Journal of the Ergonomics Society of Korea (대한인간공학회지)

Ergonomics Society of Korea (대한인간공학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

A Study for the Appropriateness of the Different Reference Points in the Analysis of Working Posture

  • Kim, Day-Sung (Occupational Safety and Health Research Institute, KOSHA) ;
  • Kim, Chol-Hong (Department of Industrial & Management Engineering, Institute of Labor Science)
  • Received : 2011.05.13
  • Accepted : 2011.09.08
  • Published : 2011.10.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Objective & Background: When applying various evaluation tools that analyze work posture risk through observation, accurate measurement of body flexion angle is very important. Method: This study investigated differences and appropriateness of 5 different existing reference points commonly used in the analysis of the work posture. Twenty five ergonomist and trained professionals were participated in this study. A Same flexion angle was utilized for the evaluation of risk assessment of musculoskeletal disorders using five different reference points to investigate the degree of difference between them. To investigate how different the observers' preferred flexion angle measuring methods were compared to the ISO 11226 Reference Posture, a virtual body model was constructed using the Poser 6.0 program. Six types of body flexion postures were constructed, and since neck flexion differs according to body angle, five types of neck flexion postures were constructed with the trunk bending $20^{\circ}$ forward, making up a total of 30 virtual flexion postures. Results: Results showed that the observers used personally preferred reference points instead of reference points recommend in the evaluation tools. Also the results revealed the their seems to be 6 types of flexion angle for the trunk and 11 types of measurement methods for the neck flexion angle in the form of personally preferred reference points. The results showed that a mean difference of $14^{\circ}$($4{\sim}23^{\circ}$) occurred in the trunk, and a mean difference of $20^{\circ}$($-8{\sim}51^{\circ}$) occurred in the neck. To increase accuracy when using the 5 evaluation tools in combination, the ISO 11226 standards, observers' preferred flexion posture standards, and common flexion posture standards of the evaluation tools were compared with the reference points of the 5 evaluation tools. Results showed considerable variance in angle difference for each evaluation tool. Conclusion: According to the results of this study, considering the angle difference between the flexion angle reference points of the evaluation tool and the reference points selected by the observers, it is concluded that instead of personally preferred reference points, the standardized reference points to enhance the accuracy and the objectivity. Application: The result of this study can be used as reference guide to develop the standardized reference point in the future.

