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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Choi, Kyeong-Hee, Kim, Dae-Min, Cho, Min-Uk, Park, Chae-Won, Kim, Seoung-Yeon, Kim, Min-Jung, Kong, Yong-Ku
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