2006
DOI: 10.1080/14639220500090661
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Questionnaires vs observational and direct measurements: a systematic review

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

1
21
0
8

Year Published

2009
2009
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
6
1
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 31 publications
(30 citation statements)
references
References 17 publications
1
21
0
8
Order By: Relevance
“…Furthermore, the QEC score allows for the analysis of total ergonomic risks or risks divided by body areas 20 . It is important to highlight that the combination of observational methods and questionnaires in risk assessment has been recommended in the literature 13,14,22 . Choosing the adequate tool to asses occupational risks saves time in further analyses, and facilitates data organization and interpretation.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Furthermore, the QEC score allows for the analysis of total ergonomic risks or risks divided by body areas 20 . It is important to highlight that the combination of observational methods and questionnaires in risk assessment has been recommended in the literature 13,14,22 . Choosing the adequate tool to asses occupational risks saves time in further analyses, and facilitates data organization and interpretation.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, the selection of a method and the tools to be used in the analysis often becomes an obstacle to professionals in the field of workers' health due to the large variety of techniques and instruments available, work characteristics, and the resources available for data collection and analysis 12 . In this sense, some studies have been conducted with the purpose of comparing the results obtained by the methods of direct measurement, observational protocols, and questionnaires [13][14][15][16][17][18] . The latter are the most used in clinical practice, because, besides the low cost, they enable the evaluation of various occupational activities and a large number of workers 12 .…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The large variability in perception of exposures, which may be associated with low precision, appears to be a problem with these questionnaires 4 . Therefore, it is recommended that questionnaires should be preferably used in combination with other measurement methods [7][8][9] . Observational methods are used to evaluate physical workload in order to identify hazards at work and monitor the effects of ergonomic changes.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Las estimaciones de exposición a riesgos ergonómicos en MatEmESp se basan en la información referida por los trabajadores en encuestas de condiciones de trabajo, cuya utilidad es incuestionable pero que en nuestro país no están exentas de problemas metodológicos 27,28 . También se conocen las limitaciones de la validez de la información sobre exposición laboral a carga física referida por los trabajadores frente a la obtenida mediante observación o evaluación de expertos 29 . Sin embargo, la exposición autoreferida también presenta ventajas, como su facilidad de uso, el bajo coste y su mejor adecuación para evaluar un número elevado de puestos de trabajo en períodos prolongados, generando también menor rechazo en las personas evaluadas 29,30 .…”
Section: Discussionunclassified