Musculoskeletal Disorder (MSD) Risk Assessment Tools
A number of risk assessment tools have been developed to quantifying workplace
biomechanical and psychosocial factors that may be predictive of MSDs. The MSD
Technical Committee has developed a list of tools that have publications in peer-
reviewed scientific journals of (1) reliability and (2) predictive value. The tools are
listed in categories and then alphabetically. The MSD TC welcomes suggestions for
changes to this list and additional references.
Table of Contents
1. General MSD Risk Assessment Tools
1A. Ovako Working Posture Analysis System (OWAS)
1B. Portable Ergonomics Analysis (PEO)
1C. Quick Exposure Check (QEC)
2. Upper Extremity Risk Assessment Tools
2A. ACGIH Threshold Limit Value for Hand Activity Level (HA)
2B. Occupational Repetitive Actions (OCRA)
2C. Rapid Upper Limb Assessment (RULA)
2D. Revised Strain Index (SI)
2E. ACGIH Threshold Limit Value for Upper Limb Localized Fatigue (SI)
2F. The Distal Upper Extremity Tool (DUET) (SI)
3. Methods to assess manual materials handling
3A. Lumbar Motion Monitor (LMM)
3B. Revised NIOSH lifting equation(RNLE)
3C. Psychophysical Lifting/Lowering Tables
3D. Lifting Fatigue Failure Tool (LiFFT)
4. Methods to Assess Psychosocial Stress
4A. Effort-Reward Imbalance Model
4B. Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire (COPSOQ)
4C. Karasek Job Content Questionnaire
1. General MSD Risk Assessment Tools
1A. Ovako Working Posture Analysis System (OWAS)
The OWAS method was developed by a Finnish steel company of Ovako Oy and is
based on ratings of working postures and load: 4 postures for the back, 3 for the
arms, and 7 for the lower limbs, and 3 levels for the weight of load handled or
amount of force used. Values from the 4 factors are combined to assess 4
categories of risk and recommended actions.
• Category 1: normal postures, which do not need any special attention;
• Category 2: postures must be considered during the next regular check of
working methods;
• Category 3: postures need consideration in the near future;
• Category 4: postures need immediate consideration.
Cross-sectional studies:
Burdorf et al. (1991). Postural load and back pain of workers in the manufacturing
of prefabricated concrete elements. Ergonomics 34(7) 909-18.
1B. Portable Ergonomics Analysis (PEO)
General description: Direct observations at the workplace are made in real time
using a portable personal or hand-held computer and data are accessible for
immediate analysis and presentation. Duration and number of events are calculated
for postures related to 4 body regions (arms, neck, trunk and knee) as well as for
manual handling.
Cross-sectional studies:
Fransson-Hall, C., Bystrom, S. & Kilbom, A., (1996). Characteristics of forearm-
hand exposure in relation to symptoms among automobile assembly line workers.
American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 29 (1), 15-22.
Leskinen, T., Hall, C., Rauas, S., Ulin, S., Tonnes, M., Viikari-Juntura, E. & Takala,
E.P., (1997). Validation of portable ergonomic observation (peo) method using
optoelectronic and video recordings. Appl Ergon, 28 (2), 75-83
Murphy et al. (2004) Classroom posture and self-reported back and neck pain in
schoolchildren. Applied Ergonomics 35(2): 113-20.
Rolander et al. (2005). Perceived contra observed physical work load in Swedish
dentists. Work 25(3): 253-62.
1C. Quick Exposure Check (QEC)
General Description: QEC assesses biomechanical exposures to 4 body regions
and allows physical work activities to be assessed in collaboration with the worker.
It was designed to be fast, easy to use and not require extensive training. A one-
page assessment sheet includes questions for both the practitioner (observer) and
the worker to quantify exposures. The exposure levels for four main areas of the
body can be scored and these can form a basis for intervention and re-assessment.
Cross-sectional studies:
Choobineh, A.,Tabatabaei, S.H., Abbas Mokhtarzadeh, A., Salehi, M.
Musculoskeletal Problems among Workers of an Iranian Rubber Factory. Journal of
Occupational Health 49(5):418-423.423.
Mirmohamadi, M., Seraji, J.N., Shahtaheri, J., Lahmi, M.,Ghasemkhani, M. (2004).
