See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/267241521

A Practical Method for the Assessment of Work-Related Musculoskeletal Risks -

Quick Exposure Check (QEC)

Article in Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting · October 1998
DOI: 10.1177/154193129804201905

CITATIONS READS
90 2,772

2 authors, including:

Peter W Buckle
Imperial College London
176 PUBLICATIONS 8,106 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Peter W Buckle on 20 November 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 PROCEEDINGS of the HUMAN FACTORS AND ERGONOMICS SOCIETY 42nd ANNUAL MEETING-1998 13.51

A PRACTICAL METHOD FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF

WORK-RELATED MUSCULOSKELETAL RISKS - QUICK EXPOSURE CHECK (QEC)

Guangyan Li* and Peter Buckle

Robens Centre for Health Ergonomics, University of Surrey, Guildford GU2 5XH UK
*Now at Automotive and Ergonomics Research Group, School of Engineering and Advanced Technology
University of Sunderland, Sunderland SRl 3SD UK

A newer exposure tool has been developed for health and safety practitioners to assessthe exposure to risks for
work-related musculoskeletal disorders. The tool is based on the practitioners’ needs for such a tool and “state
of the art” research findings. QEC has been tested, modified and validated based upon various simulated and
practical tasks, with the help of up to 150 practitioners. The studies have shown that the tool has a high level of
sensitivity and usability, and exhibits largely acceptable inter/intra-observer reliability. Field studies also
indicate that the tool is, in practice, reliable and applicable for a wide range of tasks. With a short training
period and some practice, assessment can normally be completed within 10 minutes for each task.

