Systematic evaluation of observational methods assessing biomechanical exposures at work

Abstract

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.

Inter-rater reliability of a video-analysis method measuring low-back load in a field situation

“…We did not compare our results to a gold standard as, regrettably, there is no gold standard in assessments of low-back load doses in field situations (Takala et al, 2010). Comparison of measurement tools described in other studies with respect to validity of outcomes is therefore difficult.…”

Investigation of Ergonomics Risk Factors for Musculoskeletal Disorders among Oil Palm Workers Using Quick Exposure Check (QEC)

“…Both intra-observer and inter-observer were found high in term of sensitivity and reliability [13]. It has also proven applicable to be used in wide range of working activities, easy to use with a pen-and-paper, the most importantly is that whenever QEC is implemented workers activities are uninterrupted [14,15,12].…”

“…The tool was tested in term of its validity and reliability in the original tool development. The testing process using simulated and workplace tasks [11,12]. Both intra-observer and inter-observer were found high in term of sensitivity and reliability [13].…”

Usability of the Upper Limb Risk Assessment (UPLIRA) Method for Assessing the Risk Factors of Upper Limb Disorders

“…The number of available methods are large, but no single method is suitable for all purposes. Since, different methods often focus on different exposures, it may be worth to combine several methods to perform a more comprehensive risk assessment [7]. The current techniques for assessing exposure to risk factors associated with ULDs includes Rapid Upper Limb Assessment (RULA) [8], Job Strain Index (JSI) [9], Occupational Repetitive Actions (OCRA) [10], Cumulative Trauma Disorders (CTD) [11], Loading on the Upper Body Assessment (LUBA) [12], Upper Limb Disorders (ULDs) Health and Safety Guide (HSG-60) [13], and Assessment of Repetitive Task (ART) [14].…”