Development and evaluation of an observational method for assessing repetition in hand tasks
Development and evaluation of an observational method for assessing repetition in hand tasks
复制标题
DOI：
10.1080/15428119791012793
复制
发表时间：
1997-04-01
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Ulin, SS
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Latko, WA;Armstrong, TJ;Ulin, SS
几种身体应激源，包括重复、持续和强力的运动、笨拙的姿势、局部的机械应力、高度动态的运动、暴露在低温下和振动，都与工作相关的肌肉骨骼疾病的风险增加有关。重复性工作一直是这些压力来源中研究最广泛的，但没有一个单一的衡量标准来评估重复性工作的暴露。一种新的方法能够根据体力工作的可观察特征来对重复的手活动进行评级。这种方法使用了一系列10厘米的视觉模拟标尺，并带有言语锚和基准例子。重复评分反映了手部运动的动态方面，以及恢复或空闲手时间的数量。训练有素的JAB分析专家分别对工作进行评级，然后就评级达成一致。对于一组33个工作，使用该系统的重复评级与周期内的恢复时间、消耗次数和周期时间的测量进行了比较。工作周期内的恢复时间与分析评级显著相关(r(2)=0.58)，以及每秒的工作次数(r(2)=0.53)。周期时间与分析师评级无关。使用新方法的重复分析是在同一组评分员的相同工作上进行的，间隔一年半到两年。在不同的课程之间，重复评分平均相差不到1分(10厘米尺度)，这些结果表明，该方法对消耗水平和恢复时间很敏感，决定标准和基准实例允许在一段时间内一致地应用这些方法。这种重复评分的方法可以与其他身体应激源的类似量表相结合。
Several physical stressors, including repetitive, sustained, and forceful exertions, awkward postures, localized mechanical stress, highly dynamic movements, exposures to low temperatures, and vibration have been linked to increased risk of work-related musculoskeletal disorders. Repetitive exertions have been among the most widely studied of these stressors, but there is no single metric for assessing exposure to repetitive work. A new methodology enables repetitive hand activity to be rated based on observable characteristics of manual work. This method uses a series of 10-cm visual-analog scales with verbal anchors and benchmark examples. Ratings for repetition reflect bath the dynamic aspect of hand movements and the amount of recovery or idle hand time. Trained jab analysis experts rate the jobs individually and then agree on ratings. For a group of 33 jobs, repetition ratings using this system were compared to measurements of recovery time within the cycle, exertion counts, and cycle time. Amount of recovery time within the job cycle was found to be significantly correlated with the analysis ratings (r(2)=0.58), as were the number of exertions per second (r(2)=0.53). Cycle time was not related to the analyst ratings. Repeated analyses using the new method were performed 1 1/2 to 2 years apart on the same jobs with the same group of raters. Ratings for repetition differed less than 1 point (on the 10-cm scale), on average, among the different sessions,These results indicate that the method is sensitive to exertion level and recovery time, and that the decision criteria and benchmark examples allow for a consistent application of these methods over a period of time. This method of rating repetition can be combined with similar scales for other physical stressors.