Review of ergonomic assessment tools
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2018 |
Outros Autores: | , , |
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 |