International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 74 (2019) 102865

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics

journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ergon

A systematic review of comparative studies on ergonomic

assessment techniques
Mangesh Joshi *, Vishwas Deshpande
Department of Industrial Engineering, Shri Ramdeobaba College of Engineering and Management, Ramdeo Tekdi, Gitti Khadan, Katol Road, Nagpur, Maharashtra,
440013, India

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: This review provides a systematic overview of the comparison of ergonomic assessment techniques’ output in
OWAS variety of industrial sectors.
REBA The relevant publications have been classified into broad categories such as comparison of applied industry
RULA
sector, trend analysis, ergonomic assessment techniques been compared, comparative studies between two er­
Comparison
Ergonomic assessment
gonomic assessment techniques, frequently compared techniques, levels of Action categories used. The summary
Comparative study of extracted data from included papers is provided.
Work-related musculoskeletal disorders Authors have compared the results based on observational techniques which are easy to understand and apply.
Available publications related to such comparison is limited. Authors have compared and analysed the corre­
lation between the outputs of techniques but only few researchers pointed out the exact reason of variation in
outputs applied in the same task. Hence, establishing applicability of each technique required. To identify the
causes of variation, the sensitivity study of exposure factor-Task-posture assessment techniques is highly
required. There are few techniques which are not yet compared for checking agreement or correlation, serving as
a research gap.
Authors have studied and published literature review specific to one technique of ergonomic assessment. Few
authors have compared the outputs from various ergonomic assessment techniques in particular sector and
investigated the correlation between them. No study has been carried out till date to review available literature
on comparative study of comparisons made. In this paper, two research gaps have also been identified.

1. Introduction
In current industrial work scenario, the problem of work-related
musculoskeletal disorders (WMSDs) is very common. Musculoskeletal
disorders (MSDs) are one of the major causes of illness (Storheim and
Zwart, 2014) and the second most cause of disability worldwide,
measured by years lived with disability (YLDs). The most frequent
condition is the low back pain. WMSDs commonly include disorders of
muscles, tendons, tendon sheaths, peripheral nerves, joints, bones, lig­
aments etc. The main cause of occurrence of MSDs is accumulation of
repetitive stress over time. Musculoskeletal conditions affect billions of
people around the world. Disability-adjusted life years (DALY) for
musculoskeletal conditions increased by 61.6% between 1990 and 2016,
with an increase of 19.6% between 2006 and 2016. Osteoarthritis was
observed to have a 104.9% rise in DALYs (or 8.8% when
age-standardized) from 1990 to 2016 (Lancet, 2017). These figures of
MSDs’ condition are in line with the expectation of author (Weinstein,
2000).
The global prevalence of MSDs ranges from 14% to around 42%
(Sharma R, 2012); on the other hand in India, epidemiological research
indicates the community-based prevalence of nearly 20% (Sandul and
Mohanty, 2018) and occupation-specific prevalence found up to 80% in
various studies in India (Srivastava &, 2011) (Paul et al., 2019) (Mur­
uganantham et al., 2015) (Deepthi et al., 2015) (Sankar et al., 2012)
(Majumdar et al., 2014) (Ghosh et al., 2010). It may be due to high
dependency on the use of manpower due to its ease and cheap avail­
ability in developing countries like India. The generation of awareness of
ergonomics risks’ causes and its prevention is necessary. Failing to this,
the workers are exposed to low to very high risk depending on the in­
tensity and type of the task performed by them. As a primary require­
ment, the workstation planner/designer must consider ergonomic
aspects and follow ergonomic principles while designing a workstation.