Introduction Scientific evidence

Recent European Union and member state initiatives have
led to substantial interest in the identification and control of
“risk factors” for work-related musculoskeletal disorders
(WMSDs). As a result, there has been increased interest in the
undertaking of practical risk assessment and ergonomic
interventions in the workplace. This calls for the development
of a practical exposure assessment tool, particularly for health
and safety practitioners, to quickly assessan exposure to
WMSD risks for a wide range of tasks. The Quick Exposure
Check (QEC) was developed for such a purpose. The main aim
of this paper is to briefly describe the development procedure
of the QEC, with emphasis being placed on the validation of
the tool.
The development of QEC
Development involved the following procedures: (a)
Investigation of the potential user needs, using focus groups,
questionnaires, user design, and verbal protocol approaches. (b)
Literature research for the “state of the art” related to WMSDs
and “risk factors”. (c) Critical studies of current techniques for
assessing exposure to WMSD risks. (d) Construction,
evaluation and improvement of the prototype exposure
assessmenttool - QEC.
User needs for a practical exposure tool
The potential users’ needs were studied via user focus
groups and questionnaire surveys. The focus groups were
comprised of professionals from industry who hold a health and
safety brief. The questionnaire survey was conducted among a
wider range of health and safety practitioners (180-200). User
needs for a new tool are (not inclusive): the method should be
very simple, easy and quick to use; have scores to measure the
level of risks; be applicable to a variety of work situations;
have an introduction about how to use the method or how to
carry out assessment;complete an assessment in lo-20 minutes;
have sound scientific basis; be comprehensive; involve
operators; and it should be reliable.
Epidemiologic evidence regarding the role of physical and
psychosocial factors in the development of WMSDs has been
widely reported, with one of the latest and perhaps the most
comprehensive review being the NIOSH (1997). Based on
research findings, it is suggested that exposure should be
assessedfor those “risk factors” that have causal effect on the
development of WMSDs, especially in the regions of the back,
neck, shoulder and arm, and hand/wrist. Current techniques for
assessing physical exposure to WMSDs were also critically
reviewed, which helped form the strategy for the development
of the tool.
Development and evaluation of the C?EC
The exposure assessment tool was thus developed based
on practitioners’ needs and scientific evidence (Appendix 1).
One of the main features of the tool is that it brings together the
assessment of both the “observer” and the “worker”. In
addition, multiple risk factors are considered and their
combined effects are implemented with a score table.
The tool has undergone a series of tests for its usability,
sensitivity, inter-/intra-observer reliability and measurement
validity. Up to 150 practitioners were involved in the tests and
some of the previous results have been reported earlier (Buckle
and Li 1997, Li and Buckle 1997). In this paper, only the
studies of the reliability test, based on video recorded tasks, are
included. Some preliminary results for the validity of the QEC
from both laboratory and field studies are also discussed.
Reliability and validity tests of the QEC
Inter-observer reliabilim
18 task recordings were selected from videos containing
recorded tasks for various ergonomic field studies. The video
selection was based on the consideration that the tasks should
cover as wide a range of jobs as practically possible, including
static and dynamic tasks, highly repetitive tasks with low force,
less or non- repetitive tasks with heavy force, and tasks
performed in either seated or standing positions. The videos
were edited so that each task lasted for 3’30”-3’40”. Pilot test
1352 PROCEEDINGS of the HUMAN FACTORS AND ERGONOMICS
indicated that such duration was adequate for most observers to
complete the assessment,The order of the recorded tasks was
arranged such that the task characteristics were different
between adjacent tasks.
24 practitioners participated in the test and they all came
from health and safety occupations. Their mean age was 41.2
years (SD=9.16, Range=26-59). The average time they had
worked in occupational health and safety was 8.8 years
(SD=7.33, Range=2-33), and the average experience with risk
assessmentwas 3.0 years (SD=2.59, Range=O-9).
The practitioners (observers) were divided into five
groups, and each group assessedthe tasks independently.
Before watching the videos, the observers spent 5-10 minutes
going through the “Guide to the use of the exposure tool”,
during which they could discuss issues about the use of the tool.
Then the tape was played and the practitioners made their
assessmentson each task. If anyone could not complete the
assessmentwithin the time given, the tape was re-played to
make sure all observers could finish their assessment.
Intra-observer reliability
A test-retest was conducted with 8 observers assessing the
same set of 18 recorded tasks twice in 3-week interval. Their
average age was 41.0 years (SD=12.81, Range=26-59), average
experience in health and safety work was 7.63 years (SD=6.30,
Range=2-20), and average experience in risk assessmentwas
2.5 years (SD=3.25, Range=O-7).
Validitv test
The measurement validity was tested by comparing the
practitioners’ assessmenton simulated tasks with computer-
aided 3D motion analysis using the SIMI system. The tasks
were designed so that they could be performed at “known”
levels of physical exposure to certain parts of the body (posture
SOCIETY 42nd ANNUAL MEETING-1998
and frequency of movement). Two types of manual handling
tasks and two types of repetitive manual assembly tasks were
performed (controlling weight/heights/work distance etc.). The
frequency of arm or back movement was controlled using
audible signals presented only to the subject. The tasks were
randomly performed by one male subject (age: 34 years,
stature: 1.72 m), during which the tasks were assessedby 18
practitioners (5 males and 13 females, mean age=41.3 years
(SD=9.31, Range=27-58), average time worked in health and
safety=5.2 years (SD=3.88, Range=l-18)). The observers were
divided into five groups with 3 or 4 people in each group.
Validity tests were also conducted in field studies by
