
• 16.Braak JV. Factors influencing the use of computer mediated communication by teachers in secondary schools. Comput Educ. 2001;36(1):41–57.
• 17.Crook C, Barrowcliff D. Ubiquitous computing on campus: patterns of engagement by university students. Int J Hum Comput Interact. 2001;13(2):245–56.
• 18.Inan FA, Lowther DL, Ross SM, Strahl D. Pattern of classroom activities during students’ use of computers: relations between instructional strategies and computer applications. Teaching and Teacher Education. 2010;26(3):540–6.
• 19.Pennathur A, Dowling W. Effect of age on functional anthropometry of older Mexican American adults: a cross-sectional study. Int J Ind Ergon. 2003;32(1):39–49.
• 20.Hu H, Li Z, Yan J, Wang X, Xiao H, Duan J, et al. Anthropometric measurement of the Chinese elderly living in the Beijing area. Int J Ind Ergon. 2007;37(4): 303–11.
• 21.Ali I, Arslan N. Estimated anthropometric measurements of Turkish adults and effects of age and geographical regions. Int J Ind Ergon. 2009;39(5): 860–5.
• 22.Evans WA, Courtney AJ, Fok KF. The design of school furniture for Hong Kong schoolchildren. An anthropometric case study. Appl Ergon. 1988;19(2):122–34.
• 23.Greenhorn DR, Stevenson JM. Gender based biomechanical differences that impact on task performance. In: Defence Research Group, North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Optimizing the Performance of Women in the Armed Forces of NATO, Workshop (Technical Proceedings AC/243). 1997. p. 1–11.
• 24.Kroemer KHE. Ergonomics how to design for ease and efficiency. Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA: Prentice Hall; 1994.
• 25.Kozey JW, Das B. Determination of the normal and maximum reach measures of adult wheelchair users. Int J Ind Ergon. 2004;33(3):205–13.