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: joshimp@rknec.edu (M. Joshi), vsd@rknec.edu (V. Deshpande).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ergon.2019.102865
Received 5 July 2019; Received in revised form 30 August 2019; Accepted 7 October 2019
Available online 17 October 2019
0169-8141/© 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
M. Joshi and V. Deshpande
The designer must know the risk exposure factors and its effects on
muscles associated with the designs. The anthropometry data, job/­
product characteristics must be taken care of well in advance to avoid
occurrence of musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs).
To address the issue of WMSDs, authors working in the field of
human factors and/or ergonomics are often interested in finding risk
involved in the work activities, postural loading, effect of vibration, use
of tools, coupling, awkward postures, frequency of movements and its
duration, work envelopes, design of ergonomic workstation etc. Many
methods were developed to access the exposure risk related factors.
Some techniques were developed to address some specific industrial
sectors such agricultural or forestry sector. Some of them are generalized
which can be applicable in any industrial sector. Some of the techniques
such as Niosh lifting equation or MAC charts access the risks involved in
material handling tasks. The techniques use the combinations of expo­
sure risk factors for its assessment. Few techniques such as Rapid Entire
Body Assessment (REBA), Rapid Upper Limb Assessment (RULA), and
Ovako Working posture Assessment System (OWAS) follow standard­
ized tables in which combination of head’s, back’s, arms’ and legs’
position identifies a postural score and suggests level of risk involved in
the task. The techniques like Strain Index, OCRA are based on the
multipliers; maximum sustainable limit of a factor is adjusted by
multiplying it with a value of exposure factors which gives a score in
form of an Index. Since, the factors involved in each technique and the
way of calculation of score is different, authors felt the need of
comparing the output/conclusion obtained by each method.
The OWAS was developed by a Finnish steel company (Karhu et al.,
1977). It consists of four-digit number. First number representing the
back classification, second indicating Arm, third number indicating the
positional number of lower limbs and the last number indicates the load
handled. The four-digit code thus obtained has some meaning attached
to it which is nothing but four action categories. Total 252 posture
combinations are possible in OWAS (4 � 3 x 7 � 3 ¼ 252 cases). The
Rapid Upper Limb Assessment method (RULA) (Lynn and Corlett, 1993)
delivers an overall score based on postural loading on the whole body
including particular attention to the neck, trunk, shoulders, arms and
wrists. The overall score also integrates the time during which the
posture is held, the force required and the repetitiveness of the move­
ment. The Rapid Entire Body Assessment method (REBA) (Hignett and
McAtamney, 2000) method delivers an overall score that considers all
the body parts such as trunk, legs, neck, shoulders, arms and wrists. The
overall score integrates the same additional factors as RULA with an
addition of quality of the hand-coupling. The OCRA index is based on the
ratio between Actual Technical Actions (ATA), obtained by analyzing
the task, and Reference Technical Actions (RTA). The RTA value con­
siders the frequency and repetitiveness of movements, use of force, type
of posture, recovery period distribution and additional factors such as
vibration and localized tissue compression. The OCRA method provides
two separate indices (shoulder and elbow/wrist/hand) for each of the
right and left sides of the body. EN 1005–3 is a general-purpose method
that helps ergonomists assess the risk related to force application during
work. The acceptable force is obtained by applying various multipliers,
i.e., speed, duration and frequency of actions, to a basic capability,
which is represented by the maximum capability of the 15th percentile
worker. The Quick Exposure Check (QEC) is posture-based method. It
combines the observer’s assessment with the worker’s answers for
questionnaires. It allows assessment of MSD risk factors contributing to
the back, arms, neck and upper extremities at a workstation. In addition
to an overall score for the whole body (QEC General), this method
provides a risk index for each targeted area such as back, shoulder-arm,
wrist-hand and neck. The Job Strain Index (JSI) quantifies exposure to
MSD risk factors for the hands and wrists. It provides an index that takes
into account the level of perceived exertion, duration of effort as a
percentage of cycle time, number of efforts, hand and wrist posture,
work speed and shift length.
The comparative study conducted by (Drinkaus et al., 2003)
2
International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 74 (2019) 102865
investigated two methods (RULA and SI) for output comparison in
automotive assembly plants. The results indicated that the risk assess­
ment outcomes of these two ergonomic assessment tools for the upper
extremities did not correlate. The cause of deviation may be due to the
different weightages given to risk exposure factors in calculating a score
or a conclusion. RULA is posture based techniques whereas, SI is in­
tensity driven. There might be several causes of variation in output
(Moradi et al., 2017). carried out ergonomic risk assessment of auto
mechanics. The result of study showed highest prevalence of WMSDs
was associated with the back and waist (Fazi et al., 2019). applied RULA
method for Risks assessment at automotive manufacturing company.
Findings reveals extremely high risks and the changes need to be done
immediately (Mohsen et al., 2016). evaluated ergonomic physical risk
factors in a truck manufacturing plant (Ojha and Vinay, 2015). evalu­
ated ergonomic risk assessment of assembly workers of Indian auto­
mobile industry by using RULA. The findings of the study showed
existence of moderate to high risk of work-related musculoskeletal dis­
orders (Chakravarthy et al., 2015). applied OWAS, RULA method in an
automobile assembly line. The study findings classified the activities in
yellow zone i.e. of moderate risk zone (Qutubuddin et al., 2013a, b).
tested RULA, REBA and QEC in bus body building unit. The findings
revealed moderate to high risk of Work-related Musculoskeletal disor­
ders. The same findings were reflected in the study of (Ismail et al.,
2009). The study conducted by (Jones & Kumar, 2008) in a repetitive
high-risk sawmill occupation, resulted in meaningful variation in risk
levels assigned with performance of the trim-saw job. In the study of
author who (Shanahan et al., 2013) compared REBA, RULA, and SI. The
findings revealed the ranking of rod working tasks using RULA and
REBA outcome measures were similar. Similar, such studies had been
conducted till date considering different available assessment
techniques.
The comparative study of all of such output comparisons is carried
out in this paper. This study is conducted to address following major
objectives.
1.1. Objective of this study
The study aims at investigating:
� Commonly used observational techniques by the ergonomists
� Correlation between the outputs of techniques compared
� Comments made on applicability of assessment techniques.
� Comment on study limitations
2. Methods
This systematic review follows the Preferred Reporting Items for
Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) methodology ((Ales­
sandro, 2009), (Moher et al., 2009)). PRISMA is a well-accepted meth­
odology for conducting and reporting systematic reviews in any
engineering domain.
2.1. Inclusion criteria
The review of literature was focused only on peer-reviewed journal
papers. The research papers were searched and included as per inclusion
criteria mentioned below:
� The study was a field/controlled laboratory study conducted in any
sectors.
� The study addressed at least two methods for ergonomic risk inves­
tigation with considerable sample size.
� Papers indexed in Scopus, SCI, and ICI etc.
� Papers were written in English language.
M. Joshi and V. Deshpande
2.2. Study search and selection
Fig. 1 shows the PRISMA methodology flow chart for study identi­
fication, screening, eligibility, and inclusion. This study is characterized
as a systematic review of published articles from the year 1970–2019.
The various combinations of keywords were used to generate maximum
articles from the various sources including journal publications, book
publications, study reports of national societies, conference proceedings
etc. The combinations used in the searched were Comparison, Ergo­
nomic assessment, REBA, RULA, QEC, OCRA, SI, OWAS and similar
possible combinations of various ergonomic assessment techniques
combined using the Boolean operator “AND”, and the Boolean operator
“OR”.
After removing duplicates and screening, a total of 39 full text papers
were identified and included in the systematic review reported in this
paper.
2.3. Data extraction
Table 3 provides the techniques compared by the researchers in
various articles. Table 6 provides the summary of an excel sheet pre­
pared for the data collection to extract the following required data from
each comparative study:
� Author(s)
� Year of publication
� Title
� Journal
� Application Sector
� Data collection methodology
� Software tools used for data analysis
� Test statistic used for establishing correlation
� Sample size
� Limitations and Conclusion of the study.
2.4. Data presentation
Papers are referred from two main sources journals and conference
proceedings. Out of the sixty-five papers reviewed, thirty-five useful
papers were found in international journals and four papers were found
Fig. 1. Flowchart of study search and inclusion.
3
International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 74 (2019) 102865
in conference proceedings. The research publications are categorized in
several classes depending on the information to be analysed. The results
of 39 articles were presented either in tabular form or in the graphical
form containing bar graphs, Line charts or Pie charts.
The articles are arranged as per the year of publication. The
maximum articles were found in the year 2013. The first paper was
published in the year 2003. The graph (Fig. 2) shows the trend analysis
of year-wise number of publications.
3. Results
As per the review study conducted (Takala et al., 2010), 30 obser­
vational methods are available for ergonomic risk assessment. In addi­
tion to those 30 observational techniques, NERPA (Sanchez-Lite et al.,
2013), ALLA (Kong et al., 2017), HARM (Douwes & de- Kraker, 2012),
SWEA (Authority-Swedish-Work-Environment, 2012), PERA (Chander
and Cavatorta, 2017), WERA (Abd Rahman et al., 2011) and SES (Zare
et al., 2014) are also developed. A total of 18 ergonomic assessment
techniques were compared in the current reviewed literature. The
meaning and abbreviations used are provided in Table 1. Author (David,
2005) provided main features and functions of assessment techniques
which are summarized (Table 2). The features and functions of the
techniques which were not included by (David, 2005) are also included
in Table 2.
In the review of 39 papers, ergonomic interventions are carried out
in 11 sectors such as Food, Forestry, Automotive, manufacturing, Con­
struction etc. The highest percentage of studies (19%) is carried out in
forestry work and manufacturing industries followed by 16% in auto­
motive and 14% in medical industry. The activities involved in these
sectors vary from low risk level to very high-risk level. The details of
sector wise comparative studies and its percentage are summarized in
Fig. 3.
Authors have compared Eighteen techniques of ergonomic assess­
ment and tested existence of correlation between them with the statis­
tical techniques. Table 3 shows the methods which are compared in 39
research articles. Table 4 gives number of such comparative studies
conducted between two ergonomic assessment techniques.
The techniques such as REBA (22%), RULA (21%), SI (12%), OWAS
(11%), OCRA (10%), and QEC (7%) are found to be frequently compared
by the authors in ergonomic their studies. The other methods compar­
ison percentage is shown in Fig. 4.
4. Discussions
Table 6 provides exhaustive summary of various comparative studies
carried out. It includes various details regarding method of data
collection adopted, statistical tests used for correlation analysis,
conclusion drawn etc. In the correlation of the outputs, authors applied
different techniques in different industrial settings and came to a finish
of not getting similar comparative correlation. The investigation of
correlation between the outputs of various techniques was backed up by
many statistical tests such as non-parametric ANOVA, non-parametric
Kruskal–Wallis H-test, Wilcoxon W-test, Spearman r correlation coeffi­
cient estimation, Contrast analysis, Cohen’s linearly weighted kappa,
Kolmogorov–Smirnov test etc.
As per the reviewed literature, few techniques such as Participatory
Ergonomics (Vink et al., 1995), a Method of Ergonomic Workplace
Evaluation (Grzybowski, 2001), (Village et al., 2009), Digital
Image-based Postural Assessment (Furlanetto et al., 2012) and Postural
Ergonomic Risk Assessment (PERA (Chander and Cavatorta, 2017),) are
not covered under comparison. The comparative study of all techniques
in light to heavy duty work may provide a different direction for study.
Currently it can be viewed as a research gap in literature.
Each ergonomic assessment technique considers different factors or
procedure to arrive at a conclusion on associated risk level. Drawing
conclusion/output from the obtained scores or indices depends on
M. Joshi and V. Deshpande International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 74 (2019) 102865

Fig. 2. Trend analysis of 39 studies.

