Reliability and Validity of Six Selected Observational Methods for Risk Assessment of Hand Intensive and Repetitive Work.

Risk assessments of hand-intensive and repetitive work are commonly done using observational methods, and it is important that the methods are reliable and valid. However, comparisons of the reliability and validity of methods are hampered by differences in studies, e.g., regarding the background and competence of the observers, the complexity of the observed work tasks and the statistical methodology. The purpose of the present study was to evaluate six risk assessment methods, concerning inter- and intra-observer reliability and concurrent validity, using the same methodological design and statistical parameters in the analyses. Twelve experienced ergonomists were recruited to perform risk assessments of ten video-recorded work tasks twice, and consensus assessments for the concurrent validity were carried out by three experts. All methods' total-risk linearly weighted kappa values for inter-observer reliability (when all tasks were set to the same duration) were lower than 0.5 (0.15-0.45). Moreover, the concurrent validity values were in the same range with regards to total-risk linearly weighted kappa (0.31-0.54). Although these levels are often considered as being fair to substantial, they denote agreements lower than 50% when the expected agreement by chance has been compensated for. Hence, the risk of misclassification is substantial. The intra-observer reliability was only somewhat higher (0.16-0.58). Regarding the methods ART (Assessment of repetitive tasks of the upper limbs) and HARM (Hand Arm Risk Assessment Method), it is worth noting that the work task duration has a high impact in the risk level calculation, which needs to be taken into account in studies of reliability. This study indicates that when experienced ergonomists use systematic methods, the reliability is low. As seen in other studies, especially assessments of hand/wrist postures were difficult to rate. In light of these results, complementing observational risk assessments with technical methods should be considered, especially when evaluating the effects of ergonomic interventions.

Mind the gap - development of conversion models between accelerometer- and IMU-based measurements of arm and trunk postures and movements in warehouse work.

Sensor type (accelerometers only versus inertial measurement units, IMUs) and angular velocity computational method (inclination versus generalized velocity) have been shown to affect the measurements of arm and trunk movements. This study developed models for conversions between accelerometer and IMU measurements of arm and trunk inclination and between accelerometer and IMU measurements of inclination and generalized (arm) velocities. Full-workday recordings from accelerometers and IMUs of arm and trunk postures and movements from 38 warehouse workers were used to develop 4 angular (posture) and 24 angular velocity (movement) conversion models for the distributions of the data. A power function with one coefficient and one exponent was used, and it correlated well (r2 > 0.999) in all cases to the average curves comparing one measurement with another. These conversion models facilitate the comparison and merging of measurements of arm and trunk movements collected using the two sensor types and the two computational methods.

A possible revival of population-representing digital human manikins in static work situations - exemplified through an evaluation of a prototype console for robotic surgery.

BACKGROUND: In the 90s, digital human manikins (DHMs) were introduced in planning of workstations, by static or semi-static simulations. Modern DHMs can simulate dynamic work and offer a rapid way for a virtual pre-production ergonomic evaluation. Work-related musculoskeletal disorders may affect surgical performance and patient safety. A prototype of an open console, which is contrary to the conventional closed consoles and may be seen as a representative for a new generation, has been designed to reduce workload for robotic surgery surgeons. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this project was to test a new DHM tool with improved usability to evaluate the ergonomics of a console of a robotic surgical system in a pre-production stage. METHODS: The DHM tool IMMA was used together with a 3D model of the prototype console. Twelve manikins who represented females and males from two national populations were introduced. Manikin-console distances, after console adjustments per manikin, were compared with a US checklist and Swedish standard for VDU work. RESULTS: The DHM tool was useful for this case, but the distances of the checklist and the standard were needed to be obtained "manually". The automatic functions of the DHM worked smoothly but were not optimized for VDU work. The prototype fulfilled most, but not all, of the ergonomic criteria of the checklist and the standard. CONCLUSIONS: There is room for improvements of the adjustable ranges of the console prototype. DHMs may facilitate rapid pre-production evaluation of workstations for static work; if ergonomic assessment models for VDU work are built-in, there may be a revival of DHMs in static work situations.

Effects of Sensor Types and Angular Velocity Computational Methods in Field Measurements of Occupational Upper Arm and Trunk Postures and Movements.

Accelerometer-based inclinometers have dominated kinematic measurements in previous field studies, while the use of inertial measurement units that additionally include gyroscopes is rapidly increasing. Recent laboratory studies suggest that these two sensor types and the two commonly used angular velocity computational methods may produce substantially different results. The aim of this study was, therefore, to evaluate the effects of sensor types and angular velocity computational methods on the measures of work postures and movements in a real occupational setting. Half-workday recordings of arm and trunk postures, and movements from 38 warehouse workers were compared using two sensor types: accelerometers versus accelerometers with gyroscopes-and using two angular velocity computational methods, i.e., inclination velocity versus generalized velocity. The results showed an overall small difference (<2° and value independent) for posture percentiles between the two sensor types, but substantial differences in movement percentiles both between the sensor types and between the angular computational methods. For example, the group mean of the 50th percentiles were for accelerometers: 71°/s (generalized velocity) and 33°/s (inclination velocity)-and for accelerometers with gyroscopes: 31°/s (generalized velocity) and 16°/s (inclination velocity). The significant effects of sensor types and angular computational methods on angular velocity measures in field work are important in inter-study comparisons and in comparisons to recommended threshold limit values.

Inter- and intra-rater reliability of the OCRA checklist method in video-recorded manual work tasks.

Observation-based risk assessments are often used for evaluation of biomechanical workload and the condition of the workplace ergonomics. However, the inter- and intra-rater reliability of the methods used for the assessments are insufficiently studied. The OCRA checklist method, included as a reference method in the ISO and CEN standards regarding upper limb repetitive risk assessment, was in this study investigated regarding its reliability. Eleven ergonomists were educated within the method. Each ergonomist risk-assessed ten video-recorded manual work tasks, on two occasions. The average inter-rater agreement of the five overall risk levels was 39% and the linearly weighted kappa was 0.43, the intra-rater dittos were 45% and 0.52. Both indicating a moderate reliability, but lower than what could be expected. The levels might be sufficient for coarse surveys. However, for risk assessments before and after an intervention, complementing technical methods should be considered.