Abstract: Multiple ergonomic risk assessment methods of unique structure are
currently being used to direct industrial prevention initiatives focused on
musculoskeletal injuries. In this study, the physical exposures required to
perform an at-risk sawmill occupation were collected from 29 subjects via
quantified means (surface electromyography and electrogoniometery) and used to
calculate several ergonomic risk assessment methods. The aims of this study are
to: 1) compare the output of the RULA, REBA, ACGIH TLV, Strain Index and OCRA
ergonomic risk assessment methods, 2) examine the assessments' ability to
differentiate between facilities reporting meaningfully different incidence
rates, and 3) examine the effect of varying the definition of end range posture
and exertion required on risk assessment scores. Risk level output assigned by
all methods were not sensitive to inter facility differences in risk of injury,
suggesting interpretation of risk index and component scores are needed to
direct intervention. Components of all methodologies were sensitive to worker
technique and facility assessed. Varying variable definition resulted in
significantly different component, combined component and/or risk output scores
in all methods assessed. The significant effect of posture and exertion
variable definition suggests definitions taken to be interchangeable by work
site evaluators are not equivalent.
Keywords: Field study, job analysis, physical ergonomics, forest products manufacturing industry
