Cargando…
Application of AULA Risk Assessment Tool by Comparison with Other Ergonomic Risk Assessment Tools
Agricultural upper limb assessment (AULA), which was developed for evaluating upper limb body postures, was compared with the existing assessment tools such as rapid upper limb assessment (RULA), rapid entire body assessment (REBA), and ovako working posture analysis system (OWAS) based on the resul...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
MDPI
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7558944/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32899585 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17186479 |
_version_ | 1783594748245704704 |
---|---|
author | Choi, Kyeong-Hee Kim, Dae-Min Cho, Min-Uk Park, Chae-Won Kim, Seoung-Yeon Kim, Min-Jung Kong, Yong-Ku |
author_facet | Choi, Kyeong-Hee Kim, Dae-Min Cho, Min-Uk Park, Chae-Won Kim, Seoung-Yeon Kim, Min-Jung Kong, Yong-Ku |
author_sort | Choi, Kyeong-Hee |
collection | PubMed |
description | Agricultural upper limb assessment (AULA), which was developed for evaluating upper limb body postures, was compared with the existing assessment tools such as rapid upper limb assessment (RULA), rapid entire body assessment (REBA), and ovako working posture analysis system (OWAS) based on the results of experts’ assessments of 196 farm tasks in this study. The expert group consisted of ergonomists, industrial medicine experts, and agricultural experts. As a result of the hit rate analysis, the hit rate (average: 48.6%) of AULA was significantly higher than those of the other assessment tools (RULA: 33.3%, REBA: 30.1%, and OWAS: 34.4%). The quadratic weighted kappa analysis also showed that the kappa value (0.718) of AULA was significantly higher than those of the other assessment tools (0.599, 0.578, and 0.538 for RULA, REBA, and OWAS, respectively). Based on the results, AULA showed a better agreement with expert evaluation results than other evaluation tools. In general, other assessment tools tended to underestimate the risk of upper limb posture in this study. AULA would be an appropriate evaluation tool to assess the risk of various upper limb postures. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7558944 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | MDPI |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-75589442020-10-26 Application of AULA Risk Assessment Tool by Comparison with Other Ergonomic Risk Assessment Tools Choi, Kyeong-Hee Kim, Dae-Min Cho, Min-Uk Park, Chae-Won Kim, Seoung-Yeon Kim, Min-Jung Kong, Yong-Ku Int J Environ Res Public Health Article Agricultural upper limb assessment (AULA), which was developed for evaluating upper limb body postures, was compared with the existing assessment tools such as rapid upper limb assessment (RULA), rapid entire body assessment (REBA), and ovako working posture analysis system (OWAS) based on the results of experts’ assessments of 196 farm tasks in this study. The expert group consisted of ergonomists, industrial medicine experts, and agricultural experts. As a result of the hit rate analysis, the hit rate (average: 48.6%) of AULA was significantly higher than those of the other assessment tools (RULA: 33.3%, REBA: 30.1%, and OWAS: 34.4%). The quadratic weighted kappa analysis also showed that the kappa value (0.718) of AULA was significantly higher than those of the other assessment tools (0.599, 0.578, and 0.538 for RULA, REBA, and OWAS, respectively). Based on the results, AULA showed a better agreement with expert evaluation results than other evaluation tools. In general, other assessment tools tended to underestimate the risk of upper limb posture in this study. AULA would be an appropriate evaluation tool to assess the risk of various upper limb postures. MDPI 2020-09-05 2020-09 /pmc/articles/PMC7558944/ /pubmed/32899585 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17186479 Text en © 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). |
spellingShingle | Article Choi, Kyeong-Hee Kim, Dae-Min Cho, Min-Uk Park, Chae-Won Kim, Seoung-Yeon Kim, Min-Jung Kong, Yong-Ku Application of AULA Risk Assessment Tool by Comparison with Other Ergonomic Risk Assessment Tools |
title | Application of AULA Risk Assessment Tool by Comparison with Other Ergonomic Risk Assessment Tools |
title_full | Application of AULA Risk Assessment Tool by Comparison with Other Ergonomic Risk Assessment Tools |
title_fullStr | Application of AULA Risk Assessment Tool by Comparison with Other Ergonomic Risk Assessment Tools |
title_full_unstemmed | Application of AULA Risk Assessment Tool by Comparison with Other Ergonomic Risk Assessment Tools |
title_short | Application of AULA Risk Assessment Tool by Comparison with Other Ergonomic Risk Assessment Tools |
title_sort | application of aula risk assessment tool by comparison with other ergonomic risk assessment tools |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7558944/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32899585 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17186479 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT choikyeonghee applicationofaulariskassessmenttoolbycomparisonwithotherergonomicriskassessmenttools AT kimdaemin applicationofaulariskassessmenttoolbycomparisonwithotherergonomicriskassessmenttools AT chominuk applicationofaulariskassessmenttoolbycomparisonwithotherergonomicriskassessmenttools AT parkchaewon applicationofaulariskassessmenttoolbycomparisonwithotherergonomicriskassessmenttools AT kimseoungyeon applicationofaulariskassessmenttoolbycomparisonwithotherergonomicriskassessmenttools AT kimminjung applicationofaulariskassessmenttoolbycomparisonwithotherergonomicriskassessmenttools AT kongyongku applicationofaulariskassessmenttoolbycomparisonwithotherergonomicriskassessmenttools |