OWAS、REBA和RULA与感知劳累等级的关系研究,以建立适用性

IF 1.4 Q4 ERGONOMICS
Mangesh Joshi, V. Deshpande
{"title":"OWAS、REBA和RULA与感知劳累等级的关系研究,以建立适用性","authors":"Mangesh Joshi, V. Deshpande","doi":"10.1080/1463922X.2021.1958951","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The paper highlights the need to determine applicability of various ergonomic assessment methods. The methods such as Ovako working posture analysing system (OWAS), Rapid entire body assessment (REBA) and Rapid upper limb assessment (RULA) were used for the evaluation. The current research is carried out in three phases. The first phase involves assessing 25 postures at four different load levels (100 postures) to confirm the existence of variation in outcome of assessment. In the second phase, 24 male participants were selected to simulate the selected set of 100 postures-load combination in the laboratory and their perceived exertion rating was noted. Phase three includes the result’s validation. ANOVA was carried out to identify significant factors. It may be concluded from the study that OWAS may be better suited to evaluate risk if the load is less than 5 kg. Similarly, REBA and RULA may be better suited for the load range 5 kg − 10 kg and load greater than 10 kg respectively. It is observed that outcome of assessment methods is insensitive to some posture cases. So, there is a need to identify all the insensitive zones within a method that has a considerable difference in perceived exertion.","PeriodicalId":22852,"journal":{"name":"Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science","volume":"23 1","pages":"313 - 332"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2021-08-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Study of association between OWAS, REBA and RULA with perceived exertion rating for establishing applicability\",\"authors\":\"Mangesh Joshi, V. Deshpande\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/1463922X.2021.1958951\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract The paper highlights the need to determine applicability of various ergonomic assessment methods. The methods such as Ovako working posture analysing system (OWAS), Rapid entire body assessment (REBA) and Rapid upper limb assessment (RULA) were used for the evaluation. The current research is carried out in three phases. The first phase involves assessing 25 postures at four different load levels (100 postures) to confirm the existence of variation in outcome of assessment. In the second phase, 24 male participants were selected to simulate the selected set of 100 postures-load combination in the laboratory and their perceived exertion rating was noted. Phase three includes the result’s validation. ANOVA was carried out to identify significant factors. It may be concluded from the study that OWAS may be better suited to evaluate risk if the load is less than 5 kg. Similarly, REBA and RULA may be better suited for the load range 5 kg − 10 kg and load greater than 10 kg respectively. It is observed that outcome of assessment methods is insensitive to some posture cases. So, there is a need to identify all the insensitive zones within a method that has a considerable difference in perceived exertion.\",\"PeriodicalId\":22852,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science\",\"volume\":\"23 1\",\"pages\":\"313 - 332\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-08-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/1463922X.2021.1958951\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"ERGONOMICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/1463922X.2021.1958951","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ERGONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

摘要

摘要本文强调了确定各种工效学评估方法适用性的必要性。采用Ovako工作姿势分析系统(OWAS)、快速全身评估(REBA)和快速上肢评估(RULA)等方法进行评价。目前的研究分三个阶段进行。第一阶段包括在四种不同负荷水平(100个姿势)下评估25个姿势,以确认评估结果存在差异。在第二阶段,选择24名男性参与者在实验室模拟选定的100种姿势负荷组合,并记录他们的感知劳累等级。第三阶段包括结果的验证。进行方差分析以确定显著因素。从研究中可以得出结论,如果负荷小于5公斤,OWAS可能更适合于评估风险。同样,REBA和RULA可能更适合负载范围5 kg - 10 kg和负载大于10 kg。观察到评估方法的结果对某些姿势情况不敏感。因此,有必要在一种方法中识别出所有的不敏感区域,这种方法在感知的用力方面有相当大的差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Study of association between OWAS, REBA and RULA with perceived exertion rating for establishing applicability
Abstract The paper highlights the need to determine applicability of various ergonomic assessment methods. The methods such as Ovako working posture analysing system (OWAS), Rapid entire body assessment (REBA) and Rapid upper limb assessment (RULA) were used for the evaluation. The current research is carried out in three phases. The first phase involves assessing 25 postures at four different load levels (100 postures) to confirm the existence of variation in outcome of assessment. In the second phase, 24 male participants were selected to simulate the selected set of 100 postures-load combination in the laboratory and their perceived exertion rating was noted. Phase three includes the result’s validation. ANOVA was carried out to identify significant factors. It may be concluded from the study that OWAS may be better suited to evaluate risk if the load is less than 5 kg. Similarly, REBA and RULA may be better suited for the load range 5 kg − 10 kg and load greater than 10 kg respectively. It is observed that outcome of assessment methods is insensitive to some posture cases. So, there is a need to identify all the insensitive zones within a method that has a considerable difference in perceived exertion.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
6.20%
发文量
38
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信