Application of AULA Risk Assessment Tool by Comparison with Other Ergonomic Risk Assessment Tools

Abstract

Agricultural upper limb assessment (AULA), which was developed for evaluating upper limb body postures, was compared with the existing assessment tools such as rapid upper limb assessment (RULA), rapid entire body assessment (REBA), and ovako working posture analysis system (OWAS) based on the results of experts’ assessments of 196 farm tasks in this study. The expert group consisted of ergonomists, industrial medicine experts, and agricultural experts. As a result of the hit rate analysis, the hit rate (average: 48.6%) of AULA was significantly higher than those of the other assessment tools (RULA: 33.3%, REBA: 30.1%, and OWAS: 34.4%). The quadratic weighted kappa analysis also showed that the kappa value (0.718) of AULA was significantly higher than those of the other assessment tools (0.599, 0.578, and 0.538 for RULA, REBA, and OWAS, respectively). Based on the results, AULA showed a better agreement with expert evaluation results than other evaluation tools. In general, other assessment tools tended to underestimate the risk of upper limb posture in this study. AULA would be an appropriate evaluation tool to assess the risk of various upper limb postures.

Systematic Comparison of OWAS, RULA, and REBA Based on a Literature Review

“…Some studies have compared and validated the three techniques simultaneously. Choi et al [ 21 ], and Kong et al [ 26 ] estimated 196 working postures of agricultural tasks with the Agricultural Upper Limb Assessment (AULA), Agricultural Lower Limb Assessment (ALLA), OWAS, RULA, and REBA, and compared the assessment results with the subjective evaluations using a 10-point scale by 16 ergonomic experts. The studies revealed that based on the quadratic weighted ĸ values, the RULA was in ‘moderate’ and ‘good’ agreements depending on the studies (0.599 and 0.627, respectively), whereas the OWAS and REBA were in ‘moderate’ agreement (0.538 [ 21 ] and 0.501 [ 26 ] for OWAS, and 0.578 [ 21 ] and 0.490 [ 26 ] for REBA) with the expert evaluations.…”

“…The number of validation studies for the OWAS and RULA (13 and 14, respectively) was higher than that for the REBA (8). The validations are summarized as follows: (1) while nine studies on the OWAS showed affirmative results in viewpoints of correspondence with valid references and association with MSDs [ 21 , 26 , 28 , 84 , 85 , 86 , 87 , 88 , 89 ], four studies reported negative results [ 25 , 30 , 68 , 90 ]; (2) 13 studies (except a study [ 29 ]) for the RULA were affirmative; and (3) seven studies (except one [ 29 ]) for REBA were also affirmative.…”

“…This study summarized the validations by several studies ( Table 6 ). While 12 of the 21 studies (57.1%) were classified into concurrent validity [ 21 , 23 , 25 , 26 , 79 , 84 , 85 , 86 , 87 , 89 , 90 , 93 ], 10 studies were included under predictive validity [ 8 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 68 , 93 ]. Of the validation studies, the study by Fountain [ 93 ] was corresponded to both concurrent validity and predictive validity.…”

“…Many previous studies have summarized and compared the three techniques, based on their general characteristics including correspondence with a valid reference, scales for posture classification, main functions, association with MSDs, intra- and inter-observer repeatability/reliability, potential users, and exposure factors assessed such as postures or body regions, load/force, and movement frequency [ 5 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 19 , 20 ]. Some studies compared the three methods based on their assessment results [ 12 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 ], and the relationship between the epidemiological data or subjective symptoms of MSDs and assessment results or scores [ 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 ].…”

Implementation of Kinetic and Kinematic Variables in Ergonomic Risk Assessment Using Motion Capture Simulation: A Review

“…Despite the advantages listed, some researchers still raised an issue about the frailty and the limitations among current ergonomic risk assessment methods [56,[60][61][62]. The question about accuracy and consistency in ergonomic risk assessment methods is often discussed academically.…”