Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, Ryerson University, Canada.
Ergonomics. 2010 Jan;53(1):130-7. doi: 10.1080/00140130903349914.
This paper addresses a number of issues for work environment intervention (WEI) researchers in light of the mixed results reported in the literature. If researchers emphasise study quality over intervention quality, reviews that exclude case studies with high quality and multifactorial interventions may be vulnerable to 'quality criteria selection bias'. Learning from 'failed' interventions is inhibited by both publication bias and reporting lengths that limit information on relevant contextual and implementation factors. The authors argue for the need to develop evaluation approaches consistent with the complexity of multifactorial WEIs that: a) are owned by and aimed at the whole organisation; and b) include intervention in early design stages where potential impact is highest. Context variety, complexity and instability in and around organisations suggest that attention might usefully shift from generalisable 'proof of effectiveness' to a more nuanced identification of intervention elements and the situations in which they are more likely to work as intended. STATEMENT OF RELEVANCE: This paper considers ergonomics interventions from perspectives of what constitutes quality and 'proof". It points to limitations of traditional experimental intervention designs and argues that the complexity of organisational change, and the need for multifactorial interventions that reach deep into work processes for greater impact, should be recognised.
本文针对工作环境干预（WEI）研究人员在文献中报告的混合结果提出了一些问题。如果研究人员强调研究质量而不是干预质量，那么排除高质量和多因素干预的案例研究的综述可能容易受到“质量标准选择偏倚”的影响。由于出版偏见和报告篇幅限制了对相关背景和实施因素的信息，因此从“失败”干预中学习受到抑制。作者认为有必要制定与多因素 WEI 的复杂性一致的评估方法，这些方法：a）为整个组织所有，并针对整个组织；b）在早期设计阶段就包括干预措施，因为此时潜在影响最大。组织内外的背景多样性、复杂性和不稳定性表明，关注的重点可能需要从可推广的“有效性证明”转移到更细致地识别干预要素，以及更有可能按预期发挥作用的情况。相关性声明：本文从构成质量和“证明”的角度考虑了人类工效学干预措施。它指出了传统实验干预设计的局限性，并认为有必要认识到组织变革的复杂性，以及需要深入工作流程的多因素干预措施，以实现更大的影响。
