Comparison of multi-task ergonomic assessment methods for risk of upper extremity and low back musculoskeletal disorders

IF 3.1 2区 工程技术 Q2 ENGINEERING, INDUSTRIAL Applied Ergonomics Pub Date : 2024-05-14 DOI:10.1016/j.apergo.2024.104313
Michael J. Jorgensen , Andrea Martinez , Nils A. Hakansson
{"title":"Comparison of multi-task ergonomic assessment methods for risk of upper extremity and low back musculoskeletal disorders","authors":"Michael J. Jorgensen ,&nbsp;Andrea Martinez ,&nbsp;Nils A. Hakansson","doi":"10.1016/j.apergo.2024.104313","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Work-related musculoskeletal disorder of upper extremity multi-task assessment methods (Revised Strain Index [RSI], Distal Upper Extremity Tool [DUET]) and manual handling multi-task assessment methods (Revised NIOSH Lifting Equation [RNLE], Lifting Fatigue Failure Tool [LiFFT]) were compared. RSI and DUET showed a strong correlation (r<sub>s</sub> = 0.933, p &lt; 0.001) where increasing risk factor exposure resulted in increasing outputs for both methods. RSI and DUET demonstrated fair agreement (κ = 0.299) in how the two methods classified outputs into risk categories (high, moderate or low) when assessing the same tasks. The RNLE and LiFFT showed a strong correlation (r<sub>s</sub> = 0.903, p = 0.001) where increasing risk factor exposure resulted in increasing outputs, and moderate agreement (κ = 0.574) in classifying the outputs into risk categories (high, moderate or low) when assessing the same tasks. The multi-task assessment methods provide consistent output magnitude rankings in terms of increasing exposure, however some differences exist between how different methods classify the outputs into risk categories.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":55502,"journal":{"name":"Applied Ergonomics","volume":"119 ","pages":"Article 104313"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Applied Ergonomics","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0003687024000905","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, INDUSTRIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Work-related musculoskeletal disorder of upper extremity multi-task assessment methods (Revised Strain Index [RSI], Distal Upper Extremity Tool [DUET]) and manual handling multi-task assessment methods (Revised NIOSH Lifting Equation [RNLE], Lifting Fatigue Failure Tool [LiFFT]) were compared. RSI and DUET showed a strong correlation (rs = 0.933, p < 0.001) where increasing risk factor exposure resulted in increasing outputs for both methods. RSI and DUET demonstrated fair agreement (κ = 0.299) in how the two methods classified outputs into risk categories (high, moderate or low) when assessing the same tasks. The RNLE and LiFFT showed a strong correlation (rs = 0.903, p = 0.001) where increasing risk factor exposure resulted in increasing outputs, and moderate agreement (κ = 0.574) in classifying the outputs into risk categories (high, moderate or low) when assessing the same tasks. The multi-task assessment methods provide consistent output magnitude rankings in terms of increasing exposure, however some differences exist between how different methods classify the outputs into risk categories.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
上肢和腰背部肌肉骨骼疾病风险的多任务人体工程学评估方法比较。
比较了与工作相关的上肢肌肉骨骼疾病多任务评估方法(订正劳损指数 [RSI]、上肢远端工具 [DUET])和人工搬运多任务评估方法(订正 NIOSH 提升公式 [RNLE]、提升疲劳失效工具 [LiFFT])。RSI 和 DUET 显示出很强的相关性(rs = 0.933,p s = 0.903,p = 0.001),其中风险因素暴露程度的增加导致产出的增加;在评估相同任务时,将产出分为风险类别(高、中或低)的一致性为中等(κ = 0.574)。多任务评估方法在增加暴露程度方面提供了一致的产出大小排名,但不同方法在如何将产出划分为风险类别方面存在一些差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Applied Ergonomics
Applied Ergonomics 工程技术-工程:工业
CiteScore
7.50
自引率
9.40%
发文量
248
审稿时长
53 days
期刊介绍: Applied Ergonomics is aimed at ergonomists and all those interested in applying ergonomics/human factors in the design, planning and management of technical and social systems at work or leisure. Readership is truly international with subscribers in over 50 countries. Professionals for whom Applied Ergonomics is of interest include: ergonomists, designers, industrial engineers, health and safety specialists, systems engineers, design engineers, organizational psychologists, occupational health specialists and human-computer interaction specialists.
期刊最新文献
Digital technologies and resilient performance in socio-technical systems: A human factors and ergonomics perspective. Understanding older adults' needs for and perceptions of shared autonomous vehicle interior features: A focus group and user enactment study. Assessing operator stress in collaborative robotics: A multimodal approach Corrigendum to "Gender, sex and desk-based postural behaviour: A systematic review re-interpreting biomechanical evidence from a social perspective" [Appl. Ergon. 114 (2023) 104073]. Takeover and non-driving related task performance in conditional automated driving: EEG and behavior Parameters interaction
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1