Review of ergonomic assessment tools

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Pagnoncelli Laperuta, Dalila Giovana
Data de Publicação: 2018
Outros Autores: Adamczuk Oliveira, Gilson, Ribas Pessa, Sergio Luiz, Poglia da Luz, Roger
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: por
Título da fonte: Revista Produção Online
Texto Completo: https://www.producaoonline.org.br/rpo/article/view/2925
Resumo: This paper analyzes the methods of ergonomic evaluation by identifying and defining the methods, frequency of publications and expert analysis. Using adjustment of historical series by adjustment of time series, we obtained an upward linear trend in publications for 23 of the 24 methods identified in this study, the most common being: niosh, fanger, nasa-tlx, OWAS, reba and rula. The niosh method, the most frequent in publications, was very well evaluated by the group, having been used by all the experts consulted. Methods nasa-tlx (3rd) and reba (5) were also well evaluated and used by ergonomists, being above average in evaluation and use. Although the consultation of experts generates results similar to quantitative research, the experts’ greatest contribution is qualitative, as their perceptions are based on the critical analysis of ergonomic assessment methods in the light of the literature. It was concluded that, in addition to this information, it is necessary to consider the particularity of the task and the experience of the ergonomics professional in the process of choosing the ergonomic assessment method. Finally, we identified many similar methods, derived from or associated with each other, and found it necessary to study the process of analysis and ergonomic evaluation in search of prospects for a unified ergonomic assessment approach (future studies).
id ABEPRO-2_d3f6b1b5ac09e0435aec6304988a50d9
oai_identifier_str oai:ojs.emnuvens.com.br:article/2925
network_acronym_str ABEPRO-2
network_name_str Revista Produção Online
repository_id_str
spelling Review of ergonomic assessment toolsRevisão de ferramentas para avaliação ergonômicaErgonomic assessment. Ergonomic Assessment toolsErgonomics.Avaliação ergonômica. Ferramentas ergonômicas. ErgonomiaThis paper analyzes the methods of ergonomic evaluation by identifying and defining the methods, frequency of publications and expert analysis. Using adjustment of historical series by adjustment of time series, we obtained an upward linear trend in publications for 23 of the 24 methods identified in this study, the most common being: niosh, fanger, nasa-tlx, OWAS, reba and rula. The niosh method, the most frequent in publications, was very well evaluated by the group, having been used by all the experts consulted. Methods nasa-tlx (3rd) and reba (5) were also well evaluated and used by ergonomists, being above average in evaluation and use. Although the consultation of experts generates results similar to quantitative research, the experts’ greatest contribution is qualitative, as their perceptions are based on the critical analysis of ergonomic assessment methods in the light of the literature. It was concluded that, in addition to this information, it is necessary to consider the particularity of the task and the experience of the ergonomics professional in the process of choosing the ergonomic assessment method. Finally, we identified many similar methods, derived from or associated with each other, and found it necessary to study the process of analysis and ergonomic evaluation in search of prospects for a unified ergonomic assessment approach (future studies).O propósito deste artigo é analisar os métodos/ferramentas de avaliação ergonômica por meio da identificação e definição dos métodos, incidência de publicações e análise de especialistas. Utilizando ajuste das séries históricas por ajuste de séries temporais, obteve-se uma tendência linear ascendente em publicações para 23 dos 24 métodos identificados neste estudo, sendo os mais frequentes: NIOSH, fanger, NASA-TLX, OWAS, REBA e RULA. O método NIOSH, o mais incidente em publicações, foi muito bem avaliado pelo grupo, tendo sido utilizado por todos os especialistas consultados. Os métodos NASA-TLX (3º) e REBA (5º) também foram bem avaliados e utilizados pelos ergonomistas, ficando acima da média de avaliação e uso. Embora a consulta aos especialistas gere resultados semelhantes à investigação quantitativa, sua maior contribuição é de caráter qualitativo, cujas percepções fundamentam a análise crítica dos métodos de avaliação ergonômica sob a luz da literatura. Concluiu-se que, em complemento a essas informações, é preciso considerar a particularidade da tarefa e a experiência do profissional de ergonomia no processo de escolha do método de avaliação ergonômica. Por fim, identificou-se muitos métodos semelhantes, derivados ou associados entre si, sendo necessário estudar o processo de análise e avaliação ergonômica em busca de perspectivas para uma abordagem de avaliação ergonômica unificada (estudos futuros).Associação Brasileira de Engenharia de Produção2018-06-15info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionapplication/pdfvideo/mp4https://www.producaoonline.org.br/rpo/article/view/292510.14488/1676-1901.v18i2.2925Revista Produção Online; Vol. 18 No. 2 (2018); 665-690Revista Produção Online; v. 18 n. 2 (2018); 665-6901676-1901reponame:Revista Produção Onlineinstname:Associação Brasileira de Engenharia de Produção (ABEPRO)instacron:ABEPROporhttps://www.producaoonline.org.br/rpo/article/view/2925/1680https://www.producaoonline.org.br/rpo/article/view/2925/1681Copyright (c) 2018 Revista Produção Onlineinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessPagnoncelli Laperuta, Dalila GiovanaAdamczuk Oliveira, GilsonRibas Pessa, Sergio LuizPoglia da Luz, Roger2018-06-16T02:46:03Zoai:ojs.emnuvens.com.br:article/2925Revistahttp://producaoonline.org.br/rpoPUBhttps://www.producaoonline.org.br/rpo/oai||producaoonline@gmail.com1676-19011676-1901opendoar:2018-06-16T02:46:03Revista Produção Online - Associação Brasileira de Engenharia de Produção (ABEPRO)false
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Review of ergonomic assessment tools
Revisão de ferramentas para avaliação ergonômica
title Review of ergonomic assessment tools
spellingShingle Review of ergonomic assessment tools
Pagnoncelli Laperuta, Dalila Giovana
Ergonomic assessment. Ergonomic Assessment tools
Ergonomics.