Table 1 Table 2
Abbreviation used. Features and Function of Various Techniques under consideration.
SN Abbr. Meaning Reference Technique Main Features Functions

1 OWAS Ovako Working Karhu et al. (1977) OWAS Time sampling for body postures Whole body posture recording
posture Assessment and force and analysis
System REBA Categorization of body postures Entire body assessment for
2 REBA Rapid Entire Body Hignett & McAtamney (2000) and force, with action levels for dynamic tasks
Assessment assessment
3 RULA Rapid Upper Limb Lynn & Corlett (1993) RULA Categorization of body postures Upper body and limb
Assessment and force, with action levels for assessment
4 ULRA Upper Limb Risk Roman-Liu (2005) assessment
Assessment Roman-Liu (2007) ULRA ULRA expresses the upper limb Upper body and limb
5 SI Strain index Moore & Garg (1995) load and the risk of developing assessment for repetitive tasks
6 ALLA Agricultural Lower Kong et al. (2017) MSDs with Repetitive task
Limb Assessment indicator.
7 OCRA Occupational Occhipinti (1998) SI Combined index of six exposure Assessment of risk for distal
Repetitive Actions factors for work tasks upper extremity disorders
8 QEC Quick Exposure David et al. (2008) ALLA Ergonomic checklist for various A lower limb body posture
Check agricultural tasks assessment tool
9 LUBA Loading on the Kee & Karwowski (2001) OCRA Measures for body posture and Integrated assessment scores
Upper Body force for repetitive tasks for various types of jobs
Assessment QEC Exposure levels for main body Assessment of exposure of
10 NERPA New Ergonomic Sanchez-Lite et al. (2013) regions with worker responses, upper body and limb for static
Posture Assessment and scores to guide intervention and dynamic tasks
11 ART Assessment of Ferreira et al. (2008) LUBA Classification based on joint Assessment of postural loading
Repetitive Tasks angular deviation from neutral on the upper body and limbs
12 HARM Hand Arm Risk- Douwes & de- Kraker (2012) and perceived discomfort
assessment Method NERPA Scoring system based on Upper extremity
13 SWEA Model for Authority-Swedish-Work-Environment individual physical conditions musculoskeletal disorders
assessment of (2012) for reporting the final score
repetitive work by ART Qualitative approach, the Assessment of repetitive tasks
the Swedish Work numerical scoring system allows of the upper limbs
Environment users to calculate a job exposure
Authority score.
14 4D 4D Watback Neumann et al. (1999) HARM Risk assessment of developing Assessment in light manual
Watback arm, neck or shoulders symptoms tasks
15 ACGIH American ACGIH-Worldwide (2012) (pain) resulting from
TLV Conference of SWEA A complete guidebook for Guidelines for Prevention of
Governmental workstation design. Musculoskeletal Disorders
Industrial Hygienists 4D Watback A tool which considers both the Suitable for back assessment
Threshold Limit peak exposure and the
Value cumulative exposure
16 EWA Ergonomic work Ahonen et al. (1989) ACGIH TLV Threshold limit values for hand Exposure assessment manual
place analysis activity and lifting work work
17 EN 1005- EN 1005-3 standard CEN (2002) EWA Questions on physical load and Assessment of upper
3 posture for repetitive tasks extremities
standard EN 1005-3 Combined index for maximum Exposure assessment Standard
18 SES Scania Ergonomic Zare et al. (2014) standard acceptable force by joints
Standard modified by various multipliers.
SES Colour coded classification of Applicable for Whole body or
each posture variable specific body regions

4
M. Joshi and V. Deshpande International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 74 (2019) 102865

Fig. 3. Sectors-wise published work (%).

Table 3
Techniques used in published work.
SN Ref. Year SN from Table 1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

1 Drinkaus et al. (2003) 2003 Y Y

2 Manavakun (2004) 2004 Y Y
3 Fernanda et al. (2006) 2006 Y Y
4 Bao et al. (2006a, 2006b) 2006 Y Y
5 Kee & Karwowski (2007) 2007 Y Y Y
6 Jones & Kumar (2007) 2007 Y Y Y Y Y
7 Jones & Kumar (2008) 2008 Y Y Y Y Y
8 Spielholz et al. (2008) Y Y
9 Jones & Kumar (2010) 2010 Y Y Y Y Y
10 Motamedzade et al. (2011) 2011 Y Y
11 Joseph et al. (2011) 2011 Y Y Y
12 Chiasson et al. (2012) 2012 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
13 Wintachai & Charoenchai (2012) 2012 Y Y Y
14 Qutubuddin et al., 2013a, b 2013 Y Y Y
15 Qutubuddin et al., 2013a, b 2013 Y Y
16 Shanahan et al. (2013) 2013 Y Y Y
17 Roman-Liu et al. (2013) 2013 Y Y
18 Sahu et al. (2013) 2013 Y Y
19 Noh & Roh. (2013) 2013 Y Y Y
20 Gallo & Mazzetto (2013) 2013 Y Y Y
21 Garcia et al. (2013) 2013 Y Y
22 Mukhopadhyay et al. (2014) 2014 Y Y Y Y Y
23 Zare et al. (2014) 2014 Y Y
24 Nadri et al. (2015) 2015 Y Y
25 Kjellberg et al. (2015) 2015 Y Y Y Y Y Y
26 Mukhopadhyay & Khan (2015) 2015 Y Y Y Y Y
27 Hussain et al. (2016) 2016 Y Y
28 Rosecrance et al. (2017) 2017 Y Y
29 Kong et al. (2017) 2017 Y Y Y Y
30 Upasana & Vinay. (2017) 2017 Y Y
31 Saliha et al. (2017) 2017 Y Y Y Y
32 Yazdanirad et al. (2018) 2018 Y Y Y
33 Pal & Dhara. (2018) 2018 Y Y Y Y
34 Kulkarni & Devalkar (2018) 2018 Y Y
35 Sain & Makkhan (2019) 2019 Y Y
36 Antonucci (2019) 2019 Y Y Y
37 Enez & Nalbanto� glu (2019) 2019 Y Y
38 Cremasco et al. (2019) 2019 Y Y
39 Hellig et al. (2019) 2019 Y Y
Total 39 13 26 25 2 14 1 12 8 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 1 2 1

number of conclusion categories/risk levels. The problem in comparing
output of two methods is two different number of conclusion categories
of two methods. REBA has five action categories (Table 7) and RULA
(Table 8) has only four action categories.
The difference in number of conclusion categories may introduce
some error in comparison of outputs. Some postures may get classified
into some other action level categories in comparison. In comparing two
techniques, two ways were adopted by the researchers. One way was to
convert action categories in same comparable base number. Many
studies adopted this methodology for comparison. Other way was to use
original number of categories and rank the activities as per the obtained
scores from each method. After ranking, comparison was made on the

5
M. Joshi and V. Deshpande International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 74 (2019) 102865

Table 4
No of Comparative Studies between two ergonomic assessment techniques.
SN from Table 1 Ergonomic Assessment Techniques Considered for Comparison (SN from Table 1)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

1 – 11 8 0 2 1 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
2 11 – 20 0 8 1 7 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 1 1 0
3 8 20 – 1 9 1 6 4 1 1 0 0 0 0 4 1 1 1
4 0 0 1 – 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5 2 8 9 0 – 0 9 2 0 0 1 1 1 0 7 1 1 0
6 1 1 1 0 0 – 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7 3 7 6 1 9 0 – 3 0 0 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 0
8 2 6 4 0 2 0 3 – 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0
9 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 – 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
10 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 – 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
11 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 – 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
12 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 – 1 0 0 0 0 0
13 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 – 0 0 0 0 0
14 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 – 0 0 0 0
15 0 4 4 0 7 0 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 – 1 1 0
16 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 – 1 0
17 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 – 0
18 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 –

The highest number of comparisons were made between REBA and RULA which accounts to 20 studies, followed by OWAS- REBA in 11 studies (Table 4).

