Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Cincinnati, Ohio.
J Occup Environ Hyg. 2010 Jul;7(7):407-16. doi: 10.1080/15459624.2010.481171.
This article compares several methods that were used for determining hand activity level and force in a large prospective ergonomics study. The first goal of this analysis was to determine the degree of correlation between hand activity/ force ratings using different assessment methods. The second goal was to determine if the hand activity/force methods were functionally equivalent for the purpose of calculating the ACGIH(R) hand activity level (HAL) threshold limit value (TLV(R)). A final goal was to investigate reasons for potential differences between methods. More than 700 task analyses were conducted on 484 workers at three study locations. Hand activity was assessed by two methods, including a trained observer on site using a 10-point visual analog scale for hand activity level and by offsite video analysis of the same task to calculate the frequency of exertions and the work/recovery ratio. Hand force was assessed by two on-site methods: ratings of perceived exertion (RPE) using a modified Borg CR-10 scale by a trained observer and RPE by the worker performing the task. The two methods for assessing hand activity level were correlated (Spearman rank = 0.49) and produced main TLV result categories (below Action Limit, Action Limit, TLV) with percent of exact agreement ranging from 71 to 91% and weighted Kappa ranging from 0.61 to 0.75. The two RPE methods for assessing hand force were correlated (Spearman rank ranging from 0.47 to 0.69) and produced TLVs with percent of exact agreement ranging from 64 to 83% and weighted Kappa ranging from 0.52 to 0.62. Differences between methods may be explained by a number of task and subject variables that were significantly associated with higher levels of hand activity and force. In summary, this study found substantial agreement between two methods for assessing hand activity level and moderate agreement between two methods for assessing hand force.
本文比较了几种方法，这些方法用于在大型前瞻性工效学研究中确定手部活动水平和力量。该分析的首要目标是确定使用不同评估方法的手部活动/力量评级之间的相关性程度。第二个目标是确定手部活动/力量方法是否在计算 ACGIH（R）手部活动水平（HAL）阈限值（TLV（R））方面具有功能等效性。最终目标是调查方法之间潜在差异的原因。在三个研究地点对 484 名工人进行了超过 700 项任务分析。手部活动通过两种方法进行评估，包括现场使用 10 分视觉模拟量表对手部活动水平进行评估的经过培训的观察者，以及对同一任务进行场外视频分析以计算用力频率和工作/恢复比。手部力量通过两种现场方法进行评估：经过培训的观察者使用改良的 Borg CR-10 量表进行的感知用力评级（RPE）和执行任务的工人进行的 RPE。评估手部活动水平的两种方法具有相关性（Spearman 等级= 0.49），并且产生了主要 TLV 结果类别（低于行动限值、行动限值、TLV），完全一致的百分比范围从 71%到 91%，加权 Kappa 范围从 0.61 到 0.75。评估手部力量的两种 RPE 方法具有相关性（Spearman 等级范围从 0.47 到 0.69），并且产生了 TLV，完全一致的百分比范围从 64%到 83%，加权 Kappa 范围从 0.52 到 0.62。方法之间的差异可以用许多与手部活动和力量水平较高相关的任务和受试者变量来解释。总之，这项研究发现评估手部活动水平的两种方法之间具有实质性一致性，评估手部力量的两种方法之间具有中等程度的一致性。
