Post on 21-Jan-2023
Development of Self Administered Questionnaire and Validity Evaluation for
American National Standards Z-365 Checklist
Self administered checklist is needed to be developed toevaluate ergonomic risk factors. This study was conducted todevelop self administered form of American National StandardsInstitute (ANSI) Z-365 checklist which representscomprehensive ergonomic risk factors, and to evaluate validityof this checklist. This study had been conducted from May 2004to July 2005, of which subjects were 147 workers from 4workplaces. Response rates for every items of self administeredform of ANSI Z-365 were evaluated. To estimate the validity ofchecklist, relationship between the checklist grade that ANSIrecommended and work-related musculoskeletal disorders(WMSDs) symptom were calculated with and withoutadjustment of related variables. To evaluate the utility ofchecklist, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV),and negative predictive value (NPV) were calculated. Because
response rates of almost items were over 90 %, itemdevelopment was successful. Because the checklist was relatedwith WMSDs symptom after adjusting related variables, thechecklist might represents ergonomic risk well. Because of lowsensitivity and NPV, high specificity and PPV, the checklist isnot suitable for screening tool. The checklist has betterrelationship with more severe symptom. Because of highspecificity of the checklist, using it with high sensitive toolwould enhance it's utility. Further study to develop high sensitiveand comprehensive self administered ergonomic checklist isneeded.
ANSI Z-365, self administered checklist,work-related musculoskeletal disorders
Kyung Sik Park1 Dongmug Kang2 Yong Hwan Lee1 Ji Hoon Woo2 Yong Chul Shin3
1Kosin University Medical School Department of Preventive Medicine 2Pusan University Medical School Department of Preventive and Occupational Medicine
3Department of Health and Safety Engineering, Inje University
2006 4 6 2006 5 25
Tel : 051-240-7741, Fax : 051-243-1925, E-mail : kangdm@pusan.ac.kr)
16 2 (2006 6 )J Korean Soc Occup Environ Hyg 2006;16(2):172-182
work related musculoskeletal
disorders: WMSDs
2001
173
200444.8% 4,112
2005
54.7 % 43.2 %2.1 % 2002
OSHA, 2000
checklistKarhu 97; McAtamney & Corlett, 1993; Hignett &
McAtamney, 2000; Li & Buckle, 1998Ovako Working Posture Analysing System OWAS Karhu1977
OWAS
RULA Rapid Upper Limb Assessment)(McAtamney & Corlett,1993
RULA
REBA Rapid Entire Body Assessment Hignett &McAtamney, 2000 RULA
REBARULA
RULA
American National StandardsInstitute: ANSI
ANSI ANSI Z365 Quick Checklist Appendix ANSI, 1996
ANSI Z 365
goniometric systemoptical scanning system sonic systemelectromagnetic system
accelerometer based system Li & Buckle, 1999
Winkel & Mathiassen, 1994
ANSI Z 365
ANSI Z 365
4 147
174
exclusioncriteria 2004 3 2005 7
1 ANSI Z 365 ANSI Z 365
3m
8ANSI
10 action criteria 16
2
NationalInstitute of Occupational Safety and Health: NIOSH
Criteria
I
II
III
symptom occurred more than once a month or sustained longer than a week, and pain severity more than moderate
symptom occurred more than once a month or sustained longer than a week, and pain severity more than severe
symptom occurred more than once a month or sustained longer than a week, and pain severity more than most severe
Definition
N %
Age (yr)
Body Mass Index (kg/m2)
Marital status
Smoking status
Drinking status
Exercise
Education (yr)
20 - 2930 - 3940 - 4950 -< 2020 - 25> 25 not married
etcpresent smokingpresent no smoking1 - 2 times / week more than 3 times / weekno drinkingregular irregular or no< 1010 - 12> 12
10695810
9102
3618
1222
75717272
3717610
12111
6.8 46.9 39.5
6.8 6.1
69.4 24.5 12.7 85.9
