Comparisons of six observational methods for risk assessment of repetitive work - results from a consensus assessment

• During last decades several risk assessment methods for physical ergonomics have been developed. In a literature review 30 observational methods for assessment of biomechanical exposures at work were evaluated (1). It was found that several methods are insufficiently tested in terms of validity and reliability. Comparisons between methods' resulting risk levels are rare. The Swedish Work Environment Authority has recently emphasized the demands on risk assessments of musculoskeletal disorders (2). Practitioners mostly use observational methods to assess biomechanical risks(1). Despite a recent study comparing eight methods evaluating risk factors associated with musculoskeletal disorders (3), there is a lack of knowledge and guidance on which methods are the most effective and valid.This study is part of a larger on-going project, the OBS-project, with the overall purpose to evaluate six observational methods for assessment of biomechanical exposures of repetitive work in respect of validity, reliability and usability. A further purpose is to provide information on which of the methods are best suited for practitioners in risk assessment of repetitive work. The specific aim of this sub-study was to investigate the agreement between six observational methods for risk assessment of repetitive work by comparing the risk levels as assessed by a group of experts.

Subject headings

MEDICIN OCH HÄLSOVETENSKAP  -- Hälsovetenskap -- Arbetsmedicin och miljömedicin (hsv//swe)

MEDICAL AND HEALTH SCIENCES  -- Health Sciences -- Occupational Health and Environmental Health (hsv//eng)

Keyword

Musculoskeletal disorders

risk assessment

observation

repetitive work

Publication and Content Type

ref (subject category)

kon (subject category)