Evaluation of Risk Factors Causing Musculoskeletal Disorders Using QEC Method
in a Furniture Producing Unite Iranian J Publ Health, Vol. 33, No. 2, pp.24-27, 2004.
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 (1), 57-69.
2. Upper Extremity Risk Assessment Tools
2A. ACGIH Threshold Limit Value (TLV) for Hand Activity
The TLV for Hand Activity assesses biomechanical risk to the distal upper
extremities and is intended for ‘mono-task’ jobs performed for 4 or more hours per
day. The TLV combines 2 factors: (1) average hand activity level based on the
frequency of hand exertions and the duty cycle, and (2) normalized peak hand
force. Both are scaled from 0-10. The TLV identifies an Action Level (caution) and a
higher Threshold Limit Value (immediate action recommended). [The Hand Activity
TLV was modified in 2018].
Description:
Threshold Limit Values for chemical substances and physical agents and Biological
Exposure Indices. Cincinnati, OH: ACGIH Worldwide; 2019.
Latko WA, Armstrong TJ, Foulke JA, Herrin GD, Rabourn RA, Ulin SS.
Development and evaluation of an observational method for assessing repetition in
hand tasks. American Industrial Hygiene Association Journal. 1997; 58(4): 278–
285.
Cross-Sectional Studies:
Latko, W.A., et al. (1999). Cross-sectional study of the relationship between
repetitive work and the prevalence of upper limb musculoskeletal disorders. Am J
Ind Med 36(2):248-59.
Franzblau, A., Armstrong, T. J., Werner, R.A., et al. (2005). A Cross-Sectional
Assessment of the ACGIH TLV for Hand Activity Level, Journal of Occupational
Rehabilitation, 15(1): 57-67.
Spielholz, P., Bao, S., Howard, N. 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):250-7.
Prospective Studies:
Gell et al. (2005). A longitudinal study of industrial and clerical workers: incidence of
carpal tunnel syndrome and assessment of risk factors. J Occup Rehab 15(1):47-
55.
Werner et al. (2005a). Predictors of persistent elbow tendonitis among auto
assembly workers. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation 15(3):393-400.
Werner et al. (2005b). Incidence of carpal tunnel syndrome among automobile
assembly workers and assessment of risk factors. J Occup Environ Med
47(10):1044-50.
Werner et al. (2005c). Risk factors for visiting a medical department because of
upper-extremity musculoskeletal disorders. Scand J Work Environ Health
31(2):132-7.
Werner et al. (2005d). Predictors for upper extremity discomfort: a longitudinal
study of industrial and clerical workers. J Occ Rehab 15(1):27-35.
Violante FS et al. (2007). Carpal tunnel syndrome and manual work: a longitudinal
study. J Occup Environ Med 49(11) 1189-96.
Harris C, Eisen E, Goldberg R, Krause N, Rempel D. Workplace and individual
factors in wrist tendinosis among blue-collar workers – the San Francisco study.
Scandinavian Journal of Work and Environmental Health. 2011; 37(2):86-98.
Bonfiglioli R, Mattioli S, Armstrong TJ, Graziosi F, Marinelli F, Farioli A, et al.
Validation of the ACGIH TLV for hand activity level in the OCTOPUS cohort: a two-
year longitudinal study of carpal tunnel syndrome. Scandinavian Journal of Work,
Environment & Health. 2013; 39(2): 155-163.
Kapellusch JM, Gerr F, Malloy EJ, Garg A, Harris-Adamson C, Bao S, Burt S, Dale
AM, Eisen EA, Evanoff B, Hegmann KT, Silverstein B, Thiese MS, Rempel D.
Exposure-response relationships for the ACGIH TLV for hand activity level: results
from a pooled data study of carpal tunnel syndrome. Scand J Work Environ Health.
2014; 40(6):610-20.
Harris-Adamson C, Eisen EA, Kapellusch J, et al. (2015) Biomechanical Risk
Factors for Carpal Tunnel Syndrome: A Pooled Study of 2474 Workers. Occup &
Environ Medicine; 72:33-41.
2B. Occupational Repetitive Actions (OCRA)
The OCRA method estimates risk to the upper extremities for repetitive tasks and
includes the biomechanical factors of frequency, excessive use of force, awkward
upper limb movements and postures, insufficient recovery periods, and net duration
of the repetitive tasks.
Description:
ISO 11228-3. Annex C. 2014.
