지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
논문 기본 정보
- 자료유형
- 학술저널
- 저자정보
- 발행연도
- 2012.1
- 수록면
- 123 - 136 (14page)
이용수
이 논문의 연구 히스토리 (3)
2012
- 이 논문의 후속연구가 궁금하신가요?
- 연관 학술논문 또는 학술발표를 통해 보다 발전된 연구결과를 확인하실 수 있습니다.
- 이 논문의 연구 히스토리 확인하기
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
The validity of the results from observational methods such as RULA, REBA, OWAS has been one of major concerns due to their subjective characteristics in determining the posture of interests. There have been many studies regarding validity of the results from each checklist. However, most studies provided only fragmentary rather than comprehensive results in nature. This study specifically tried to analyze consistency of novice user based on intra-observer consistency and sensitivity of industrial types during MSDs(Musculoskekltal Disorders) evaluation with major checklists. In this study, twenty two novice subjects were participated to conduct MSDs evaluation for the forty five jobs from three types of industries(automobile, electronics, hospital). The main results for this study were summarized as follows; 1) The action level based on RULA was always higher than that from REBA and OWAS for all three types of industries., 2) The order of consistency from novice users was OWAS(72.7%(kappa=0.57)) RULA(54.3%(kappa=0.41)), REBA(41.0%(kappa=0.34))., 3) The percentage of agreement between 2nd and 3rd trials was higher than those between 1st and 2nd trials and between 1st and 3rd trials irrespective of industrial types during using RULA and REBA., 4) The average score of automobile industry was higher than those of hospital and electronics industries., 5) The types of jobs associated with five body parts(A1(Front), A2(Interior), A3(Rear), A4(Lower), A5(Door)) in automobile industry showed statistically significant differences in terms of MSDs scores for the body parts considered in each checklists.
목차
등록된 정보가 없습니다.
참고문헌 (17)
참고문헌 신청
이 논문의 저자 정보
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0