Fig. 4. % of Comparative studies.

basis of rank order given to activities. Table 5 shows various techniques
used in the comparison, their original number of action categories and
actual converted number of action categories.
There exist different methods of ergonomic assessment, out of which
researchers select method which are based on charts for steps wise score
calculation, formulae to calculate index or scores or checklist which
gathers data from field workers. The correlation between factual data
gathered, obtained scores, and an index is mandatory for a validated
technique. In the published literature, there are evidences of the
conduction of assessment techniques’ validation (Bruijn et al., 1998).
Every technique had been validated. But when the output/conclusion
furnished by each technique were compared, the results differ signifi­
cantly. The techniques when compared, classify postures in different
categories of risk involved such as low risk, medium risk, high risk, and
very high risks category. As already been discussed in the previous
sections, authors convert original action categories into a common
comparable base number such as 3 or 4 depending on the selected
technique for comparison. This conversion may affect the normality of

6
M. Joshi and V. Deshpande International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 74 (2019) 102865

Table 5
Levels of Action categories: Original and used for comparison.
SN of Technique 1 Technique 2 Technique 3 Technique 4 Technique 5 Technique 6 Technique 7 Technique 8 Action Category
Table 3 Levels For
Name AC Name AC Name AC Name AC Name AC Name AC Name AC Name AC
comparison

1 RULA 4 SI 4 3
2 OWAS 4 REBA 5 4
3 REBA 5 RULA 4 4
4 SI 4 ACGIH TLV 3 3
5 OWAS 4 REBA 5 RULA 4 4
6 REBA 5 ACGIH TLV 3 SI 4 OCRA 4 RULA 4 3
7 REBA 5 ACGIH TLV 3 SI 4 OCRA 4 RULA 4 3
8 SI 4 ACGIH TLV 3 3
9 REBA 5 ACGIH TLV 3 SI 4 OCRA 4 RULA 4 3
10 REBA 5 QEC 4 3
11 OCRA 4 QEC 4 4D 3 3
Watbak
12 REBA 5 EN 1005-3 4 ACGIH 3 OCRA 4 QEC 4 SI 4 EWA 4 RULA 4 3
stan. TLV
13 OWAS 4 REBA 5 RULA 4 4
14 REBA 5 RULA 4 QEC 4 Original ACa
15 REBA 5 RULA 4 4
16 REBA 5 RULA 4 SI 4 Original ACa
17 ULRA 3 OCRA 4 3
18 REBA 5 RULA 4 Original ACa
19 REBA 5 RULA 4 SI 4 Original ACa
20 OWAS 4 REBA 5 OCRA 4 Original ACa
21 OWAS 4 RULA 4 Original ACa
22 OWAS 4 REBA 5 RULA 4 SI 4 OCRA 4 Original ACa
23 RULA 4 SES 3 4
24 REBA 5 QEC 4 3
25 SI 4 ART 3 HARM 3 SWEA 3 OCRA 4 QEC 4 3
26 OWAS 4 REBA 5 RULA 4 SI 4 OCRA 4 Original ACa
27 OWAS 4 REBA 5 4
28 SI 4 OCRA 4 3
29 OWAS 4 REBA 5 RULA 4 ALLA 4 4
30 REBA 5 RULA 4 Original ACa
31 OWAS 4 REBA 5 RULA 4 QEC 4 Original ACa
32 RULA 4 LUBA 4 NERPA 4 4
33 OWAS 4 REBA 5 RULA 4 QEC 4 Original ACa
34 REBA 5 RULA 4 Original ACa
35 RULA 4 ULRA 3 –
36 SI 4 OCRA 4 ACGIH 3 3
TLV
37 OWAS 4 REBA 5 4
38 REBA 5 RULA 4 Original ACa
39 OWAS 4 EN 1005-3 4 4
standar.
a
Original number of action categories (AC).

posture distribution in various risk zones. As a result, the output of
technique may get shifted either towards high, medium or low risk zone.
For example, in a comparison between the outputs of REBA, RULA,
HARM, REBA has five action categories, RULA has four and HARM has
only three categories of risk level. The action categories are converted
into 3 levels to have a common base for comparison. In such comparison,
the posture distribution must be normal and same for all the techniques.
The posture distribution is unattended while converting the action cat­
egories forming a small but significant research gap.
It is suggested to carry out a systematic study of sensitivity analysis.
It is required for evaluating sensitivity of the conclusion furnished by
assessment techniques. This analysis may reveal factors causing varia­
tion in output. The output sensitive body members may be different for
the different techniques. OWAS is focused more on lower limbs (more
categories for lower limbs) whereas REBA, RULA are more focused on
upper limbs. The OWAS tends to underestimate risks, if an activity in­
volves more use of upper limbs. On the other hand, if the activity in­
volves both upper and lower limbs, REBA will be more suitable than
RULA and OWAS.
The ergonomic assessment techniques were designed considering a
specific set of risk exposure factors. Each work element of activities may
not have all the exposure factors. Hence, a technique may not be suitable
for ergonomic assessment of all work elements. In the surveyed
literature, one technique was applied to every work element involved in
the task without considering its’ applicability. In some cases, the output
might be correct. Because of this methodology, there might be the
variation in the results obtained by different methods which needs to be
investigated further. The suitability/applicability of technique to the
task performed must be established. Breaking lengthy activities into
work elements considering exposure factor variation and the application
of different techniques of assessment to individual work elements must
be carefully carried out.
With reference to the comparative studies conducted between two
assessment techniques (Table 9), it is clear that output of majority of the
studies did not correlate. The maximum 66.67% correlation was
observed between OWAS and OCRA but number of studies are less. The
sample size conforming the correlation is significantly less than the
studies conforming non-correlation except between SI and ACGIH TLV
comparison. One study confirmed correlation of results with sample size
of 567 and sample size of non-conformance studies are 242. With these
results, there is still a question on accuracy of these studies.
5. Conclusion and future scope
The 39 included papers from various resources were examined
thoroughly and efforts were focused on extracting every piece of

7
 M. Joshi and V. Deshpande
Table 6
Summary of extracted data from included papers.
Author Title Journal/Conf. Application Sector Data Collection Method Software Test Statistic Used Sample Concluding Remarks Study Limitations
proceeding analysis tools Size

Drinkaus et al. Comparison of ergonomic Work Automotive On site observation Manual kappa coefficient (K), 244 The results of RULA and –
(2003) risk assessment outputs analysis Monotonicity gamma SI do not agree.
from Rapid Upper Limb
Assessment and the Strain
Index for tasks in
automotive assembly
plants
Manavakun A comparison of OWAS FEC – FORMEC – Forestry Video recording – – 248 Observed postural load –
(2004) and REBA observational 2004 conference by REBA was higher
techniques for assessing than by OWAS
postural loads in tree
felling and processing
Fernanda et al. Comparison of methods Int. Conference on Medical Photograph MS Excel 7.0. Descriptive statistics 39 1. Average RULA –
(2006) RULA and REBA for Production posture score of 5.5 with
evaluation of postural Research – fast change. 2. Average
stress in odontology Americas’ Region REBA score of 7.07
services 2006 indicating medium risk
and change soon.
(Bao et al. Quantifying repetitive Ergonomics Epidemiological On site observation, SAS program Descriptive statistics, 733 Moderate to substantial –
(2006a, hand activity for research Self-Reports (version 9; SAS One-way ANOVA agreement. The Strain
2006b)) epidemiological research Duncan’s multiple-range Index identified more
on musculoskeletal test ‘hazardous’ jobs than
disorders – Part I and II: Spearman rank-order the ACGIH HAL method
comparison of different correlation coefficients
methods of measuring kappa stat.
8

force level and

repetitiveness
Kee & A comparison of three Int. J. of Iron and steel, – – Wilcoxon sign test 301 1. Postural stress by RULA may have some
Karwowski observational techniques Occupational electronic RULA was higher than limitations in
(2007) for assessing postural loads Safety and automotive, and that by REBA, OWAS. 2. estimating postural
in industry Ergonomic (JOSE) chemical Postural stress by REBA load for unbalanced
industries, hospital. was body postures
higher than that by
OWAS.
Jones & Kumar Comparison of ergonomic Int. J. of Industrial Saw Mill Motion Data with 1. Non-parametric 15 Posture and exertion 1. Sample size 2.

