Comparison of OWAS, RULA and REBA for assessing potential work-related musculoskeletal disorders

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

“…The highest and most significant correlation was between the OWAS and REBA (0.785) by Kee et al [ 25 ], followed by the correlation between the RULA and REBA (0.691 and 0.67 by Kee et al [ 25 ], and Chiasson et al [ 12 ], respectively). Other coefficients except two (0.511 and 0.562 for the OWAS and RULA by Kee and Karwowski [ 24 ] and Kee [ 30 ], respectively) were <0.5. The correlation coefficients between the OWAS and REBA, and the RULA and REBA were larger than that between the OWAS and RULA.…”

“…Kee [ 23 ] and Kee et al [ 25 ] used the OWAS action category, RULA grand score, and REBA score for the correlation analyses. Although there were no correlation coefficients between the three techniques in the original articles by Kee and Karwowski [ 24 ], Kee et al [ 25 ], and Kee [ 30 ], the coefficients were based on the author’s calculation using the source or experimental data. The highest and most significant correlation was between the OWAS and REBA (0.785) by Kee et al [ 25 ], followed by the correlation between the RULA and REBA (0.691 and 0.67 by Kee et al [ 25 ], and Chiasson et al [ 12 ], respectively).…”

“…Kee [ 23 , 30 ] and Kee et al [ 25 ] compared the three techniques based on perceived discomfort, MHT, % capable at the shoulder and trunk, and association with MSDs using correlation analysis, chi-squared test, and logistic regression analysis. The studies revealed that the RULA grand score and REBA score were significantly correlated with discomfort, MHT, and % capable at the trunk [ 23 , 25 ], and that the RULA grand score and action level, and REBA action level were significantly associated with MSDs [ 30 ].The OWAS action category was significantly associated with % capable at the trunk, but the correlation coefficient was lower. However, the OWAS action category was not significantly correlated with discomfort and MHT [ 23 , 25 ], and the OWAS action category and REBA score were not associated with MSDs [ 30 ].…”

“…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 ].…”

Kadın iş gücünün yer aldığı ağaçlandırma işlerinin iş sağlığı ve güvenliği açısından değerlendirilmesi

“…Hareketler ve bunların yapılıştekrarlanış sürelerine ilişkin bir çalışma ve değerlendirme yapılmamıştır. Literatürde ise, çalışma duruşları konusunda çeşitli değerlendirme yöntemlerine (Akay vd., 2003;Can ve Fığlalı, 2014;Ünver-Okan ve Acar, 2017;Kee, 2021) rastlamak mümkündür. Uygunsuz çalışma duruşlarının, işçi üzerinde; stres, yorgunluk ve kas iskelet sistemi rahatsızlıkları oluşturduğu ve meslek hastalıkları riskini arttırarak iş veriminde azalmaya neden olduğu bilinmektedir (Ünver-Okan ve Kaya, 2015).…”