comparing 6 practitioners’ assessment on a wide range of
practical tasks (60 in total) with more detailed video analysis of
these tasks performed by an analyst.
Results
For the test of inter-observer reliability, both Cohen’s
kappa and percentage agreement were calculated using the data
of 24 observers and of those who had l-7 and 4-7 year’s
experience in making risk assessment (Table 1). The
individual’s test-retest results are given in Table 2.
The need to re-wind the tape due to unfinished assessment
was experienced only with the first and second tasks. During
this early stage, some observers were hesitant with the
assessment but after observing up to two tasks, they became
familiar with the method and could complete the assessments
within the recording time. It was thus suggested that the results
from the first two tasks could be biased and they were therefore
excluded from further analysis. Table 3 shows some
preliminary results for the validity test of the tool in both
laboratory and practical work environment.
 PROCEEDINGS of the HUMAN FACTORS
Table 3. Agreement between observers’ assessment and detailed video analysis
Assessmentitems Percentage
assessment
andSEMIanalysis(laboratorystudy)
Back posture (Al-A3)
Rorb
UUlR
mn,rem~n+
11A” .“III”I..
IR
\Y
1 -R4\
I Yd,
Shoulder/armposture (Cl-C3)
Shoulder/armmovement(Dl-D3)
Wrist/hand posture (El-E2)
Wrist/hand movement(Fl-F3)
Neck posture (Gl-G3) I 76.3%
Overall agreement
Discussion
Inter-observer reliabilitv
The agreement between 24 observers on most assessment
items which were tested indicated a ‘fair agreement’ as
evaluated by kappa analysis (Landis and Koch, 1977)(Table 1).
The agreement of ‘experienced’ practitioners showed some
improvement, particularly for back posture, shoulder/arm and
wrist/hand movement, suggesting a ‘moderate agreement’.
Agreement on back movement was ‘slight to fair’, suggesting
that further improvements may be needed for this assessment
item. Inter-observer agreement on neck posture was not high
(K=0.25). Similar problems have been encountered by other
researchers (Kilbom, 1994). For wrist/hand posture, kappa
analysis was found to be unsuitable due to low data variation
between categories.
With percentage agreement, most assessment items were
either close to or above 70%. According to Baty et al, (1986),
inter-observer agreement of 75% can be regarded as
acceptable. Present studies suggest that QEC has the potential
to meet the basic requirement of its inter-observer reliability for
most of its assessmentitems. It should be emphasised that
assessing recorded tasks can be different from assessing real
ones, especially with the tasks in the present studies - the
recordings’ quality varied among tasks (eg. lighting), and they
were recorded from either a fixed camera position or from a far
distance. Better agreement is expected if the assessment is
conducted using real tasks or better video recordings.
Intra-observer reliabilitv
Table 2 shows that intra-observer reliabilities for almost
all assessmentitems reached ‘moderate agreement’ level, and
the test-retest agreements were all statistically significant. The
kappa results also suggested that people with/without previous
experience in risk assessment are able to reach an agreement at
a similar level. This is encouraging because the tool is aimed at
non-skilled users and is intended to be used by a person who
assessesa job before and after an ergonomic intervention. The
‘experienced’ observers did not achieve a higher level of
agreement for all items as compared to the whole group. One
explanation is that time-based experience (years in job) may not
necessarily represent the ability of using the tool. People with
the same experience level may not have the same skill level in
making such an assessment,and they may be better at judging
some types of exposure, but may not be good at assessing other
AND ERGONOMICS SOCIETY 42nd ANNUAL MEETING-1998 1353
agreement
betweenobservers’ a“-‘.a’...~” ..~...A..“‘. “Ib..W.d..
“““I. I-1”
assessment andvideoanalysis(field study)
87.0% 54.2%(64.5%)
12.3%
_-.-
01 <Gz
,k.J,Y
85.2% 81.3%
87.5% 76.3%
84.7%
83.1%
78.2%(79.7%)
items. It is anticipated that an improved training process may
increase the assessment reliability further.
Assessment validity
There is no ‘correct’ answer as to what the actual
exposure is for a practical task. For tasks with ‘known’ body
postures and movement (either controlled or measured by a
sophisticated method), most assessment items were ‘correctly’
measured at an acceptable accuracy level (Table 3). It was
found that, in the field studies, one practitioner regarded back
flexion of less than 90” as ‘moderately flexed’ rather than
‘extremely flexed’, resulting in a high level of disagreement
with the detailed video analysis. Further analysis with the
results of five observers showed that the agreement on back
posture was 64.5%. Another reason for this ‘low level’
agreement was possibly that the posture was assessedas the
‘worst event’ which may happen in a short time, during which
the observer may not be looking at the worker and therefore
missed the recording.
The ‘score system’ is, at this time, largely hypothetical,
which considers the interaction/combination of risk factors.
Epidemiologic evidence is still not sufficient to support such a
pattern, but some evidence can be found in the literature. It is
difficult to determine whether this system is ‘true’ or ‘correct’,
and equally difficult to determine whether it is ‘untrue’ or
‘incorrect’ (it is perhaps a significant achievement if one can do
so in either way). At this stage the system serves as a
compromise between the ‘known’ and ‘unknown’ concerning
the ‘weighting’ and ‘interaction’ of ‘risk factors’, and should
only be taken as a reference.
Conclusion
QEC is a new method which has been developed for
practitioners to assessexposure to the risks of WMSDs. Based
on test results obtained so far, this tool is found to be sensitive
for assessing the change in exposure before and after an
ergonomic intervention, and for exposure comparison either
between two or more workers performing the same task, or
between people performing different tasks. The tool is also
shown to be largely reliable and applicable to a wide range of
jobs. With brief training (self-learning) and some practice,
assessmentcan normally be completed within 10 minutes for
each task. However, studies also suggested that improvements
1354 PROCEEDINGS of the HUMAN FACTORS AND ERGONOMICS SOCIETY 42nd ANNUAL MEETING-1998