International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 74 (2019) 102865

(2007) risk assessments in a
repetitive high-risk
sawmill occupation: Saw-
filer
Jones & Kumar Comparison of ergonomic
(2008) risk assessment output in a
repetitive sawmill
occupation: Trim-saw
operator
Spielholz et al. Reliability and validity
(2008) assessment of the hand
activity level threshold
limit value and strain index
using expert ratings of
mono-task jobs
–
Ergonomics electro goniometers, Kruskal–Wallis H-test 2. variable definitions Unavailability of
Exertion data with Wilcoxin W-test were observed to Occupational health
Surface EMG (significance level of .05) significantly affect the records to derive
Psychophysical component scores and/ incidence rates.
measure - Interview or risk output of all
methods.
Work Saw Mill Electro goniometers, – 1. The non-parametric 29 Meaningful variation in 1. Sample size 2.
EMG Kruskal-Wallis H test risk levels assigned Occup. Health records
2. The Wilcoxin W test between methods was used to derive
observed incidence rates
Journal of Healthcare and Video recording SAS 9.1 (Cary, Spearman rho weighted 567 Moderate agreement –
Occupational and Manufacturing N.C.) kappa, was observed
Environmental
Hygiene
Saw Mill – Wilcoxin Signed Ranks test 87
(continued on next page)

Table 6 (continued )
Author Title
Jones & Kumar Comparison of Ergonomic
(2010) Risk Assessment Output in
Four Sawmill Jobs
Motamedzade Comparison of Ergonomic
et al. (2011) Risk Assessment Outputs
from Rapid Entire Body
Assessment and Quick
Exposure Check in an
Engine Oil Company
Joseph et al. Measurement Consistency
(2011) Among Observational Job
Analysis Methods During
an Intervention Study
Chiasson et al. Comparing the results of
(2012) eight methods used to
evaluate risk factors
associated with
musculoskeletal disorders
Wintachai & The comparison of
Charoenchai ergonomics postures
(2012) assessment methods in
rubber sheet production
9
Qutubuddin Ergonomic risk assessment
et al., 2013a, b using postural analysis
tools in a bus body
building unit
Qutubuddin An ergonomic study of
et al., 2013a, b work-related MSDs risks in
Indian Saw Mills
Shanahan et al. A comparison of RULA,
(2013) REBA and Strain Index to
four psychophysical scales
in the assessment of non-
fixed work
Roman-Liu et al. Comparison of risk
(2013) assessment procedures
used in OCRA and ULRA
methods
Sahu et al. A comparative ergonomics
(2013) postural assessment of
potters and sculptors in the
unorganized sector in West
Bengal, India
M. Joshi and V. Deshpande
Journal/Conf. Application Sector Data Collection Method Software Test Statistic Used Sample Concluding Remarks Study Limitations
proceeding analysis tools Size
Int. J. of On site observation and Limited agreement was 1. The small sample
Occupational interview observed size
Safety and 2. Inclusion of jobs
Ergonomic (JOSE) which are at risk only.
Journal of Automotive On site observation SPSS Version Spearman correlation 40 Methods exhibit a strong Relationships between
Research in 13.0 coefficient, correlation in each evaluation
Health Sciences Wilcoxon signed-rank test identifying risky jobs, method and the injury
and Kruskal-Wallis test and determining the data were unknown.
potential risk.
Int. J. of Food Industry On site observation and – Spearman r correlation 7 Comparisons showed –
Occupational interview coefficient, Nonparametric positive association
Safety and correlation on the ordinal between QEC and OCRA
Ergonomic (JOSE) indices indices, and between the
QEC back index and 4D
Watbak.
Int. J. of Industrial Manufacturing, On site observation and JMP statistical Pearson’s correlation 567 The findings show that –
Ergonomics Forestry, Food interview software for coefficient no two methods are in
Windows (SAS perfect agreement
Institute Inc.
version
9.0.2)
Proceedings of the Rubber Sheet On site observation Win OWAS Pearson correlation 25 RULA and REBA shows –
2012 IEEE IEEM Production coefficient high level of risk
whereas OWAS shows
high risk in few
activities.
Industrial Automotive On site observation – Scatter Plot 38 The results of RULA and –
Engineering QEC are inline whereas
Letters results of REBA are
slightly concentrated
near higher side.
J. of Mech. and Saw Mill On site observation – – 110 Methods are in –
Civil Engineering agreement
Work Construction On site observation Contrast analysis 25 The ranking of tasks 1. Sample size,
International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 74 (2019) 102865
–
One way ANOVA using RULA and REBA 2. The single
outcome measures were occupation assessed
similar to the rank by 3. The nature of the
perceived Lifting Effort posture data used.
Ergonomics Electronic Video Recording, – Non-parametric Spearman 18 In most cases, the values Small Sample size
electro goniometers correlation of the indicators
dynamometer (ZPC obtained with OCRA
system from JBA, and ULRA were similar.
Poland). In addition, the
correlation between
these indicators was
quite strong.
Int. J. of Manufacturing On site observations – Chi Square, ANOVA, 130 1. RULA score are on –
Occupational Descriptive statistics higher side than REBA
Safety and in few activities
Ergonomic (JOSE)
(continued on next page)
 M. Joshi and V. Deshpande
Table 6 (continued )
Author Title Journal/Conf. Application Sector Data Collection Method Software Test Statistic Used Sample Concluding Remarks Study Limitations
proceeding analysis tools Size

Noh & Roh. Approach of Industrial J. Phys. Ther. Sci Medical Video Recording – – 3 RULA slightly over –
(2013) Physical Therapy to estimated postures.
Assessment of the Value of SI in not in line
Musculoskeletal System with the scores of RULA,
and Ergonomic Risk REBA for X ray activity
Factors of the Dental
Hygienist
Gallo & Mazzetto Ergonomic analysis for the Journal of Forestry Video recording KINOVEA, – 18 All approaches –
(2013) assessment of the risk of Agricultural presented a good
work-related Engineering feasibility in their
musculoskeletal disorder application
in forestry operations
Garcia et al. Working postures of dental Med Lav. Dentistry Photography Kappa statistics 283 No agreement was –
(2013) students: ergonomic observed
analysis using OWAS and
rapid upper limb
assessment.
Mukhopadhyay Ergonomic risk factors in Work Automotive photograph and video – – – 1. REBA, RULA, OCRA –
et al. (2014) bicycle repairing units at scores were very high.
Jabalpur 2. SI score was less in
painting task.
Zare et al. (2014) Development of a International Automotive Data logger, Video Excel, – – 1. Findings showed that –
Biomechanical Method for Journal of Recorder, MATLAB RULA & SES methods
Ergonomic Evaluation: Bioengineering Sensors (Inclinometers, were in agreement with
Comparison with and Life Sciences Accelerometers, and the results of
Observational Methods Goniometer biomechanical methods
10

except for neck and

wrist postures.
Nadri et al. Comparison of ergonomic JOHE Chemical Video and Photograph Data analysis The kappa and gamma 82 The risk assessment Small sample size
(2015) risk assessment results was performed scores outcomes do not agree.
from Quick Exposure using SPSS One-way ANOVA Thus, there is no
Check and Rapid Entire software possibility of applying
Body Assessment in an (version 16, them interchangeably
anodizing industry of SPSS Inc., for postural risk
Tehran, Iran Chicago, IL, assessment, at least not
USA). in this industry.

International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 74 (2019) 102865

