The accuracy of self-report and trained observer methods for obtaining estimates of peak load information during industrial work

The purpose of this study was to determine how well self-report (questionnaire=QR) and trained observer (checklist=OBS) data recording methods compared with more expensive video analysis (VID) for estimating various peak physical loading exposure variables on the low backs of 99 employees during work in an automobile assembly plant. The variables studied were L4/L5 spine compression and shear forces, L4/L5 moment, trunk angle, and hand load. Peak low back loads associated with the working postures of, and the applied loads on, each worker were estimated using a 2D biomechanical model that could accommodate inertial forces acting in various directions on the hands independently. Correlations between the VID and OBS methods were greater for each variable than between VID and QR methods, with ranges in coefficients from 0.6 to 0.8, and 0.1 to 0.4, respectively, giving a discouraging impression of the QR, and the OBS method to a lesser degree, for peak low back exposure assessment. Despite the better performance of OBS method for individuals, it was still only able to account for between 36% and 64% of the variance relative to the VID method. When all workers were considered as a single group, compression and shear forces, moment and hand load estimates were the same regardless of method used to collect the data. Self-reported trunk flexion was significantly greater than that reported by trained observers or on video (p<0.0001). Relevance to industry Considerable time and expense could be saved in large scale studies if it were possible to rely on worker's reports or observation of the physical demands of their jobs instead of traditional video and biomechanical analyses. Assessments of peak exposure of individuals using the self-report and observation methods were discouraging. Analysis of a single group proved more promising, but other groups need to be studied. Interview assisted self-reports may help to improve assessments of individuals and also need to be investigated in the future.

[1]  R. Norman,et al.  1986 Volvo Award in Biomechanics: Partitioning of the L4 - L5 Dynamic Moment into Disc, Ligamentous, and Muscular Components During Lifting , 1986, Spine.

[2]  W M Keyserling Postural analysis of the trunk and shoulders in simulated real time. , 1986, Ergonomics.

[3]  Anil Mital,et al.  The ergonomics of working postures: by Nigel Corlett, John Wilson and Ilija Manenica (Eds.), Taylor & Francis, Ltd., London and Philadelphia, 1986, ISBN 0-85066-338-5, 429 pages including references and subject index. , 1988 .

[4]  W. G. Allread,et al.  The Role of Dynamic Three-Dimensional Trunk Motion in Occupationally-Related Low Back Disorders: The Effects of Workplace Factors, Trunk Position, and Trunk Motion Characteristics on Risk of Injury , 1993, Spine.

[5]  W. M. Keyserling,et al.  A checklist for evaluating ergonomic risk factors resulting from awkward postures of the legs, trunk and neck , 1992 .

[6]  W S Marras,et al.  A Three-Dimensional Motion Model of Loads on the Lumbar Spine: I. Model Structure , 1991, Human factors.

[7]  S. Kumar,et al.  Cumulative Load as a Risk Factor for Back Pain , 1990, Spine.

[8]  Jörgen Winkel,et al.  Validity of self-reported exposures to work postures and manual materials handling , 1993 .

[9]  O Karhu,et al.  Correcting working postures in industry: A practical method for analysis. , 1977, Applied ergonomics.

[10]  J R Potvin,et al.  Reduction in anterior shear forces on the L 4L 5 disc by the lumbar musculature. , 1991, Clinical biomechanics.

[11]  W. M. Keyserling,et al.  Back disorders and nonneutral trunk postures of automobile assembly workers. , 1991, Scandinavian journal of work, environment & health.

[12]  A. Burdorf,et al.  Comparison of methods for the assessment of postural load on the back. , 1991, Scandinavian journal of work, environment & health.

[13]  Alwin Luttmann,et al.  Lumbar load during one-handed bricklaying , 1991 .

[14]  M Jager Lumbar load during one-handed bricklaying , 1991 .

[15]  Canada. Fitness,et al.  Canadian standardized test of fitness (CSTF) : operations manual , 1986 .

[16]  H M Toussaint,et al.  The validity of visual observation to assess posture in a laboratory-simulated, manual material handling task. , 1994, Ergonomics.

[17]  J. Krutch,et al.  The Measure of Man , 1953 .

[18]  R W Norman,et al.  Dynamically and statically determined low back moments during lifting. , 1985, Journal of biomechanics.

[19]  Robert W. Norman,et al.  Accuracy and repeatability of low back spine compression force estimates from self-reports of body posture during load handling , 1996 .

[20]  A Burdorf,et al.  Reducing random measurement error in assessing postural load on the back in epidemiologic surveys. , 1995, Scandinavian journal of work, environment & health.

[21]  E. N. Corlett,et al.  Posture Targeting: A Technique for Recording Working Postures , 1979 .

[22]  C. Wiktorin,et al.  Validity of self-reported exposures to work postures and manual materials handling. Stockholm MUSIC I Study Group. , 1993, Scandinavian journal of work, environment & health.

[23]  A M Genaidy,et al.  Spinal compression tolerance limits for the design of manual material handling operations in the workplace. , 1993, Ergonomics.