Development and evaluation of an observational Back-Exposure Sampling Tool (Back-EST) for work-related back injury risk factors

Village, Judy; Trask, Catherine; Luong, Nancy; Chow, Yat; Johnson, Peter W.; Koehoorn, Mieke; Teschke, Kay

doi:10.1016/j.apergo.2008.09.001

Cited by 37 publications

(30 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…When technical measurements have served as reference, correspondence has generally been lower than when using video-based observations as the reference (14,30,33,34,70,126). In these comparisons, the variables of interest have been mainly frequency or duration of postures classified according to category limits set by the observational method.…”

Section: Validity and Repeatability Of Observational Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Generally, the worksite observation methods showed moderate-to-good agreement with measures based on visual recordings, and the correspondence was best for macro-postures and work actions. Micro-postures [like those of the wrist and hand (67,70,129), neck (34) and trunk rotation (126)] seem to be more difficult to observe with satisfactory accuracy.…”

Section: Validity and Repeatability Of Observational Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The proportion of time in demanding back postures was compared with technical measures and the match was found to be moderate at best, although the finding may have been affected by the different sampling procedures of the compared tools (126). Inter-observer repeatability has been moderate (126).…”

Section: Washington State Ergonomic Checklist For Manual Handlingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The items were observed once every 60 seconds over a full-shift to produce data that can be analyzed according to the purposes of the individual research (126). The proportion of time in demanding back postures was compared with technical measures and the match was found to be moderate at best, although the finding may have been affected by the different sampling procedures of the compared tools (126). Inter-observer repeatability has been moderate (126).…”

Section: Washington State Ergonomic Checklist For Manual Handlingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In the development phase, a literature review suggested 53 relevant exposure variables; these were reduced to 20 items concerning posture, manual material handling, and whole-body vibration. The items were observed once every 60 seconds over a full-shift to produce data that can be analyzed according to the purposes of the individual research (126). The proportion of time in demanding back postures was compared with technical measures and the match was found to be moderate at best, although the finding may have been affected by the different sampling procedures of the compared tools (126).…”

Section: Washington State Ergonomic Checklist For Manual Handlingmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Systematic evaluation of observational methods assessing biomechanical exposures at work

Takala¹,

Pehkonen²,

Forsman³

et al. 2009

Scand J Work Environ Health

464

353

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives This systematic review aimed to identify published observational methods assessing biomechanical exposures in occupational settings and evaluate them with reference to the needs of different users. MethodsWe searched scientific databases and the internet for material from 1965 to September 2008. Methods were included if they were primarily based on the systematic observation of work, the observation target was the human body, and the method was clearly described in the literature. A systematic evaluation procedure was developed to assess concurrent and predictive validity, repeatability, and aspects related to utility. At least two evaluators independently carried out this evaluation. ResultsWe identified 30 eligible observational methods. Of these, 19 had been compared with some other method(s), varying from expert evaluation to data obtained from video recordings or through the use of technical instruments. Generally, the observations showed moderate-to-good agreement with the corresponding assessments made from video recordings; agreement was the best for large-scale body postures and work actions. Postures of wrist and hand as well as trunk rotation seemed to be more difficult to observe correctly. Intra-and inter-observer repeatability were reported for 7 and 17 methods, respectively, and were judged mostly to be moderate or good.good. . ConclusionsWith training, observers can reach consistent results on clearly visible body postures and work activities. Many observational tools exist, but none evaluated in this study appeared to be generally superior. When selecting a method, users should define their needs and assess how results will influence decision-making.

show abstract