Kjellberg et al. Comparisons of six Proceedings 19th Service Video Recording – Cohen’s linearly weighted 10 No two methods were in –
(2015) observational methods for Triennial kappa perfect agreement.
risk assessment of Congress of the
repetitive work - results IEA,
from a consensus
assessment
Mukhopadhyay The evaluation of International Food Direct observation, – – 15 1. OWAS revealed that –
& Khan (2015) ergonomic risk factors Journal of Questionnaire and none of the postures
among meat cutters Occupational and interview technique were within the safe
working in Jabalpur, India Environ. Health limit.
2. REBA, RULA, OCRA
scores were also high for
considerable number of
activities.
3. SI score is Very high
only for Cutting.
Hussain et al. Using Ergonomic Risk Human Factors Furniture video recording – – 12 –
(2016) Assessment Methods for and Ergonomics Manufacturing
(continued on next page)
 Table 6 (continued )
Author Title
Designing Inclusive Work
Practices: A Case Study
Rosecrance et al. Risk assessment of cheese
(2017) processing tasks using the
Strain Index and OCRA
Checklist
Kong et al. Comparisons of Ergonomic
(2017) Evaluation Tools (ALLA,
RULA, REBA and OWAS)
for Farm Work
(Upasana and Work posture assessment
Vinay., 2017) of tailors by RULA and
REBA analysis
Saliha et al. Determination of work
(2017) postures with different
11
ergonomic risk assessment
methods in forest nurseries
Yazdanirad et al. Comparing the
(2018) Effectiveness of Three
Ergonomic Risk
Assessment
Methods—RULA, LUBA,
and NERPA—to Predict the
Upper Extremity
Musculoskeletal Disorders
Pal & Dhara. Identifying
(2018) musculoskeletal issues and
associated risk factors
among clay brick kiln
workers
Kulkarni & Work Related
Devalkar Musculoskeletal Disorders
(2018) and Postural Stress of the
Women Cultivators
Engaged in Uprooting Job
of Rice Cultivation
Sain & Makkhan Postural analysis of
(2019) building construction
workers using ergonomics
Journal/Conf. Application Sector Data Collection Method Software Test Statistic Used Sample Concluding Remarks Study Limitations
proceeding analysis tools Size
in Mfg.& Service OWAS predicts fewer
Industries severe risk postures as
compared with REBA.
M. Joshi and V. Deshpande
Int. J. of Industrial Food Industry Video Recording and All statistical Descriptive statistics, 21 Strain Index and OCRA The results may not be
Ergonomics Discussion analyses were Bowker’s test of symmetry, Checklist yielded fair to applicable to job
completed Spearman’s rank-order moderate agreement, exposures of other
using correlation coefficient (rs), but not identical. manufacturing tasks,
SAS/STAT and Cohen’s weighted especially those that
software (SAS kappa coefficient (k). are highly variable and
Institute, Cary, involve multiple task
NC) version 9.3 functions
(2012).
Int. J. of Agriculture – – Hit rate, quadratic 196 ALLA gave different –
Occupational weighted κ, one-way results than OWAS,
Safety and analysis of variance, and t- REBA, RULA which
Ergonomic (JOSE) test analyses author claims in line
with 16 Ergo Experts’
assessment
International Garment Observation and – – 60 RULA overestimated the –
Journal of Manufacturing Discussion posture than REBA
Science,
Environment and
Technology
Fresenius Forest nurseries Video recording Ergo Fellow – 175 RULA score was highest –
Environmental (Version-2.0) followed by QEC,
Bulletin software OWAS, REBA
Indian J Occup. Medical, Observation and SPSS version 1. Kolmogorov–Smirnov 210 Low-risk levels in Lack of investigation
Environ. Med Automotive Discussion 16. test NERPA, medium-risk of tasks applying to
2. Spearman’s correlation levels in LUBA, and high postural load
test high-risk levels in RULA
3. Wilcoxon test are evaluated better.
Industrial Health Brick kiln Observation and IBM SPSS Logistic regression 154 Postural analysis The present study was
Discussion software showed that kiln limited to the
(version 22) workers are exposed to Rajasthan state of
very high risks in India only, other
spading and mould regions can be
filling tasks which is included in future
given by RULA and studies
REBA
Indian J Occup. Agriculture Photographs and IBM SPSS 1. Student’s t-test 112 OWAS underestimated –
Environ Med Discussion version 20 2. Chi-square test risk level than REBA,
RULA, QEC
International Construction Video Recording – – 6 There are differences in –
Journal of the RULA and REBA
Construction scores.
Management
(continued on next page)
International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 74 (2019) 102865
 M. Joshi and V. Deshpande International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 74 (2019) 102865

Table 7
REBA scoring table.
Study Limitations

Action Category REBA score Conclusion/Risk level

1 1
2 2–3
3 4–7
4 8–10
–
Negligible risk
Low risk, change may be needed
Medium risk. Further investigate. Change soon.
High risk. Investigate and implement change

–
5 ≥ 11 Very high risk. Implement change
applying the methods in

boundary conditions are

statistically from REBA.

In the study, the results

methods OWAS and EN

RULA method is found
more suitable than the
hypothetical scenarios

ranging from small to

Concluding Remarks

to reveal differences

assessment of static
variance of validity
emerging when the

large regarding the

working postures.
of OWAS differed

1005–4 showed a
Table 8

Two investigated
RULA scoring table.
REBA method
Action Category RULA score Conclusion
varied

1 1–2 Acceptable posture

2 3–4 Further investigate, change may be needed
3 5–6 Further investigate. Change soon.
4 6–7 Investigate and implement change
Sample

3119
Size

21

24
1

Table 9
Spearman rank correlation
Kruskal–Wallis H test as a
Kolmogorov–Smirnov 2.

Studies in perfect agreement (%).

nonparametric test, 3.
Man–Whitney U test

Comparison No of Number of Avg. Avg. Study

Test Statistic Used

between studies Study Sample Sample results

1. One-sample

Results Size- Size-No Correlated

coefficients

Correlated Correlated Correlation (%)

OWAS - 11 4 19 595 36.36

REBA
–

OWAS - 8 3 20 213 37.50

RULA
SPSS Statistics
analysis tools

OWAS - SI 2 1 NA 15 50.00
OWAS - 3 2 17 NA 66.67
Software

software
Kinovea

OCRA
IBM

REBA - 20 5 44 117 25.00

25
–

RULA
REBA - SI 8 3 20 140 37.50
Data Collection Method

REBA - 7 3 17 175 42.86

Video Recording and

device (Desktop DTS

Scottsdale, AZ, USA)

Photography, Video

Receiver, Noraxon,

OCRA
electromyography
recording, On site
Hypothetical data

REBA - QEC 6 2 39 234 33.33

Photography

REBA - 4 0 175 0.00

observation

–
ACGIH
surface

TLV
RULA - SI 9 3 20 158 33.33
RULA - 6 2 15 175 33.33
OCRA
Application Sector

RULA - QEC 4 1 38 285 25.00

RULA - 4 0 – 175 0.00
ACGIH
Lab Exp.

TLV
Forestry

Forestry

SI - OCRA 9 3 18 122 33.33

SI - QEC 2 0 – 289 0.00
–

SI - ACGIH 7 1 567 242 14.29

TLV
Int. J. of Industrial

Int. J. of Industrial

Int. J. of Environ.

OCRA- QEC 3 1 7 289 33.33

Journal/Conf.

Public Health
Research and

OCRA - 5 0 144 0.00

Ergonomics

Ergonomics

–
proceeding

ACGIH
TLV
Work

information for comparison. Authors compared the results of observa­

limbs: OCRA index, ACGIH

in the Manual Feeding of a

in Forestry: A Comparison
forestry timber harvesting

Musculoskeletal Disorders
Comparison of ergonomic

between RULA and REBA

from OWAS and REBA in

tional techniques which are easy to understand and apply. The number
assessment for repetitive
movements of the upper
Comparative analysis of

risk assessment outputs

(TLV), and strain index

static working postures

observational methods
assessing workload of
three methods of risk

of available publication related to such comparison is limited. Applica­

Risk Assessment for

electromyography

tion of ergonomic assessment techniques has been done in variety of

based on surface
Investigation of
Wood-Chipper

sectors and comparison of outputs of each method is made. Few methods

categorized one posture at high risk and other method categorized the
same posture at medium risk. The cause of the deviation is still hidden
Title

and unidentified. The correlation was established between the

Table 6 (continued )

compared methods supported by statistical tests. The result of compar­

ative studies carried out by authors demonstrated the variation in out­
Cremasco et al.
glu

comes in most of the cases.

Nalbanto�

Hellig et al.
Antonucci
(2019)

(2019)

(2019)

(2019)

In the literature surveyed, few attempts have been made to identify

Enez &
Author

the causes of variation. On the other hand, results suggested to use more
than one technique for postural evaluation. Similarly, establishing