Avaliação ergonômica. Ferramentas ergonômicas. Ergonomia
title_short Review of ergonomic assessment tools
title_full Review of ergonomic assessment tools
title_fullStr Review of ergonomic assessment tools
title_full_unstemmed Review of ergonomic assessment tools
title_sort Review of ergonomic assessment tools
author Pagnoncelli Laperuta, Dalila Giovana
author_facet Pagnoncelli Laperuta, Dalila Giovana
Adamczuk Oliveira, Gilson
Ribas Pessa, Sergio Luiz
Poglia da Luz, Roger
author_role author
author2 Adamczuk Oliveira, Gilson
Ribas Pessa, Sergio Luiz
Poglia da Luz, Roger
author2_role author
author
author
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Pagnoncelli Laperuta, Dalila Giovana
Adamczuk Oliveira, Gilson
Ribas Pessa, Sergio Luiz
Poglia da Luz, Roger
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv Ergonomic assessment. Ergonomic Assessment tools
Ergonomics.
Avaliação ergonômica. Ferramentas ergonômicas. Ergonomia
topic Ergonomic assessment. Ergonomic Assessment tools
Ergonomics.
Avaliação ergonômica. Ferramentas ergonômicas. Ergonomia
description This paper analyzes the methods of ergonomic evaluation by identifying and defining the methods, frequency of publications and expert analysis. Using adjustment of historical series by adjustment of time series, we obtained an upward linear trend in publications for 23 of the 24 methods identified in this study, the most common being: niosh, fanger, nasa-tlx, OWAS, reba and rula. The niosh method, the most frequent in publications, was very well evaluated by the group, having been used by all the experts consulted. Methods nasa-tlx (3rd) and reba (5) were also well evaluated and used by ergonomists, being above average in evaluation and use. Although the consultation of experts generates results similar to quantitative research, the experts’ greatest contribution is qualitative, as their perceptions are based on the critical analysis of ergonomic assessment methods in the light of the literature. It was concluded that, in addition to this information, it is necessary to consider the particularity of the task and the experience of the ergonomics professional in the process of choosing the ergonomic assessment method. Finally, we identified many similar methods, derived from or associated with each other, and found it necessary to study the process of analysis and ergonomic evaluation in search of prospects for a unified ergonomic assessment approach (future studies).
publishDate 2018
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2018-06-15
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv https://www.producaoonline.org.br/rpo/article/view/2925
10.14488/1676-1901.v18i2.2925
url https://www.producaoonline.org.br/rpo/article/view/2925
identifier_str_mv 10.14488/1676-1901.v18i2.2925
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv por
language por
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv https://www.producaoonline.org.br/rpo/article/view/2925/1680
https://www.producaoonline.org.br/rpo/article/view/2925/1681
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv Copyright (c) 2018 Revista Produção Online
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
rights_invalid_str_mv Copyright (c) 2018 Revista Produção Online
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
video/mp4
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Associação Brasileira de Engenharia de Produção
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Associação Brasileira de Engenharia de Produção
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv Revista Produção Online; Vol. 18 No. 2 (2018); 665-690
Revista Produção Online; v. 18 n. 2 (2018); 665-690
1676-1901
reponame:Revista Produção Online
instname:Associação Brasileira de Engenharia de Produção (ABEPRO)
instacron:ABEPRO
instname_str Associação Brasileira de Engenharia de Produção (ABEPRO)
instacron_str ABEPRO
institution ABEPRO
reponame_str Revista Produção Online
collection Revista Produção Online
repository.name.fl_str_mv Revista Produção Online - Associação Brasileira de Engenharia de Produção (ABEPRO)
repository.mail.fl_str_mv ||producaoonline@gmail.com
_version_ 1761536951042703360