1.4 51.4 48.6 49.0 49.0
2.0 48.3 51.7
7.0 85.2
7.8
175
1 1 1 1
NIOSH4
NIOSH3 Table
1
3SAS version 8.1
ANSI3 1, 2, 3
ANSIANSI
action criteria
1, 2, 3p 0.05
147 3046.9% 40 39.5% Table 2
69.4%24.5%85.9% 12.7%
51.4% 1 2
49.0%51.7% 85.2%
I, II, III
I 89.8% II 68.0% III 32.0%I
II IIII
Table 3
ANSI Z 365 Fig. 1Fig. 2
11
NeckShoulderArmHandBackKneeFootAt least one body part
841016078817752
132
57.1 68.7 40.8 53.1 55.1 52.4 35.4 89.8
47642535413728
100
32.0 43.5 17.0 23.8 27.9 25.2 19.1 68.0
1525
91417151047
10.2 17.0
6.1 9.5
11.6 10.2
6.8 32.0
Criteria I Criteria II Criteria III
N % N % N %
176
Risk Factor
REPETITIVEevery few secondsevery few minutes
LOAD/FORCE(lift)> 5-15 lbs>15-30 lbs>30-50 lbs>50 lbs*
LOAD/FORCE(Push/Pull)easymoderateheavy
LOAD/FORCE(Carry>10ft)>5-15 lbs>15-30 lbs>30 lbs
AWKWARD POSTURENeck/shoulder: overhead/bendExtended reachElbow/forearm: twistHand/wrist: bend/pinchTrunk: twist/bendKnee: squat/kneel
USE POWER TOOLSPRESSURE POINTSSAME POSITIONENVIRONMENT: cold, hot,
light/glare, vibrationCONTUNUOUS KEYBOARD USEINCENTIVE WORKER orNO WORKER CONTROL OVER JOB PACETOTAL SCORE = 10 or more
00
0123
001
001
0000000000
00
10
0123
012
012
1111111111
11
31
1233
123
123
2222222222
22
1 hr 1 4 hr 4 hrCause of
Risk FactorProposedSolution
Comment
178
ANSI Z 3651
1115.0% 10 13.6%90% 10
11
Table 4
ANSI Z 365 ANSII, II, III
ANSI Ip 0.0654 II III
p 0.05 ANSI
Item number
11_122_133_144_15_15_25_35_45_55_667891011
146145143142142141137133143143145138143143139136133138127125
99.3 98.697.396.696.695.993.290.597.398.693.997.397.394.692.590.593.991.286.485.0
124556
1014
429448
1114
9132022
0.7 1.42.73.43.44.16.89.52.71.46.12.72.75.47.59.56.18.8
13.615.0
Respondents
N % N %
Non respondents
ANSI class
Low risk
Moderate risk
High risk
14(93.3)
1( 6.7)
0( 0.0)
83(62.9)
28(21.2)
21(15.9)
0.0654*
no yes p-value
39(83.0)
7(14.9)
1( 2.1)
58(58.0)
22(22.0)
20(20.0)
0.0041
no yes p-value
74(74.0)
19(19.0)
7( 7.0)
23(48.9)
10(21.3)
14(29.8)
0.0006
no yes p-value
Symptom criteria I Symptom criteria II Symptom criteria III
179
Table 5
ANSIANSI
ANSII, II, III
Ip 0.0581 II, IIIp 0.05
p 0.05 II, IIIp 0.05 ANSI
Table 6
ANSI Z 365ANSI Z 365
I, II, III ANSI Z 365
Table 7
ANSI
ANSI Z 365
ANSI class
Low risk vs moderate & high risk
Low & moderate risk vs high risk
Symptom criteria ISymptom criteria IISymptom criteria IIISymptom criteria ISymptom criteria IISymptom criteria III
7.4 3.6 3.5 >999.99910.8 6.1
0.9 1.5 1.6
<0.0011.4 2.2
59.3 8.6 7.5
>999.99984.3 17.2
0.05810.00460.00130.96610.02320.0007
Effect Odds Ratio p - value95% Confidence
Interval
Sensitivity
Low risk vs moderate & high risk
Low & moderate risk vs high risk
Symptom criteria ISymptom criteria IISymptom criteria IIISymptom criteria ISymptom criteria IISymptom criteria III
37.1 42.0 52.2 15.9 20.0 30.4
93.3 83.0 74.3
100.097.9 93.1
98.0 84.0 48.0
100.0 95.2 66.7
14.4 40.2 77.3 11.9 36.5 74.6
SpecificityPositive
predictive value
Negative predictive
value
180
Receiver operator characteristic ROC curve Fig.3ANSI
B ANSIII
WMSDs
De Krom 1992Nordstrom 1997
Cannon 1981;Silverstein 1986a; Silverstein 1986b; Armstrong 1987;Rempel 1992Knava 1985
Tecumsehquestionnaire Leon 1981; LaPorte 1982 Baeckequestionnaire Jacobs 1993 Stockholm public healthquestionnaire Ola 2002
2003
ANSI Z 365
90%
85%
3
6
8
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
1-Specificity
Sens
itivi
ty
181
ANSIANSI
ANSI
ANSI
ANSI
ANSIANSI
ANSI
ANSI
ANSI
ANSI Z 365& 1998
2001ANSI Z 365
gold standard
1
ANSI Z 365
REFERENCES
1998;8(2):25 362004 2005
2000 72 2001
2002;14(2):154 168
;2003;15(4):388 400
2001;11(1):5669
National Standards Institute(ANSI). Control of Workrelated Cumulative Trauma Disorders, Part 1, UpperExtremities (working draft). ANSI N 365, ANSI; 1996.
