Comparing the results of five lifting analysis tools.

The objective of this study was to compare the results of the NIOSH, ACGIH TLV, Snook, 3DSSPP and WA L&I lifting assessment instruments when applied to a uniform task (lifting and lowering milk cases with capacities of 15 and 23l). To enable comparisons between the various lifting assessment instruments, the outputs of each method were converted to an exposure index similar to the NIOSH Lifting Index. All instruments showed higher exposures associated with lifting the 23l cases versus the 15l cases. The NIOSH, ACGIH TLV and Snook methods were similar in their results with respect to the pattern of exposure over various height levels and the differences in exposures associated with lifting 15 and 23l cases. However, the WA L&I and 3DSSPP predicted substantially lower exposures. The reasons for instrument differences are presented so that practitioners can better select the methods they need and interpret the results appropriately.

Comparison of ergonomist, supervisor, and worker assessments of work-related musculoskeletal risk factors.

In primary prevention efforts to reduce the incidence of work-related musculoskeletal disease (MSD), many employers will use supervisor or worker assessments for initial evaluation of MSD risk factors. This cross-sectional study examined the ability of supervisors and workers to accurately assess the presence of MSD risk factors at four work sites in four different industries, examining five jobs that represented six primary categories of risk factors: posture, force, repetition, impact, lifting, and vibration. Thirty-seven supervisors and 55 workers assessed the jobs they oversee or perform through the use of a 14-item questionnaire. Their assessments were compared with detailed ergonomist job analyses to determine their accuracy in identifying the presence or absence of MSD risk factors. In assessing the absence or presence of all risk factors, agreement with the ergonomist was found 81% of the time for supervisors and 77% of the time for workers. Overall, supervisors and workers overestimated the presence of risk in assessing the jobs. Supervisors and worker assessments appear promising in recognizing risk in initial ergonomic assessments.