12
M. Joshi and V. Deshpande
applicability of techniques in particular sector is missing. There are few
techniques which are not yet compared for checking agreement or
correlation, serving as a research gap.
6. Relevance to industry
An understanding of inter technique output variability, the effect of
range of exposure factor selected, the dependency on number of cate­
gories of risk output and the sensitivity of risk output to incidence of
injury are obligatory to appropriately relate ergonomic risk assessments
in industrial MSDs risk prevention efforts.
Acknowledgements
This research was self-supported by the authors and did not receive
any funds from any organizations.
References
Abd Rahman, M., MR, A.R., Rohani, J., 2011. WERA: an observational tool develop to
investigate the physical risk factor associated with WMSDs. J. Hum. Ergol. 40 (1–2),
19–36.
ACGIH-Worldwide, 2012. American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists,
Threshold Limit Value. American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists,
Cincinnati.
Ahonen, M., Launis, M., Kuorinka, T., 1989. Ergonomic Workplace Analysis. Finnish
Institute of Occupational Health, Helsinki.
Alessandro, L., et al., 2009. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and
meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and
elaboration. BMJ, 339:b2700. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.b2700.
Antonucci, A., 2019. Comparative analysis of three methods of risk assessment for
repetitive movements of the upper limbs: OCRA index, ACGIH(TLV), and strain
index. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 70, 9–21.Authority-Swedish-Work-Environment, 2012. AFS
2012:2 Ergonomics. Swedish Work Environment Authority, Sweden.
Bao, S., Howard, N., Spielholz, P., Silverstein, B., 2006. Quantifying repetitive hand
activity for epidemiological research on musculoskeletal disorders – Part II:
comparison of different methods of measuring force level and repetitiveness.
Ergonomics 49 (4), 381–392.
Bao, S., Spielholz, P., Howard, N., Silverstein, B., 2006. Quantifying repetitive hand
activity for epidemiological research on musculoskeletal disorders – Part I:
individual exposure assessment. Ergonomics 49 (4), 361–380.
Bruijn, I., Engels, J.A., Gulden, J.d., 1998. A simple method to evaluate the reliability of
OWAS observations. Appl. Ergon. 29 (4), 281–283.
CEN, 2002. Safety of Machinery, Human Physical Performance Part 3: Limits of the
Recommended Forces for the Use of Machines. European Standard EN 1005-3.
European-Committee-for-Standardization(CEN), Brussels, Belgium.
Chakravarthy, S.P., Subbaiah, K.M., Shekar, G.L., 2015. Ergonomics study of automobile
assembly line. International Journal on Recent Technologies in Mechanical and
Electrical Engineering (IJRMEE) 2 (5), 110–114.
Chander, D.S., Cavatorta, M.P., 2017. An observational method for postural ergonomic
risk assessment(PERA). Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 57, 32–41.
Chiasson, M.-E.,
� Imbeau, D., Aubry, K., Delisle, A., 2012. Comparing the results of eight
methods used to evaluate risk factors associated with musculoskeletal disorders. Int.
J. Ind. Ergon. 42, 478–488.
Cremasco, M.M., et al., 2019. Risk assessment for musculoskeletal disorders in forestry: a
comparison between RULA and REBA in the manual feeding of aWood-chipper. Int.
J. Environ. Res. Public Health 16, 793–809.
David, G.C., 2005. Ergonomic methods for assessing exposure to risk factors for work-
related musculoskeletal disorders. Occup. Med. 55, 190–199.
David, G., Woods, V., Li, G., Buckle, P., 2008. The development of the Quick Exposure
Check (QEC) for assessing exposure to risk factors for work-related musculoskeletal
disorders. Appl. Ergon. 39, 57–69.
Deepthi, V., et al., 2015. Prevalence, pattern, and factors associated with work-related
musculoskeletal disorders among pluckers in a tea plantation in Tamil Nadu, India.
Indian J. Occup. Environ. Med. 19 (3), 167–170.
Douwes, M., de- Kraker, H., 2012. HARM overview and its application: some practical
examples. Work 41, 4004–4009.
Drinkaus, P., et al., 2003. Comparison of ergonomic risk assessment outputs from Rapid
Upper Limb Assessment and the Strain Index for tasks in automotive assembly
plants. Work 21, 165–172.
Enez, K., Nalbanto� glu, S.S., 2019. Comparison of ergonomic risk assessment outputs from
OWAS and REBA in forestry timber harvesting. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 70, 51–57.
Fazi, H.B.M., Mohamed, N.M.Z.B.N., Basri, A.Q.B., 2019. In: Risks Assessment at
Automotive Manufacturing Company and Ergonomic Working Condition. -, IOP
Conference, pp. 1–10.
Fernanda, D., et al., 2006. Comparison of Methods Rula and Reba for Evaluation of
Postural Stress. ODONTOLOGICAL SERVICES. -, - (pp. -).
Ferreira, J., Gray, M., Birtles, M., 2008. Further Development of a Tool for the Assessment of
Repetitive Tasks (ART), Buxton, Derbyshire. Health and Safety Laboratory.
13
International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 74 (2019) 102865
Furlanetto, T.S., Candotti, C.T., Comerlato, T., 2012. Validating a postural evaluation
method developed using a Digital Image-based Postural Assessment (DIPA) software.
Comput. Methods Progr. Biomed. 1 (8), 203–212.
Gallo, R., Mazzetto, F., 2013. Ergonomic analysis for the assessment of the risk of work-
related musculoskeletal disorder in forestry operations. Journal of Agricultural
Engineering 44 (2), 730–735.
Garcia, P.N.S., Polli, G., Campos, J., 2013. Working postures of dental students:
ergonomic analysis using the Ovako Working Analysis System and rapid upper limb
assessment. Med. Lav. 104 (6), 440–447.
Ghosh, T., Das, B., Gangopadhyay, S., 2010. Work-related musculoskeletal disorder: an
occupational disorder of the goldsmiths in India. Indian J. Community Med. 35 (2),
321–325.
Grzybowski, W., 2001. A method of ergonomic workplace evaluation for assessing
occupational risks at workplaces. Int. J. Occup. Saf. Ergon. 7 (2), 223–237.
Hellig, T., et al., 2019. Investigation of observational methods assessing workload of
static working postures based on surface electromyography. Work 62, 185–195.
Hignett, S., McAtamney, L., 2000. Rapid Entire body assessment (REBA). Appl. Ergon.
31, 201–205.
Hussain, A., Case, K., Marshall, R., Summerskill, S., 2016. Using ergonomic risk
assessment methods for designing inclusive work practices: a case study. Human
Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries 26 (3), 337–355.
Ismail, A.R., et al., 2009. Assessment of postural loading among the assembly operators: a
case study at Malaysian automotive industry. Eur. J. Sci. Res. 30 (2), 224–235.
Jones, T., Kumar, S., 2007. Comparison of ergonomic risk assessments in a repetitive
high-risk sawmill occupation: saw-filer. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 37 (9–10), 744–753.
Jones, T., Kumar, S., 2008. Comparison of ergonomic risk assessment output in a
repetitive sawmill occupation: trim-saw operator. Work 31, 367–376.
Jones, T., Kumar, S., 2010. Comparison of ergonomic risk assessment output in four
sawmill jobs. Int. J. Occup. Saf. Ergon. 16 (1), 105–111.
Joseph, C., Imbeau, D., Nastasia, I., 2011. Measurement consistency among
observational job analysis methods during an intervention study. Int. J. Occup. Saf.
Ergon. 17 (2), 139–146.
Karhu, O., Kansi, P., Kuorinka, I., 1977. Correcting working postures in industry: a
practical method for analysis. Appl. Ergon. 8 (4), 199–201.
Kee, D., Karwowski, W., 2001. An assessment technique for postural loading on the upper
body based on joint motion discomfort and maximum holding time. Appl. Ergon. 32,
357–366.
Kee, D., Karwowski, W., 2007. A comparison of three observational techniques for
assessing postural loads in industry. Int. J. Occup. Saf. Ergon. 13 (1), 3–14.
Kjellberg, K., et al., 2015. Comparisons of six observational methods for risk assessment of
repetitive work - results from a consensus assessment. Melbourne. In: Proceedings 19th
Triennial Congress of the IEA.
Kong, Y.-K., Lee, S.-y., Lee, K.-S., Kim, D.-M., 2017. Comparisons of ergonomic
evaluation tools (ALLA, RULA, REBA and OWAS) for farm work. Int. J. Occup. Saf.
