Validation of Portable Ergonomic Observation (PEO) method using optoelectronic and video recordings

Leskinen, Timo; Hall, Charlotte L; Rauas, Sirpa; Ulin, Sheryl S.; Tönnes, Matti; Viikari‐Juntura, Eira; Takala, Esa-Pekka

doi:10.1016/s0003-6870(96)00054-3

Cited by 34 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Generally, the worksite observation methods showed moderate-to-good agreement with measures based on visual recordings, and the correspondence was best for macro-postures and work actions. Micro-postures [like those of the wrist and hand (67,70,129), neck (34) and trunk rotation (126)] seem to be more difficult to observe with satisfactory accuracy.…”

Section: Validity and Repeatability Of Observational Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…When technical measurements have served as reference, correspondence has generally been lower than when using video-based observations as the reference (14,30,33,34,70,126). In these comparisons, the variables of interest have been mainly frequency or duration of postures classified according to category limits set by the observational method.…”

Section: Validity and Repeatability Of Observational Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In these comparisons, the variables of interest have been mainly frequency or duration of postures classified according to category limits set by the observational method. This kind of comparison may be sensitive to the "border lines" of the categories (32,34,67,(129)(130)(131)(132). In other words, if the observer's perception is systematically biased in comparison to the limit used by the accurate technical method, the probability of having a high correspondence will decrease if the true posture is close to a category border line ("boundary zone problem").…”

Section: Validity and Repeatability Of Observational Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The information on daily frequency of tasks needed for the calculation of cumulative exposures is obtained by interviews or production output (32). The method has shown moderate-to-good correspondence with data obtained by video (32) and direct technical measures (33,34). An association between PEO observations and musculoskeletal discomfort has been seen in cross-sectional studies (35,36).…”

Section: Portable Ergonomic Observation (Peo)mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Systematic evaluation of observational methods assessing biomechanical exposures at work

Takala¹,

Pehkonen²,

Forsman³

et al. 2009

Scand J Work Environ Health

Self Cite

459

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: Validity and Repeatability Of Observational Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Validity and Repeatability Of Observational Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Validity and Repeatability Of Observational Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Portable Ergonomic Observation (Peo)mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Systematic evaluation of observational methods assessing biomechanical exposures at work

Takala¹,

Pehkonen²,

Forsman³

et al. 2009

Scand J Work Environ Health

Self Cite

459

353

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Posture has been assessed during lying, 3 sitting, 4 standing, [5][6][7] lifting, 8 working, 9 walking, 10 daily routine performance, 11 and running, 12 to name a few. Postural stress has been correlated to office work, 13 work lifting injuries, 14 driving, 15 sitting, 16 space flight, 17 sports injuries, 18 and back pain. 19 Current chiropractic education places emphasis on the structure and function of the neuromusculoskeletal system in health and disease.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%