Occhipinti, E. (1998). OCRA: a concise index for the assessment of exposure to
repetitive movements of the upper limbs. Ergonomics, 41, 9,1290-1311.
Occhipinti, E., Colombini, D. (2004). The Occupational Repetitive Action (OCRA)
Methods: OCRA Index and OCRA Checklist. In Eds. Stanton N. et al., Handbook of
human factors and ergonomics methods, Chapter 15, pg 15/1-15/14. CRC Press.
Occhipinti, E., Colombini, D., (2016) A toolkit for the analysis of biomechanical
overload and prevention of WMSDs: Criteria, procedures and tool selection in a
step-by-step approach. Int J of Industrial Ergonomics, 52: 18-28.
Online/spreadsheet calculations of the OCRA checklist and OCRA index are
available
here: [Link]
&moi=837
Cross-Sectional Studies:
Occhipinti, E., Columbini, D. (2004). The OCRA method: updating of reference
values and prediction models of occurrence of work-related musculo-skeletal
diseases of the upper limbs (UL-WMSDs) in working populations exposed to
repetitive movements and exertions of the upper limbs. Med Lav 95(4):305-319.
Occhipinti, E., Columbini, D. (2007). Updating of reference values and prediction
models of occurrence of work-related musculoskeletal disorders of the upper limbs.
Ergonomics 50(11):1727-1739.
Paulsen R, Gallu T, Gilkey D, Reiser R, Murgia L, Rosecrance J. (2015) The inter-
rater reliability of Strain Index and OCRA Checklist task assessments in cheese
processing. Appl Ergonomics 51:199-204.
2C. Rapid Upper Limb Assessment (RULA)
RULA is a postural targeting method for estimating the postural risks of upper
extremity disorders. It uses a graphical approach requiring regular or random
sampling of observations to develop a visual distribution of posture.
Description:
McAtamney, L., Corlett, N. (1993). RULA: a survey method for the investigation of
work-related upper limb disorders. Applied Ergonomics 24(2):91-99.
Bao, S., Howard, N., Spielholz, P. & Silverstein, B., 2007. Two posture analysis
approaches and their application in a modified rapid upper limb assessment
evaluation. Ergonomics, 1-19.
Hignett, S. & Mcatamney, L., 2000. Rapid entire body assessment (REBA). Applied
Ergonomics, 31, 201-205
Cross-Sectional Studies:
Fountain, L.J. (2003). Examining RULA’s postural scoring system with selected
physiological and psychophysiological measures. International Journal of
Occupational Safety and Ergonomics 9(4):383-92.
Drinkaus, P., Sesek, R.F., Bloswick, D.B. 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(2):165-72.
Breen et al. (2007). An investigation of children’s posture and discomfort during
computer use. Ergonomics 50(10):1582-92.
Shuval, K., Donchin, M. (2005). Prevalence of upper extremity musculoskeletal
symptoms and ergonomic risk factors at a Hi-Tech company in Israel. International
Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 35(6):569-81.
2D. Revised Strain Index
The Strain Index estimates biomechanical risk for distal upper extremity disorders
(e.g., hand, wrist, forearm and elbow). A job is divided into tasks. For each task and
for each hand, 6 job biomechanical factors are classified into categories of
exposure by an observer. A datasheet is used to combine the levels in the
categories into an overall risk score, the Strain Index. Updated as Revised Strain
Index (RSI) in 2016 with descriptions of Composite Strain Index (COSI) and
Cumulative Strain Index (CUSI) for complex tasks.
Description:
Moore JS, Garg A. The Strain Index: a proposed method to analyze jobs for risk of
distal upper extremity disorders. American Industrial Hygiene Association Journal.
1995; 56(5): 443–458.
Moore, J.S., Garg, A., 1994, Upper extremity disorders in a pork processing plant:
relationships between job risk factors and morbidity. American Industrial Hygiene
Association Journal, 55, 703-715.
Bao, S., Spieholz, P., Howard, N. & Silverstein, B., 2009. Application of the strain
index in multiple task jobs. Applied Ergonomics, 40, 56-68
Garg A., Moore JS, Kapellusch JM., 2016, The Revised Strain Index: an improved
upper extremity exposure assessment model. Ergonomics, October 14:1-11 [Epub
ahead of print].