Ergon. 24 (2), 218–223.
Kulkarni, V., Devalkar, R., 2018. Postural analysis of building construction workers using
ergonomics. International Journal of Construction Management 1–8.
Lancet, 2017. Global, regional, and national disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) for
333 diseases and injuries and healthy life expectancy (HALE) for 195 countries and
territories, 1990–2016: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study
2016. Global Health Metrics 390 (10100), 1260–1344.
Lynn, M., Corlett, E.N., 1993. RULA: a survey method for the irwestigation of world-
related upper limb disorders. Appl. Ergon. 24 (2), 91–99.
Majumdar, D., Pal, M., Majumdar, D., 2014. Work-related musculoskeletal disorders in
Indian nurses: a cross-sectional study. J. Nov. Physiother. 4 (3), 1–7.
Manavakun, N., 2004. A Comparison of OWAS and REBA Observational Techniques for
Assessing Postural Loads in Tree Felling and Processing. Department of Forest
Engineering, Faculty of Forestry, Kasetsart University, Thailand, FEC – FORMEC.
Moher, D., et al., 2009. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-
analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann. Intern. Med. 151 (4), 264–269.
Mohsen, Z., et al., 2016. Evaluation of ergonomic physical risk factors in a truck
manufacturing plant: case study in SCANIA Production Angers. Ind. Health 54 (2),
163–176.
Moore, J., Garg, a.A., 1995. The strain index: a proposed method to analyze jobs for risk
of distal upper extremity disorders. Am. Ind. Hyg. Assoc. J. 56 (5), 442–458.
Moradi, M., et al., 2017. REBA method for the ergonomic risk assessment of auto
mechanics postural stress caused by working conditions in Kermanshah (Iran). Ann.
Trop. Med. Public Health 10 (3), 589–594.
Motamedzade, M., Ashuri, M.R., Golmohammadi, R., Mahjub, H., 2011. Comparison of
ergonomic risk assessment outputs from rapid Entire body assessment and quick
exposure Check in an engine oil company. J. Res. Health Sci. 11 (1), 26–32.
Mukhopadhyay, P., Khan, A., 2015. The evaluation of ergonomic risk factors among
meat cutters working in Jabalpur, India. Int. J. Occup. Environ. Health 21 (3),
192–198.
Mukhopadhyay, P., Jhodkar, D., Kumar, P., 2014. Ergonomic Risk Factors in Bicycle
Repairing Units at Jabalpur. Work, 00, pp. 1–10. -.
Muruganantham, B., Nayak, B., Dave, D., Kotia, P., 2015. Work-related musculoskeletal
disorders among indian physiotherapists. Physiotherapy 101 (1), S833–eS1237.
Nadri, H., F, F., Nadri, F., Nadri, A., 2015. Comparison of ergonomic risk assessment
results from quick exposure Check and rapid Entire body assessment in an anodizing
industry of tehran, Iran. Journal of Occupational Health and Epidemiology 2 (4),
195–202.
Neumann, W., Wells, R., Norman, R., 1999. 4D WATBAK: Adapting Research Tools and
Epidemiological Findings to Software for Easy Application by Industrial Personnel
(Barcelona, Spain, -).
M. Joshi and V. Deshpande
Noh, H., Roh, H., 2013. Approach of industrial physical therapy to assessment of the
musculoskeletal System and ergonomic risk factors of the dental hygienist. J. Phys.
Ther. Sci. 25, 821–826.
Occhipinti, E., 1998. OCRA: a concise index for the assessment of exposure to repetitive
movements of the upper limb. Ergonomics 41, 1290–1311.
Ojha, P., Vinay, D., 2015. Ergonomic risk assessment of assembly workers of Indian
automobile industry by using postural analysis tool. Jr. of Industrial Pollution
Control 31 (1), 159–162.
Pal, A., Dhara, P., 2018. Work related musculoskeletal disorders and postural stress of
the women cultivators engaged in uprooting job of rice cultivation. Indian J. Occup.
Environ. Med. 22 (3), 163–169.
Paul, S., Mitra, K., Chakrabarty, A., Das, D., 2019. Prevalence of musculoskeletal
disorders and its correlates among agricultural workers in bhatar block of purba
bardhaman district, West Bengal. Journal of Dental and Medical Sciences 18 (1),
22–28.
Qutubuddin, S.M., Hebbal, S.S., Kumar, A.C.S., 2013. An ergonomic study of work
related musculoskeletal disorder risks in Indian Saw Mills. IOSR J. Mech. Civ. Eng. 7
(5), 7–13.
Qutubuddin, S.M., Hebbal, S.S., Kumar, A.C.S., 2013. Ergonomic risk assessment using
postural analysis tools in a bus body building unit. Ind. Eng. Lett. 3 (8), 10–20.
Roman-Liu, D., 2005. Upper limb load as a function of repetitive task parameters: Part 1
– a model of the upper limb load. Int. J. Occup. Saf. Ergon. 11 (1), 93–102.
Roman-Liu, D., 2007. Repetitive task indicator as a tool for assessment of upper limb
musculoskeletal load induced by repetitive. Ergonomics 50 (11), 1740–1760.
Roman-Liu, D., Groborz, A., Tokarski, T., 2013. Comparison of risk assessment
procedures used in OCRA and ULRA methods. Ergonomics 56 (10), 1584–1598.
Rosecrance, J., Paulsen, R., Murgia, L., 2017. Risk assessment of cheese processing tasks
using the Strain Index and OCRA Checklist. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 61, 142–148.
Sahu, S., Moitra, S., Maity, S., 2013. A comparative ergonomics postural assessment of
potters and sculptors in the unorganized sector in West Bengal, India. Int. J. Occup.
Saf. Ergon. 19 (3), 455–462.
Sain, M.K., Makkhan, M., 2019. Identifying musculoskeletal issues and associated risk
factors among clay brick kiln workers. Ind. Health 57, 381–391.
Saliha, U.-O., Acar, H.H., Kaya, A., 2017. Determination of work postures with different
ergonomic risk assessment methods in forest nurseries. Fresenius Environ. Bull. 26
(12), 7362–7371.
14
International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 74 (2019) 102865
Sanchez-Lite, A., Garcia, M., Domingo, R., Angel, S.M., 2013. Novel ergonomic postural
assessment method (NERPA) using product-process computer aided engineering for
ergonomic workplace design. PLoS One 8 (8), 1–12.
Sandul, Y., Mohanty, S., 2018. Musculoskeletal disorders as a public health concern in
India: a call for action. J Indian Assoc Physiother 12 (1), 46–47.
Sankar, S., Reddy, P., Reddy, B., Emani, V., 2012. The prevalence of work-related
musculoskeletal disorders among Indian orthodontists. J. Indian Orthod. Soc. 46 (5),
264–268.
Shanahan, C.J., et al., 2013. A comparison of RULA, REBA and Strain Index to four
psychophysical scales in the assessment of non-fixed work. Work 45, 367–378.
Sharma, R.e., 2012. Epidemiology of Musculoskeletal Conditions in India. Indian Council
of Medical Research (ICMR), New Delhi, India.
Spielholz, P., et al., 2008. Reliability and validity assessment of the hand activity level
threshold limit value and strain index using expert ratings of mono-task jobs.
J. Occup. Environ. Hyg. 5 (4), 250–257.
Srivastava, R., Bachani, D., 2011. Burden of NCDs, policies and programme for
prevention and control of NCDs in India. Indian J. Community Med. 36, 7–12.
Storheim, K., Zwart, J., 2014. Musculoskeletal disorders and the global burden of disease
study. Ann. Rheum. Dis. 73 (6), 949–950.
Takala, E.-P., et al., 2010. Systematic evaluation of observational methods assessing
biomechanical exposures at work. Scand. J. Work Environ. Health 36 (1), 3–24.
Upasana & Vinay, D., 2017. Work posture assessment of tailors by RULA and REBA
analysis. International Journal of Science, Environment 6 (4), 2469–2474.
Village, J., et al., 2009. Development and evaluation of an observational Back-Exposure
Sampling Tool (Back-EST) for work-related back injury risk factors. Appl. Ergon. 40,
538–544.
Vink, P., et al., 1995. A participatory ergonomics approach to reduce mental and physical
workload. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 15, 389–396.
Weinstein, S.L., 2000. 2000–2010: the bone and joint decade. J. Bone Jt. Surg. 82 (1),
1–3.
Wintachai, P., Charoenchai, N., 2012. The Comparison of Ergonomics Postures
Assessment Methods in Rubber Sheet Production. IEEE, Thailand.
Yazdanirad, S., et al., 2018. Comparing the effectiveness of three ergonomic risk
assessment methods—RULA, LUBA, and NERPA—to predict the upper extremity
musculoskeletal disorders. Indian J. Occup. Environ. Med. 22 (1), 17–21.
Zare, M., Biau, S., Croq, M., Roquelaure, Y., 2014. Development of a biomechanical
method for ergonomic evaluation: comparison with observational methods. Int. J.
Biol. Life Sci. 8 (1), 218–222.