LUBA: an assessment technique for postural loading on the upper body based on joint motion discomfort and maximum holding time

Kee, Dohyung; Karwowski, Waldemar

doi:10.1016/s0003-6870(01)00006-0

Cited by 217 publications

(107 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

101

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…All scores are summed up to one score describing the urgency of intervention actions. The summary score of postures is compared to experimental maximal holding times in different postures, and this analysis is used to formulate decision rules for the priority of actions needed (56). No studies testing the validity or repeatability of the method were found.…”

Section: Postural Loading On the Upper-body Assessment (Luba)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Systematic evaluation of observational methods assessing biomechanical exposures at work

Takala¹,

Pehkonen²,

Forsman³

et al. 2009

Scand J Work Environ Health

454

353

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives This systematic review aimed to identify published observational methods assessing biomechanical exposures in occupational settings and evaluate them with reference to the needs of different users. MethodsWe searched scientific databases and the internet for material from 1965 to September 2008. Methods were included if they were primarily based on the systematic observation of work, the observation target was the human body, and the method was clearly described in the literature. A systematic evaluation procedure was developed to assess concurrent and predictive validity, repeatability, and aspects related to utility. At least two evaluators independently carried out this evaluation. ResultsWe identified 30 eligible observational methods. Of these, 19 had been compared with some other method(s), varying from expert evaluation to data obtained from video recordings or through the use of technical instruments. Generally, the observations showed moderate-to-good agreement with the corresponding assessments made from video recordings; agreement was the best for large-scale body postures and work actions. Postures of wrist and hand as well as trunk rotation seemed to be more difficult to observe correctly. Intra-and inter-observer repeatability were reported for 7 and 17 methods, respectively, and were judged mostly to be moderate or good.good. . ConclusionsWith training, observers can reach consistent results on clearly visible body postures and work activities. Many observational tools exist, but none evaluated in this study appeared to be generally superior. When selecting a method, users should define their needs and assess how results will influence decision-making.

show abstract

Section: Postural Loading On the Upper-body Assessment (Luba)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Systematic evaluation of observational methods assessing biomechanical exposures at work

Takala¹,

Pehkonen²,

Forsman³

et al. 2009

Scand J Work Environ Health

454

353

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Unlike other postural assessment methods like RULA (McAtamney and Nigel Corlett, 1993), REBA (Hignett and McAtamney, 2000) or LUBA (Kee and Karwowski, 2001) which analyze individual body segments, OWAS makes multiple observations of the posture of the worker during work. OWAS has been applied to a wide range of industries (Pinzke, 1992).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Using Kinect™ sensor in observational methods for assessing postures at work

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

a b s t r a c tThis paper examines the potential use of KinectÔ range sensor in observational methods for assessing postural loads. Range sensors can detect the position of the joints at high sampling rates without attaching sensors or markers directly to the subject under study. First, a computerized OWAS ergonomic assessment system was implemented to permit the data acquisition from KinectÔ and data processing in order to identify the risk level of each recorded postures. Output data were compared with the results provided by human observers, and were used to determine the influence of the sensor view angle relative to the worker. The tests show high inter-method agreement in the classification of risk categories (Proportion agreement index ¼ 0.89 k ¼ 0.83) when the tracked subject is facing the sensor. The camera's point of view relative to the position of the tracked subject significantly affects the correct classification of the postures. Although the results are promising, some aspects involved in the use of low-cost range sensors should be further studied for their use in real environments.

show abstract

“…Physical exposure to work-related musculoskeletal risks was assessed with loading on the upper body assessment (LUBA) [23]. In LUBA, a score is calculated for the posture of each body part.…”

Section: Data Gathering Methods and Toolsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Postural Loading Assessment in Assembly Workers of an Iranian Telecommunication Manufacturing Company

Kamalinia

Saraji

Kee

et al. 2013

International Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

LUBA: an assessment technique for postural loading on the upper body based on joint motion discomfort and maximum holding time

Cited by 217 publications

References 31 publications

Systematic evaluation of observational methods assessing biomechanical exposures at work

Systematic evaluation of observational methods assessing biomechanical exposures at work

Using Kinect™ sensor in observational methods for assessing postures at work

Postural Loading Assessment in Assembly Workers of an Iranian Telecommunication Manufacturing Company

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About