Garg A., Moore JS, Kapellusch JM., 2016, The Composite Strain Index (COSI) and
the Cumulative Strain Index (CUSI): methodologies for quantifying biomechanical
stressors for complex tasks and job rotation using the Revised Strain Index.
Ergonomics, Nov 4:1-9 [Epub ahead of print].
Cross-sectional studies:
Stevens Jr., E.M., Vos, G.A., Stephens, J.-P. & Moore, J.S., 2004. Inter-rater
reliability of the strain index. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene, 1,
745-751
Moore, J.S., Rucker, N.P. & Knox, K., 2001. Validity of generic risk factors and the
strain index for predicting nontraumatic distal upper extremity morbidity. AIHAJ, 62
(2), 229-35
Rucker, N., Moore, J.S., 2002, Predictive validity of the strain index in
manufacturing facilities, Applied Occupational and Environmental Hygiene, 12(1),
63-73.
Drinkaus, P., Sesek, R.F., Bloswick, D.B. 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(2):165-72.
Spielholz, P., Bao, S., Howard, N. 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):250-7.
Longitudinal Studies:
Knox, K., Moore, J.S., 2001, Predictive validity of the strain index in turkey
processing, Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 43(5), 451-462.
Garg, A., Kapellusch, J.M., Hegmann, K.T., Thiese, M.S., Merryweather, A.S.,
Wang, Y.C. & Malloy, E.J., 2014. The Strain Index and TLV for HAL: Risk of lateral
epicondylitis in a prospective cohort. Am J Ind Med, 57 (3), 286-302.
Garg A, Kapellusch J, Hegmann K, Wertsch J, Merryweather A, Deckow-Schaefer
G, et al. The Strain Index (SI) and Threshold Limit Value (TLV) for Hand Activity
Level (HAL): Risk of carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) in a prospective cohort.
Ergonomics. 2012; 55(4): 396-414.
2E. ACGIH Threshold Limit Value (TLV) for Upper Limb Localized Fatigue
The TLV for upper limb localized fatigue is designed to prevent excessive or
persistent upper limb (forearm, elbow, shoulder) musculoskeletal fatigue for
repetitive work. The TLV curve is based on the force exerted at a % strength (%
maximum voluntary contraction (%MVC)) and the duty cycle of work (e.g., the % of
time that applied force is greater than 5% MVC). The TLV is based on
psychophysical, laboratory, and epidemiologic studies.
Description:
ACGIH. TLVs and BEIs: Threshold Limit Values for chemical substances and
physical agents and Biological Exposure Indices. Cincinnati, OH: ACGIH
Worldwide; 2017.
Validation:
Bystrom S; Fransson-Hall C: Acceptability of intermittent handgrip contractions
based on physiological response. Human Factors 36(1):158–71 (1994).
Frey-Law L; Avin KG: Endurance time is joint-specific: A modeling and meta-
analysis investigation. Ergonomics 53(1):109–129 (2010).
Potvin JR: Predicting maximum acceptable efforts for repetitive tasks: An equation
based on duty cycle. Human Factors 54(2):175–188 (2012).
2F. The Distal Upper Extremity Tool (DUET)
DUET is an upper extremity risk assessment tool based on fatigue failure theory.
Inputs used for analysis of tasks include: 1) an estimate of peak force exertion
during the task, and 2) the number of daily repetitions performed. If a worker
performs multiple tasks during the day, each task is analyzed as above, and the
tool will calculate the total estimated cumulative damage. A probability of a distal
upper extremity outcome is provided, based on associations observed in a large
cross-sectional study. The tool will also identify the percentage of total damage
associated with each task, which provides a basis for prioritizing tasks that may
benefit from ergonomic redesign. An online version of the DUET tool can be
accessed at [Link]
Gallagher, S., Schall, Jr., M.C., Sesek, R.F., Huangfu, R. (2018). An Upper
Extremity Risk Assessment Tool Based On Material Fatigue Failure Theory. Human
Factors, 60(8): 1146-1162. (DOI: 10.1177/0018720818789319).
3. Methods to assess manual materials handling
3A. Lumbar Motion Monitor
The Lumbar Motion Monitor (LMM) is a device that is carried on the back of a
worker, like a backpack, and continuously measures the position, velocity, and
acceleration of the spine in the sagittal, lateral, and twisting planes. A model was
developed to use this data to estimate risk for low back disorders (LBDs).