are needed, particularly for the assessment of frequent body Landis, J.R. and Koch, G.G., 1977, The measurement of observer agreement
for categorical data. Biometrics, 33, 159-174.
movements. It is anticipated that measurement reliability will
Li, G. and Buckle, P., 1997, The development of a practical tool for
improve with regular use of the tool and further experience of musculoskeletal risk assessment. In: Contemporary Ergonomics 1997, (ed.
making risk assessments. S.A. Robertson), London: Taylor & Francis, 442-447.
Acknowledgement NIOSH, 1997, Musculoskeletal Disorders and Workplace Factors: A critical
This research was funded by the HSE. Review of Epidemiologic Evidence for Work-Related Musculoskeletal
Disorders of the Neck, Upper Extremity, and Low Back. (ed. B. Bernard)
References
Buckle, P. and Li, G., 1997, A practical approach to musculoskeletal risk
assessment in the real workplace. In: From Experience to Innovation. Vol. 4,
(eds. P. Seppbla, T. Luopaj;irvi et al.), 138-140.
Appendix 1: Quick Exposure Checkfor work-related musculoskeletal risks - QEC
Job tide: Task: Assessment conducted by: Worker’s name: Date: Time:
Pa-rt A: Observer’s assessment

l Whennerformina the task. is the back 0 Is the task uerfonned

Al: Almost neutral? El: With almost a straight wrist?
A2: Moderately flexed or twisted or side bent? E2: With a deviated or bent wrist position?
A3: Excessively flexed or twisted or side bent? l Is the task aerformed with similar repeated motion patterns
0 For manual handling tasks only: Is the movementof the back -
Fl: 10 times per minute or less?
Bl: Infrequent? ( Around 3 times per minute or less ) F2: 11 to 20 times per minute?
B2: Frequent? ( Around 8 times per minute ) F3: More than 20 times per minute?
B3: Very frequent? ( Around 12 times per minute or more )
$e task performed in static postures most of the time?
Bt J%h”‘%s:~ . (either seated or standing) 0 Whenoerformina the task. is the head/neckbent or twisted excessively?
p-
i; Gl: No
’ Is the task uerformed G2: Yes, occasionally
Cl: At or below waist height? G3: Yes, continuously
c2: At about chest height?
c3: At or above shoulder height?
l Is the arm movementrepeated
Dl: Infrequently? ( Some intermittent arm movement )
D2: Frequently? ( Regular arm movement with some pauses )
D3: Very frequently? ( Almost continuous arm movement )

Part B: Worker’s assessment

l What is the maximum weight handled in this task?
al: Light ( 5 kg or less )
a2: Moderate (6tolOk )
a3: Heav (llto20 t g)
a4: Very K eavy ( More than 20 kg )
l How much time on average do you spend per day doing this task?
bl: less than 2 hours
b2: 2 to 4 hours
b3: more than 4 hours
0 When performing this task (single or double handed), what is the maximum force level exerted by one hand?
cl: LOW (eg.L.essthanlkg)
c2: Medium (eg. 1 to4kg)
c3: High ( eg. More than 4 kg )
0 Do you experience any vibration during work?

j;; ke;.$p)
d3: High
l Is the visual demand of this task -
el: Low? ( There is almost no need to view fine details )
e2: High? ( There is a need to view some fine details )
l Do you have difficulty keeping up with this work?
Never
f-ii Sometimes
f3: Often
l HOW sty&f 2 you find this work?
Low
;:I Medium
g3:
g4: High
 PROCEEDINGS of the HUMAN FACTORS AND ERGONOMlCS SOCIETY 42nd ANNUAL MEETING-1998 1355

Table of Exposure Scores (for reference only)

Exposure to the Back
Al A2 A3 / Swml Bl B2 B3 SwreZ bl b2 b3 Score 3
al 2 4 6 2 4 6 2 4 6
a2 4 6 8 4 6 8 1,, ,_ 4 6 8
a3 6 8 >10 e 6 8 10 6 8 10
a4 8 10 12 8 10 12 __’ 8 10 12
:,
>>~p+*
,,
:, .Score.5 Total score for the back
swrerl _ B4 B5 ’
,, i
bl 2 4 6 2 4 6 2 4 =Sumofscoresl to5
b2 4 6 8 4 6 8 4 6 ,;’

b3 6 8 10 I ”L 00 rn II
1” ”c; I ”I)
7
Exposure to the Shoulder/arm
Cl c2 c3 Score 1 Dl D2 D3 i &ore2 bl b2 b3 swre 3
al 2 4 6 4 6 2 4 6
a2 4 6 8 6 8 4 6 8
a3 6 8 10 8 10 6 8 10
a4 8 10 12 10 12 8 10 12
-
Tot&sc,mre Rw shoulder/arm
-
6 2 4 6
4 6 8 4 6 8

8 I/l
1”
r ” IA
b3 6
_.
Exposure to the Wrist/hand
‘*

Fl F2 F3 score 1 El E2 scores bl b2 b3 score 3

I
I cl I 2 4 6 2 4 2 4 6

J2 4 6 4 6 8
1” 6 8 ‘,_ 6 8 10
Score4 Total sMImfar the w&t/hand
>
,\,,sy& 5_,,
,:
:
1 =Sumdscofes1t05
2 4 6 2 4 “’ \-
4 6 8 4 6

8 10 6 8 ‘_
b3 6
I I I I
Exposure to the Neck
I I I I I Tcitsl scare for the neck
el e2 ,2&@2. .1--‘
^ i. / =swms1+2
2 4 ,.”
JCL
6

b3 6 8 10 6 8

Exposure scores: Back: Shoulder/arm: Wrist/hand: _ Neck:

(Nbte: The “Guide to the use of QEC” is available on request.)

View publication stats