Documentation of Muscularly Demanding Job Tasks and Validation of an Occupational Strength Test Battery (STB)

Robertson, David W.; Trent, Thomas

doi:10.21236/ada162781

Cited by 8 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The subset was chosen to cover the strength and endurance domains and to be comparable to the measures used in prior models of data from Robertson and Trent (1985) and Arnold et al (1982). Measures were:…”

Section: Ability Measuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

Physical Ability-Task Performance Models: Assessing the Risk of Omitted Variable Bias

Vickers¹,

Hodgdon²,

Beckett³

2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Ability Measuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

Physical Ability-Task Performance Models: Assessing the Risk of Omitted Variable Bias

Vickers¹,

Hodgdon²,

Beckett³

2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…This type of classification may not be optimal for understanding the relationship between task performance and physical ability. For example, Vickers (1995Vickers ( , 1996 found that the wide range of lifting, pulling, and carrying tasks studied by Robertson and Trent (1985) could be reduced to a single general dimension for modeling purposes. The present findings suggest that task duration may be more important than task type when modeling ability-performance associations in the manual material-handling domain.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Once chosen, each task is treated as a separate criterion. Study findings are task-by-task listings of predictor equations (e.g., Arnold et al, 1982;Robertson & Trent, 1985). This approach has several potential problems.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Physical Strength and Performance of Moderate Duration Physical Tasks

Vickers¹

2002

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SUMMARY ProblemValid models of physical task performance could be useful for selection into Navy jobs and for computer simulations of combat performance. Simple models are desirable, but of little value if they are inaccurate. Previous studies indicated that strength predicted more than 90% of the variance in performance on a wide range of physically demanding U.S. Navy tasks. This finding implies that strength is the only ability to consider for Navy selection and modeling purposes. However, the tasks studied previously lasted at most a few minutes. Work physiology principles predict that longer lasting tasks will have a more complex causal structure in which strength and endurance both are important. ObjectivesThe primary goals of this study were to (a) demonstrate that strength is a less powerful performance predictor when tasks last longer than 1 min, and (b) evaluate the hypothesis that the initial strength-performance estimate was biased by the omission of other physical abilities from the predictive equation. ApproachStructural equation modeling was applied to data from a study of steelworkers. Task performance measures included lifting, carrying, and shoveling tasks lasting 5 min to 15 min. Physical ability measures included the static strength dimension from earlier research and a dynamic strength dimension. Structural equation models were constructed to estimate the relationship between physical abilities and performance. ResultsStatic strength strongly predicted performance (β = .86), but this association was significantly (p < .001) lower than the estimate obtained in prior studies of shorter tasks. Adding dynamic strength (i.e., sit-ups, pull-ups) improved overall criterion prediction slightly (semipartial r = .13) even though it lowered the estimated effect of static strength by 25% (β = .69). ConclusionsThe effects of physical abilities on task performance can be estimated accurately only after careful selection of tasks and ability tests. The analysis procedures must provide methods of formulating and testing specific models that combine theoretical considerations with prior empirical findings. Most prior studies of physical abilities and task performance do not meet these criteria. The resulting estimates of the impact of physical ability on performance are likely to be biased. The biases can undermine the accuracy of screening batteries and/or lead to suboptimal performance enhancement interventions. Strength and Moderate Duration Tasks

show abstract

“…(Department of Defense, 1995) In 1985 Robertson and Trent concluded a Navy study wherein they found that physically demanding jobs in the Navy were manual materials handling tasks, and that strength was the primary physical attribute needed to accomplish such tasks. Robertson and Trent (1985) found that carrying while walking was the most common category of physically demanding tasks making up 48% of those reported. Lifting tasks were the second most common at 20% of the reported physically demanding tasks.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Body Estimation and Physical Performance: Estimation of Lifting and Carrying from Fat-Free Mass.

Hodgdon¹,

Beckett²

1998

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Documentation of Muscularly Demanding Job Tasks and Validation of an Occupational Strength Test Battery (STB)

Cited by 8 publications

References 7 publications

Physical Ability-Task Performance Models: Assessing the Risk of Omitted Variable Bias

Physical Ability-Task Performance Models: Assessing the Risk of Omitted Variable Bias

Physical Strength and Performance of Moderate Duration Physical Tasks

Body Estimation and Physical Performance: Estimation of Lifting and Carrying from Fat-Free Mass.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About