Description:
Marras, W. S., Allread, G. W., & Ried, R. G. (1999). Occupational low back disorder
risk assessment using the lumbar motion monitor. In W. Karwowski & W. S. Marras
(Eds.), The Occupational Ergonomics Handbook (pp. 1075-1100). New York: CRC
Press.
Cross-Sectional Studies:
Marras, W.S., Lavender, S.A, Leurgans, S., Rajulu, S., Allread, W.G., Fathallah, F.,
and Ferguson, S.A., (1993), “The Role of Dynamic Three Dimensional Trunk Motion
in Occupationally-Related Low Back Disorders: The Effects of Workplace Factors,
Trunk Position and Trunk Motion Characteristics on Injury.” Spine, 18(5):617-628.
Prospective studies:
Marras WS, Allread WG, Burr DL, and Fathallah FA, (2000), “Prospective Validation
of a Low-Back Disorder Risk Model and Assessment of Ergonomic Interventions
Associated with Manual Materials Handling Tasks.” Ergonomics, 43(11):1866-1886.
3B. Revised NIOSH lifting equation (RNLE)
The RNLE is a risk-assessment tool to assess the manual material handling risks
associated with lifting and lowering tasks. An equation is used to assess job task
variables to determine the Recommended Weight Limit (RWL), a maximum
acceptable weight (load) that nearly all healthy employees could lift over the course
of an 8-hour shift without increasing the risk low back disorders (LBDs). In addition,
a Lifting Index (LI) can be calculated to provide a relative estimate of risk of the
existing load versus the RWL. RNLE has been enlarged to analyze cumulative
exposure and multi-task jobs (composite, variable and sequential).
Description:
Waters, T. R., Putzanderson, V., Garg, A., & Fine, L. J. (1993). Revised NIOSH
equation for the design and evaluation of manual lifting tasks. Ergonomics, 36(7),
749-776.
Waters, T., Putzanderson, V., & Garg, A. (1993). A method for assessing multitask
manual lifting jobs using the revised NIOSH lifting equation. Ergonomics of Manual
Work, 77-80.
Dempsey, P. G., Burdorf, A., Fathallah, F. A., Sorock, G. S., & Hashemi, L. (2001).
Influence of measurement accuracy on the application of the 1991 NIOSH equation.
Applied Ergonomics, 32(1), 91-99.
Dempsey, P. G. (2002). Usability of the revised NIOSH lifting equation.
Ergonomics, 45(12), 817-828.
Waters, T., Lu, M., Occhipinti, E. (2007). New procedure for assessing sequential
manual lifting jobs using the Revised Niosh Lifting Equation. Ergonomics, 50; 11;
1761–1770.
Waters,T., Occhipinti,E., Colombini,D., Alvarez-Casado,E., Fox, R. (2016). Variable
Lifting Index (VLI): A New Method for Evaluating Variable Lifting Tasks. Human
Factors, 58: 695-711
Occhipinti, D., Colombini, E., Alvarez-Casado, E., Waters, T. (2012)
Manual lifting, a guide to study of simple and complex lifting tasks
CRC Pres-Taylor&Francis.
Lu, M. L., Putz-Anderson, V., Garg, A., & Davis, K. G. (2016). Evaluation of the
impact of the revised National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health Lifting
Equation. Human Factors, 58(5), 667-682.
The equation applications manual is available here:
[Link]
Online/spreadsheet calculations of the equation (LI, CLI and VLI) are available
here:
[Link]
[Link]
837
Cross-Sectional Studies:
Waters, T.R., Baron, S. L., Piacitelli, L. A., Anderson, V. P., Skov, T., Haring-
Sweeney, M., Wall, D. K., Fine, L. J. , (1999) Evaluation of the revised NIOSH lifting
equation – A cross- sectional epidemiologic study. Spine 24 (4):386-394.
Marras, W.S., Fine, L. J., Ferguson, S. A., Waters, T. R. (1999), The effectiveness
of commonly used lifting assessment methods to identify industrial jobs associated
with elevated risk of low-back disorders. Ergonomics 42 (1):229-245.
Dempsey, P. G. (2003). A survey of lifting and lowering tasks. International Journal
of Industrial Ergonomics, 31(1), 11-16.
Battevi, N., Pandolfi, M., Cortinovis, I. (2016). Variable Lifting Index for Manual-
Lifting Risk Assessment: A Preliminary Validation Study. Human Factors 58: 712-
725.