Fine LJ, Goldestein SA. Ergonomics consideration inhand and wrist tendonitis. Hand Surg 1987;12:830 837
Bernacki EJ, Walter SP. Personnel and Occupationalfactors associated with carpal tunnel syndrome. J Occup Med1981;23:255-258
American
Armstrong T,
Cannon LJ,
182
MCT, Knipschild PG, Kester ADM, Thijs CT, BoekkooiPF, Spaans F. Carpal tunnel syndrome: prevalence in the generalpopulation. J Clin Epidemiol 1992;45:373 374
McAtamney L. Rapid Entire Body Assessment(REBA).Applied Ergonomics 2000;31(2):201 205
Anisworth B, Hartman T, Leon A. A simultaneousevaluation of ten commonly used physical activityquestionnaire. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise.1993;25:81 91
Kansi P, and Kuorinka I. Correcting working postures inindustry - A practical method for analysis. Applied Ergonomics1977;8:199 201
Wibom RL, Voss M, Hedstrom LD, Berqvist UO. Workwith video display terminals among office employee: I.subjective symptoms and discomfort. Scand J Work EnvironHealth 1985;11(6):457 466
Cauley J, Kinsey C, Corbett W, Robertson R, Black-Sandler R. The epidemiology of physical activity in children,college students, middle-aged men, menopausal females andmonkeys. J Chr Disea. 1982;35:787 795.
Jacobs D, DeBacker G, Taylor H. Relationship of physicalcharacteristics and life habits to treadmill exercise capacity.Amer J Epidemio. 1981;113:653 660
P. A practical method for the assessment of work-related musculoskeletal risks - quick exposure check(QEC),Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society42nd Annual Meeting, 1998;2:1351 1355
De Krom
Hignett S.,
Jacobs D,
Karhu O,
Knava BG,
LaPorte R,
Leon A,
Li G, Buckle
Current techniques for assessing physical exposureto work-related musculoskeletal risks, with emphasis onposture-based methods. Ergonomics 1999;42(5):674-695
Corlett E. RULA : a survey method for theinvestigation of work-related upper limb disorders. AppliedErgonomics 1993;24(2):91 99
Vierkant RA, DeStefano F, Layde PM. Risk factorsfor carpal tunnel syndrome in a general population. OccupEnviron Med 1997;54:734 740
Safety and Health Administration(OSHA).Ergonomic Program; Final Rule. 29 CFR Part 1910, FedralRegister Vol. 65, No. 220, OSHA; 2000.
W, Annika H. Validity of a self-administeredquestionnaire for assessing physical work loads in a generalpopulation. J Occup Environ Med. 2002; 44: 724 735
Fine LJ, Armstrong TJ. Carpal tunnel syndrome:Causes and a preventive strategy. Semin Occup Med1986a;1:213 221
Fine LJ, Armstrong TJ. Hand and wrist cumulativetrauma disorders in industry. Br J Ind Med 1986b;43:779 844
Harrison RJ, Barnhart S. Work related cumulativetrauma disorders of the upper extremity. JAMA1992;267(6):838 842
Mathiassen SE. Assessment of physical load inepidemiologic studies: concepts, issues, and operationalconsiderations, Ergonomics 1994;37:979 88
Silverstein BA,
Rempel DM,
Winkel J.
Li G, Buckle P.
McAtamney L,
Nordstrom DL,
Occupational
Ola L, Christina
Silverstein BA,