Inter-rater reliability of a video-analysis method measuring low-back load in a field situation

Abstract

a b s t r a c tValid and reliable low-back load assessment tools that can be used in field situations are needed for epidemiologic studies and for ergonomic practice. The aim of this study was to assess the inter-rater reliability of a low-back load video-analysis method in a field setting.Five raters analyzed 50 work site manual material handling tasks of 14 workers. Peak and mean moments at the level of L5S1, and segment angles were obtained using the video-analysis method. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) and median standard deviations across raters were calculated.ICCs revealed excellent inter-rater reliability (>0.9) for peak and mean moments, ICCs of segment angles were variable. Median standard deviations showed relatively small inter-rater variance for moments (standard deviation <10 Nm) and segment angle variation ranging from 0 to 20 . The proposed video-analysis method, provides a reliable tool for obtaining low-back loads from occupational field tasks.

Agreement Between Face-to-Face and Free Software Video Analysis for Assessing Hamstring Flexibility in Adolescents

“…Various published studies have used measurement software to evaluate flexibility, movement or both (5,8,9,16,24,25). Mier et al (24,25) used the proprietary software Dartfish ProSuite v4.0 software (Dartfish, Atlanta, GA, USA) in their studies.…”

“…In other studies, a custom-made MATLAB Software program (The MathWorks, Inc., Natick, Mass.) was used to estimate the movement of the low back in lifters (8) and workers in a field situation (9). Furthermore, nonspecific software has been used in several studies (e.g., Adobe Premier Pro, Adobe Photoshop) (5,16).…”

Detailed assessment of low-back loads may not be worth the effort: A comparison of two methods for exposure-outcome assessment of low-back pain

“…Differences between the two methods might stem from these issues and further improvements of the observation method might lead to even smaller differences between methods. The accuracy of our video-analysis method has been reported on before, showing good validity (i.e., high correspondence to a gold standard method; Coenen et al, 2011) and inter-rater reliability (i.e., high correspondance and low variation among raters; Coenen et al, 2013a). In spite of this higher accuracy, rather small, nonsystematic, random errors for peak and mean low-back moments can still be expected (Coenen et al, 2011(Coenen et al, , 2013a.…”

“…The accuracy of our video-analysis method has been reported on before, showing good validity (i.e., high correspondence to a gold standard method; Coenen et al, 2011) and inter-rater reliability (i.e., high correspondance and low variation among raters; Coenen et al, 2013a). In spite of this higher accuracy, rather small, nonsystematic, random errors for peak and mean low-back moments can still be expected (Coenen et al, 2011(Coenen et al, , 2013a. As there is no golden standard for physical load assessment in the field, we cannot speculate on whether even more accurate methods would lead to different outcomes.…”

“…The video-analysis method used has been shown to have good validity (Coenen et al, 2011) and inter-rater reliability (Coenen et al, 2013a). No systematic differences and a strong correspondence (correlation >0.85) of the video-analysis method compared to a laboratory based gold standard reference method (i.e., motion analysis and force plate measurements) was reported (Coenen et al, 2011).…”