Zare Mohsen, Biau Sophie, Brunet Rene, Roquelaure Yves
a Equipe ERCOS-UTBM - Université de Bourgogne Franche-Comté , Belfort , France.
b French Institute of National Horse Riding School (IFCE) , Saumur , France.
Ergonomics. 2017 Nov;60(11):1551-1563. doi: 10.1080/00140139.2017.1314023. Epub 2017 May 5.
This study compared the results of three risk assessment tools (self-reported questionnaire, observational tool, direct measurement method) for the upper limbs and back in a truck assembly plant at two cycle times (11 and 8 min). The weighted Kappa factor showed fair agreement between the observational and direct measurement method for the arm (0.39) and back (0.47). The weighted Kappa factor for these methods was poor for the neck (0) and wrist (0) but the observed proportional agreement (P) was 0.78 for the neck and 0.83 for the wrist. The weighted Kappa factor between questionnaire and direct measurement showed poor or slight agreement (0) for different body segments in both cycle times. The results revealed moderate agreement between the observational tool and the direct measurement method, and poor agreement between the self-reported questionnaire and direct measurement. Practitioner Summary: This study provides risk exposure measurement by different common ergonomic methods in the field. The results help to develop valid measurements and improve exposure evaluation. Hence, the ergonomist/practitioners should apply the methods with caution, or at least knowing what the issues/errors are.
本研究比较了在一家卡车装配厂中,两种周期时间(11分钟和8分钟)下,针对上肢和背部的三种风险评估工具(自我报告问卷、观察工具、直接测量方法)的结果。加权卡帕系数显示,对于手臂(0.39)和背部(0.47),观察工具与直接测量方法之间的一致性一般。对于颈部(0)和手腕(0),这些方法的加权卡帕系数较差,但观察到的比例一致性(P)对于颈部为0.78,对于手腕为0.83。在两个周期时间内,问卷与直接测量之间的加权卡帕系数显示,对于不同身体部位,一致性较差或轻微(0)。结果表明,观察工具与直接测量方法之间存在中等程度的一致性,自我报告问卷与直接测量之间存在较差的一致性。从业者总结:本研究通过不同常见的人体工程学方法在现场进行了风险暴露测量。结果有助于开发有效的测量方法并改进暴露评估。因此,人体工程学专家/从业者应谨慎应用这些方法,或者至少了解存在哪些问题/误差。