Keywords

References

  1. Burt, S. and Punnett, L., Evaluation of interrater reliability for posture observations in a field study, Applied Ergonomics, 30, 121-135, 1999. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-6870(98)00007-6
  2. Chaffin, D., Andersson, G. and Martin, B., Occupational Biomechanics, 3rd ed., New York: John Wiley, 1999.
  3. Dartt, A., Rosecrance, J., Gerr, F., Chen, P., Anton, D. and Merlino, L., Reliability of assessing Upper Limb postures among workers performing manufacturing tasks. Applied Ergonomics, 40, 371-378, 2009. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2008.11.008
  4. Elizabeth, C., Visual Posture Observation Error and Training. North Carolina State University, 2003.
  5. Hignett, S. and McAtamney, L., Rapid Entire Body Assessment (REBA). Applied Ergonomics, 31, 201-205, 2000. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-6870(99)00039-3
  6. Hsiao, H. and Keyserling, W. M., Evaluating posture behavior during seated tasks, International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 8, 313-334, 1991. https://doi.org/10.1016/0169-8141(91)90068-W
  7. ISO 11226, Ergonomics-Evaluation of static working postures, International Organization for Standardization, 2000.
  8. Juul-Kristensen, B., Hansson, G.-A., Fallentin, N., Andersen, J. H. and Ekdahl, C., Assessment of work postures and movement using a video-based observation method and direct technical measurements, Applied Ergonomics, 32, 517-524, 2001. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-6870(01)00017-5
  9. Kee, D., A Review of Postural Classification Schemes for Evaluating Postural Load-focused on the Observational Methods, Journal of the KIIS, Vol. 15, No. 4, 2000.
  10. Kee, D. and Park, K., Comparison of Posture Classification Schemes of OWAS, RULA and REBA, Journal of the KOSOS, Vol. 20, No. 2, 2005.
  11. Keyserling, M., Brouwer, M. and Silverstein, B., A checklist for evaluating ergonomic risk factors resulting from awkward postures of the legs, trunk, and neck. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 9, 283-301, 1992. https://doi.org/10.1016/0169-8141(92)90062-5
  12. Kilbom, A., Persson, J. and Jonsson, B. G., Disorders of the cervicobrachial region among female workers in the electronics industry. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 1, 37-47, 1986. https://doi.org/10.1016/0169-8141(86)90006-5
  13. Korean Agency for Technology and Standards, Korean anthropometric data of Size Korea. Retrieved January 23, 2005, from http://sizekorea.ats.go.kr/ 01_Size Korea /01_SizeKoreaOutline.asp, 2004.
  14. Korean Ministry of Labor, Statistics of Industrial Accident in 2008. Korean Ministry of Labor, Seoul, Korea, 2009.
  15. KOSHA(Korea Occupational Safety and Health Agency), Guideline for the examination of risk factors related to WMSDs. KOSHA, Seoul, Korea, 2003.
  16. Lariviere, C., Gagnon, D. and Loisel, P., The effect of load on the coordination of the trunk for subjects with and without chronic low back pain during flexion-extension and lateral bending tasks. Clinical Biomechanics, 15, 407-416, 2000. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0268-0033(00)00006-1
  17. Lee, I., Effects of Viewing Angle on the Estimation of Joint Angles in the 2 dimensional Plane, Journal of the Ergonomics Society of Korea, 25(2), 51-61, 2006. https://doi.org/10.5143/JESK.2006.25.2.051
  18. Li, G. and Buckle, P., Current techniques for assessing physical exposure to work-related musculoskeletal risks with emphasis on posture-based methods, Ergonomics, 42, 5, 674-695, 1999. https://doi.org/10.1080/001401399185388
  19. Marras, W., Fathallah, F., Miller, R., Davis, S. and Mirka, G., Accuracy of a three-dimensional lumbar motion monitor for recording dynamic trunk motion characteristics. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 9, 75-87, 1992. https://doi.org/10.1016/0169-8141(92)90078-E
  20. McAtamney, L. and Corlett, E., RULA: a survey method for the investigation of work-related upper limb disorders. Applied Ergonomics, 24, 91-99, 1993. https://doi.org/10.1016/0003-6870(93)90080-S
  21. Neumann, P., Wells, R. P., Norman, R. W., Frank, J., Shannon, H. and Kerr, M. S., the OUBPS Working Group, A posture and load sampling approach to determining low-back pain risk in occupational settings, International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 27, 65-77, 2001. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-8141(00)00038-X
  22. NIOSH(National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health). Musculoskeletal disorders and workplace factors: A critical review of epidemiologic evidence for work-related musculoskeletal disorders of the neck, upper extremity, and low back. Cincinnati, OH: NIOSH Publ. No. 97-141, 1997.
  23. Park, J., A Survey on the Workload Evaluation Methods and Their Applications to WMSD Work in Industries, Journal of the Ergonomics Society of Korea, 29(4), 435-444, 2010. https://doi.org/10.5143/JESK.2010.29.4.435
  24. Straker, L., Burgess-Limerick, R., Pollock, C., Murray, K., Netto, K., Coleman, J. and Skoss, R., The impact of computer display height and desk design on 3D posture during information technology work by young adults, J Electromyogr Kinesiol, 18, 336-349, 2008. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jelekin.2006.10.007

Cited by

  1. A Survey on the Risk Factors Analysis and Evaluation for the types of VDT Work vol.32, pp.5, 2013, https://doi.org/10.5143/JESK.2013.32.5.469