Waters, T. R., Lu, M. L., Piacitelli, L. A., Werren, D., & Deddens, J. A. (2011).
Efficacy of the revised NIOSH lifting equation to predict risk of low back pain due to
manual lifting: Expanded cross-sectional analysis. Journal of Occupational and
Environmental Medicine, 53(9), 1061–1067.
Prospective Studies:
Garg, A., Boda, S., Hegmann, K. T., et al. (2014). The NIOSH lifting equation and
low-back pain, part 1: association with low-back pain in the Backworks prospective
cohort study. Human factors, 56(1), 6-28.
Kapellusch, J. M., Garg, A., Boda, S.,et al. (2014). Association between lifting and
use of medication for low back pain: Results from the backworks prospective cohort
study. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 56(8),
867-877.
Lu, M. L., Waters, T. R., Krieg, E., & Werren, D. (2014). Efficacy of the revised
NIOSH lifting equation to predict risk of low-back pain associated with manual
lifting: A one-year prospective study. Human factors, 56(1), 73-85.
Garg, A. & Kapellusch, J.M. (2016) The Cumulative Lifting Index (CULI) for the
Revised NIOSH Lifting Equation: Quantifying risk for workers with job rotation.
Pandalai SP, Wheeler WW, & Lu M-L. Non-chemical risk assessment for lifting and
low back pain based on Bayesian Threshold Models. Safety and Health at Work
2017; 8:206-211.
Battevi N, Pandolfi M, & Cortinovis I. Variable Lifting Index for manual-lifting risk
assessment: A preliminary validation study. Human Factors 2016; 58(5):712-25.
3C. Psychophysical Lifting/Lowering Tables (Liberty Mutual)
Psychophysical theory examines the relationship between the strength of a
perceived sensation (S) and the intensity of a physical stimulus (I). This theory has
been used in manual materials handling tasks to establish the maximum acceptable
weight or force for a wide variety of lifting, lowering, pushing and pulling tasks
(among others). Liberty Mutual Insurance Company has published comprehensive
tables for this type of strength assessment.
Description:
Snook, S. H., and Ciriello, V. M. (1991). The design of manual handling tasks:
revised tables of maximum acceptable weights and forces. Ergonomics, 34(9),
1197-1213.
Online/spreadsheet calculations of the tables are available here:
[Link]
Cross-Sectional Studies:
Snook, S.H., The design of manual handling tasks, Ergonomics, 21:12-963-985,
1978.
Marras, W.S., Fine, L. J., Ferguson, S. A., Waters, T. R. (1999), The effectiveness
of commonly used lifting assessment methods to identify industrial jobs associated
with elevated risk of low-back disorders. Ergonomics 42 (1):229-245.
Dempsey, P. G. (2003). A survey of lifting and lowering tasks. International Journal
of Industrial Ergonomics, 31(1), 11-16.
3D. Lifting Fatigue Failure Tool [LIFFT]
The LiFFT estimates a “daily dose” of cumulative loading on the low back using
fatigue failure principles. Three variables are necessary to derive the cumulative
load associated with a lifting task: the load weight, the maximum horizontal distance
from the spine to the load, and the number of repetitions for tasks performed during
the workday. For multiple lifting tasks, the cumulative damage estimate for each
can be summed together to estimate the cumulative daily spine load. LiFFT can be
downloaded at: [Link]
ergonomics-injury-prevention/[Link]
Description and Validation:
Gallagher, S., Sesek, R.F., Schall Jr., M.C. Huangfu, R., Development and
validation of an easy-to-use risk assessment tool for cumulative low back loading:
The Lifting Fatigue Failure Tool (LiFFT), Applied Ergonomics
(2017), [Link]
4. Methods to Assess Psychosocial Stress
4A. Effort-Reward Imbalance Model
The effort-reward imbalance model aims to support the understanding of how social
and psychological factors contribute to injury and disease. The construct is based
on “social reciprocity” and the theory that failed reciprocity resulting from high effort
with low rewards will elicit negative emotions and sustained stress responses.
Conversely, appropriate social rewards will promote wellbeing health and survival.
Rewards are characterized by financial, esteem and career opportunities, including
job security. There are 3 psychometric scales assessed including effort, reward and
over commitment. There are 2 versions of the ERI questionnaire including a long
version (23 Likert scaled items) and the short version (16 items), more commonly
used in large epidemiological studies.
