首页> 外文期刊>Journal of occupational and environmental hygiene >A comparison of assessment methods of hand activity and force for use in calculating the ACGIH(R) hand activity level (HAL) TLV(R).
【24h】

A comparison of assessment methods of hand activity and force for use in calculating the ACGIH(R) hand activity level (HAL) TLV(R).

机译:比较用于计算ACGIH(R)手活动水平(HAL)TLV(R)的手活动和力量的评估方法。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
获取外文期刊封面目录资料

摘要

This article compares several methods that were used for determining hand activity level and force in a large prospective ergonomics study. The first goal of this analysis was to determine the degree of correlation between hand activity/ force ratings using different assessment methods. The second goal was to determine if the hand activity/force methods were functionally equivalent for the purpose of calculating the ACGIH(R) hand activity level (HAL) threshold limit value (TLV(R)). A final goal was to investigate reasons for potential differences between methods. More than 700 task analyses were conducted on 484 workers at three study locations. Hand activity was assessed by two methods, including a trained observer on site using a 10-point visual analog scale for hand activity level and by offsite video analysis of the same task to calculate the frequency of exertions and the work/recovery ratio. Hand force was assessed by two on-site methods: ratings of perceived exertion (RPE) using a modified Borg CR-10 scale by a trained observer and RPE by the worker performing the task. The two methods for assessing hand activity level were correlated (Spearman rank = 0.49) and produced main TLV result categories (below Action Limit, Action Limit, TLV) with percent of exact agreement ranging from 71 to 91% and weighted Kappa ranging from 0.61 to 0.75. The two RPE methods for assessing hand force were correlated (Spearman rank ranging from 0.47 to 0.69) and produced TLVs with percent of exact agreement ranging from 64 to 83% and weighted Kappa ranging from 0.52 to 0.62. Differences between methods may be explained by a number of task and subject variables that were significantly associated with higher levels of hand activity and force. In summary, this study found substantial agreement between two methods for assessing hand activity level and moderate agreement between two methods for assessing hand force.
机译:本文比较了在大型前瞻性人体工程学研究中用于确定手部活动水平和力量的几种方法。该分析的首要目标是使用不同的评估方法来确定手部活动/力量等级之间的相关程度。第二个目标是确定手部活动/力量方法在功能上是否等效,以便计算ACGIH(R)手部活动水平(HAL)阈值极限值(TLV(R))。最终目标是调查方法之间可能存在差异的原因。在三个研究地点对484名工人进行了700多项任务分析。通过两种方法评估手部活动,包括使用10点视觉模拟量表在现场训练有素的观察者进行手部活动水平的评估,以及通过对同一任务进行异地视频分析以计算劳累频率和工作/恢复比。手部力量通过两种现场方法进行评估:受过训练的观察员使用改良的Borg CR-10量表对感知的劳累(RPE)进行评分,而执行任务的工人则采用RPE。关联了两种评估手部活动水平的方法(Spearman等级= 0.49),并产生了主要的TLV结果类别(低于动作极限,动作极限,TLV),精确同意的百分比范围为71至91%,加权Kappa范围为0.61至0.75。两种评估手部力的RPE方法是相关的(Spearman等级在0.47至0.69之间),并产生了TLV,精确一致的百分比在64%至83%之间,加权Kappa在0.52至0.62之间。方法之间的差异可以通过大量与较高水平的手部活动和力量相关联的任务和主题变量来解释。总而言之,本研究发现两种评估手部活动水平的方法之间基本一致,并且两种评估手部力量的方法之间存在适度一致。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号