LIFTAN: An experimental expert system for analysis of manual lifting tasks

Karwowski, Waldemar; Mulholland, N. O.; Ward, Tom; Jagannathan, V.; Kirchner, R. L.

doi:10.1080/00140138608967236

Cited by 29 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The results show that the weight of load is the most important factor in evaluating the physical effort. This is consistent with the knowledge accumulated in the published literature (Karwowski, Mulholland, Ward, Jaganathan, & Kirchner, 1986; U.S. Department of Labor, 1982;Waters et al, 1993). However, although the three experts rated the weight of load as the most important, their assessment of the importance of the other lifting variables differed from each other (Table 1).…”

Section: Effects Of Lifting Variables On Physical Effortsupporting

confidence: 87%

An expert cognitive approach to evaluate physical effort and injury risk in manual lifting—A brief report of a pilot study

Yeung

Genaidy

Huston

et al. 2002

Hum Ftrs & Erg Mfg Svc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although the development of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) equation was partly based on the expertise of committee members convened under the auspices of NIOSH, to our knowledge, there is no study reported in the published literature that examined the role of professional expertise in determining the relative contribution of different lifting task variables to effort exertion. In this study, we explored whether professional expertise can be relied on, through the use of a systematic procedure, to quantify the effects of lifting task parameters on perceived effort and risk of injury outcome measures.Three international experts participated in the research reported herein and evaluated the interactive effects of 6 lifting variables: (a) weight of load, (b) horizontal distance, (c) frequency of handling, (d) work duration, (e) twisting angle, and (f ) height of lift. They predicted the lifting effort and the injury risk of a large number of lifting configurations. A linguistic approach was used to describe the lifting activities. Logistic regression analyses were employed to model effort as a function of various lifting task variables.The results showed that all 3 experts rated the weight of load as the most dominant variable and the height of lift as the least important variable. Furthermore, they differed slightly in ranking the relative importance of other variables. In general, the effect of weight of load on physical effort was, at a minimum, 2 times more important than other lifting task variables. The horizontal distance, work duration, frequency, and twisting angle variables were considered to be more important than the height of lift by 25% to 33%. Collectively, these findings indicate that the experts agreed on the most and least important variables. In between, the relative importance of other variables was dependent on the professional training of the expert.The results further demonstrated that an increase in perceived physical effort was associated with an increase in the perceived risk of injury in the moderate-to high-range values. There was a

show abstract

Section: Effects Of Lifting Variables On Physical Effortsupporting

confidence: 87%

An expert cognitive approach to evaluate physical effort and injury risk in manual lifting—A brief report of a pilot study

Yeung

Genaidy

Huston

et al. 2002

Hum Ftrs & Erg Mfg Svc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Unfortunately, the majority of work system analyses do not provide a quantitative measure of risk, thus failing to ful® ll one of their primary objectives. The PAQ (M cCormick et al 1969), AET (Rohmert and Landau 1983), Job Pro® le Shoaf et al M ethod (W agner 1985), LIFTA N (Karwowski et al 1986), CT D-123 (Burnette and Ayoub 1989, Burnette 1990), ESL (M elam ed et al 1989, RULA (M cAtamney and Corlett 1993), and RSI (G uo et al 1996), have attempted to provide some means of risk quanti® cation. Both ESL (M elamed et al 1989 ) and RULA (M cA tamney and Corlett 1993 ) techniques produce a composite score indicating level of hazard.…”

Section: Ability Of Methods To Quantify Riskmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These m ethods provide speci® c data describing a given task or worker. Some microassessment methods focus on only physical aspects of the work system (Drury and Pfeil 1975, Karwowski et al 1986, Punnett and Keyserling 1987, Keyserling et al 1992, others combine physical and environm ental factors in their assessments (M elamed et al 1989(M elamed et al , Guo et al 1996. The NASA -TLX (H art and Staveland 1988) and SW AT (Reid and Nygren 1988 ) are examples of microassessment methods that estimate a given worker' s mental workload.…”

Section: W Ork System Assessment Classi® Cationmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…The role of physical activity in the development of work-related musculoskeletal disorders and its ease of assessability through direct observation have made this area an obvious target for job redesign. Drury and Pfeil (1975) and Karwowski et al (1986) proposed equation-based models using operator variables and task variables to analyse manual lifting tasks. LIFTAN (Karwowski et al 1986 ) inputs of muscular strength, ® tness and age as well as load size, frequency of lift, horizontal distance from body and height of lift to generate operator and task-related levels of risk.…”

Section: Physical Workloadmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Drury and Pfeil (1975) and Karwowski et al (1986) proposed equation-based models using operator variables and task variables to analyse manual lifting tasks. LIFTAN (Karwowski et al 1986 ) inputs of muscular strength, ® tness and age as well as load size, frequency of lift, horizontal distance from body and height of lift to generate operator and task-related levels of risk. Tanaka and M cGlothlin (1989) described a conceptual model for assessing physical stress relating to cumulative trauma disorders of the hand and wrist; however, only qualitative guidelines were presented.…”

Section: Physical Workloadmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

A perspective on work system analysis: classification and evaluation of methods

Shoaf¹,

Genaidy²,

Shell³

1998

Ergonomics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An inclusive model is presented for work system assessment. The focus of this paper is on job content and context with the primary aim of quantitatively establishing a level of risk for the purpose of improving organizational performance and quality of life in the work setting. The scienti® c literature on job analysis techniques is reviewed with respect to content relative to the inclusive model. Techniques are classi® ed into microassessment, macroassessment and comprehensive methods. The basis for each classi® cation is outlined. Microassessment methods principally focus on a component subset of the inclusive model in detail. Macroassessment methods more broadly evaluate a subset of the component areas. Comprehensive methods incorporate elements of microassessment methods as well as macroassessment methods and address many components of the inclusive model. The methods are then evaluated based on their ability to achieve the fundamental objectives of job analysis as well as the quality criteria of validity, reliability and utility. No method was found to be su cient in terms of the aforementioned critical criteria.

show abstract

Ant colony optimization approach for classification of occupational low back disorder risks

Akay

Toksarı

2008

Hum Ftrs & Erg Mfg Svc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Manual material handling (MMH) tasks, the leading cause of low back disorders (LBDs), are still extensively used in industry in spite of the advanced technology. ClassiÞcation of industrial jobs related to LBD risks has great signiÞcance in preventing injuries and designing workplaces. In this article, industrial jobs have been classiÞed into two categories, low risk and high risk, using ant colony optimization (ACO). ACO classiÞcation (ACOCLASS) has obtained better results than studies that used the same experimental data. Ergonomic interventions can be done by means of obtained classiÞcation schema for future reductions in low back injuries. C 2008 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

show abstract

LIFTAN: An experimental expert system for analysis of manual lifting tasks

Cited by 29 publications

References 16 publications

An expert cognitive approach to evaluate physical effort and injury risk in manual lifting—A brief report of a pilot study

An expert cognitive approach to evaluate physical effort and injury risk in manual lifting—A brief report of a pilot study

A perspective on work system analysis: classification and evaluation of methods

Ant colony optimization approach for classification of occupational low back disorder risks

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About