Long Version Validity:
Rantanen, J., Feldt, T., Hyvönen, K., Kinnunen, U. and Mäkikangas, A. (2012).
Factorial validity of the effort-reward imbalance scale: evidence from multi-sample
and three-wave follow-up studies. International Archives of Occupational and
Environmental Health, 86(6): 645-56.
Siegrist, J., Starke, D., Chandola, T., Godin, I., Marmot, M., Niedhammer, I. and
Peter, R. (2004). The measurement of Effort-Reward Imbalance at work: European
comparisons. Social Science & Medicine, 58 (8), 1483-1499.
Short Version Validity:
Leineweber, C., Wege, N., Westerlund H., Theorell, T., Wahrendorf, M. and
Siegrist, J. (2010). How valid is a short measure of effort-reward imbalance at
work? A replication study from Sweden. Occupational and Environmental Medicine
67(8): 526-31.
Siegrist, J., Wege, N., Pühlhofer, F. and Wahrendorf, M. (2009). A short generic
measure of work stress in the era of globalization: effort-reward imbalance. Int Arch
Occup Environ Health, 82(8):1005-13.
Useful Link: (including survey download):
[Link]
soziologie/forschung-research/the-eri-model-stress-and-health/measurement/
4B. Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire (COPSOQ)
The Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire was developed to provide work
environment professionals and researchers a standardized and validated
questionnaire to assess a variety of psychosocial factors. There is now a second
version and, like the first version, the COPSOQII has 3 versions of differing lengths,
the longest of which is recommended for researchers and the shortest version
recommended for the workplace. The COPSOQII assesses work demands,
organization, work relationships and leadership, the work-individual relationship,
health and well-being, personality, and offensive behaviors.
Validation:
Pejtersen, J. H., Kristensen, T. S., Borg, V., & Bjorner, J. B. (2010). The second
version of the Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire. Scandinavian journal of
public health, 38(3 suppl), 8-24.
Bjorner, J. B., & Pejtersen, J. H. (2010). Evaluating construct validity of the second
version of the Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire through analysis of
differential item functioning and differential item effect. Scandinavian journal of
public health, 38(3 suppl), 90-105.
Prospective Studies:
Rugulies, R., Aust, B., & Pejtersen, J. H. (2010). Do psychosocial work environment
factors measured with scales from the Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire
predict register-based sickness absence of 3 weeks or more in Denmark.
Scandinavian journal of public health, 38(3 suppl), 42-50.
4C. Karasek Job Content Questionnaire
This model predicts that mental strain results from the interaction of job demands
and job decision latitude. The combination of low decision latitude and heavy job
demand has been associated with mental strain. and job dissatisfaction. The JCQ is
designed to measure scales assessing psychological demands, decision latitude,
social support, physical demands, and job insecurity.
Reviews:
Häusser, J. A., Mojzisch, A., Niesel, M., & Schulz-Hardt, S. (2010). Ten years on: A
review of recent research on the Job Demand–Control (-Support) model and
psychological well-being. Work & Stress, 24(1), 1-35.
Van der Doef, M., & Maes, S. (1999). The job demand-control (-support) model and
psychological well-being: a review of 20 years of empirical research. Work & stress,
13(2), 87-114.
Karasek, R. A.. (1979). Job Demands, Job Decision Latitude, and Mental Strain:
Implications for Job Redesign. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24(2), 285–
308. [Link]
Prospective Studies:
Kivimäki, M., Leino-Arjas, P., Luukkonen, R., Riihimäi, H., Vahtera, J., & Kirjonen, J.
(2002). Work stress and risk of cardiovascular mortality: prospective cohort study of
industrial employees. BMJ, 325(7369), 857.
Cheng, Y., Kawachi, I., Coakley, E. H., Schwartz, J., & Colditz, G. (2000).
Association between psychosocial work characteristics and health functioning in
American women: prospective study. BMJ, 320(7247), 1432-1436.
Canivet, C., Choi, B., Karasek, R., Moghaddassi, M., Staland-Nyman, C., &
Östergren, P. O. (2013). Can high psychological job demands, low decision latitude,
and high job strain predict disability pensions? A 12-year follow-up of middle-aged
Swedish workers. International archives of occupational and environmental health,
86(3), 307-319.