Handbook Of Human Factors And Ergonomics Methods PDF

Handbook of Human Factors and Ergonomics Methods © 2005 by CRC Press LLC Handbook of Human Factors and Ergonomics Methods Neville Stanton Alan Hedge Karel Brookhuis Eduardo Salas Hal Hendrick CRC PR E S S Boca Raton London New York Washington, D.C. © 2005 by CRC Press LLC TF1539_book.fm Page iv Wednesday, July 28, 2004 10:36 AM Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data The handbook of human factors and ergonomics methods / edited by Neville Stanton … [et al.]. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 0-415-28700-6 (alk. paper) 1. Human engineering—Handbooks, manuals, etc. I. Stanton, Neville, 1960–. TA166.H275 2004 620.8′2—dc21 2003012359 CIP This book contains information obtained from authentic and highly regarded sources. Reprinted material is quoted with permission, and sources are indicated. A wide variety of references are listed. Reasonable efforts have been made to publish reliable data and information, but the authors and the publisher cannot assume responsibility for the validity of all materials or for the consequences of their use. Neither this book nor any part may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, microﬁlming, and recording, or by any information storage or retrieval system, without prior permission in writing from the publisher. All rights reserved. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use, or the personal or internal use of speciﬁc clients, may be granted by CRC Press LLC, provided that $1.50 per page photocopied is paid directly to Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923 USA The fee code for users of the Transactional Reporting Service is ISBN 0-415-28700-6/05/$0.00+$1.50. The fee is subject to change without notice. For organizations that have been granted a photocopy license by the CCC, a separate system of payment has been arranged. The consent of CRC Press LLC does not extend to copying for general distribution, for promotion, for creating new works, or for resale. Speciﬁc permission must be obtained in writing from CRC Press LLC for such copying. Direct all inquiries to CRC Press LLC, 2000 N.W. Corporate Blvd., Boca Raton, Florida 33431. Trademark Notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identiﬁcation and explanation, without intent to infringe. Visit the CRC Press Web site at www.crcpress.com © 2005 by CRC Press LLC No claim to original U.S. Government works International Standard Book Number 0-415-28700-6 Library of Congress Card Number 2003012359 Printed in the United States of America 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 Printed on acid-free paper © 2005 by CRC Press LLC TF1539_book.fm Page v Wednesday, July 28, 2004 10:36 AM Preface I must confess to a love of human factors and ergonomics methods. This is a love bordering on obsession. Ever since I was taught how to use hierarchical task analysis (HTA) almost 20 years ago, I have been hooked. Since that time, I have learned how to use dozens of methods. Each time, it is a mini-adventure. I sometimes wonder if I will understand a new method properly, but when it clicks, I feel euphoric. I have also spent a good deal of time training others in the use of methods. This is an extremely rewarding experience, particularly when a trainee presents an analysis of his/her own that shows a clear grasp of how the method works. I have also enjoyed developing some new methods. For example, in collaboration with Chris Baber at the University of Birmingham, I have developed an error-prediction methodology called “task analysis for error identiﬁcation” (TAFEI). As with HTA, we have sought to underpin TAFEI with a theory of human performance. We are still discovering new aspects of the TAFEI analysis, and it gives us both a thrill to see other people reporting their studies using TAFEI. The inspiration for this handbook came after I wrote A Guide to Methodology in Ergonomics with Mark Young, which was also published by Taylor & Francis. It was clear to me that, although the human factors and ergonomics literature is full of references to methods, there are few consistent standards for how these methods are described and reported. This handbook began in 2000 with a proposal to Taylor & Francis. Fortunately, Tony Moore smiled on this book. With his go-ahead, I contacted experts in each of the various domains of ergonomics methods and asked them to edit different sections of the book. I feel very fortunate that I managed to recruit such an eminent team. To be fair, they did not take much persuasion, as they also agreed that this project was a worthwhile undertaking. The next step was to ask experts in the various ergonomics methodologies to summarize their methods in a standardized format. It was a pleasant surprise to see how willingly the contributors responded. Now, some 4 years after the initial conception, all of the contributions have been gathered and edited. On behalf of the editorial team, I hope that you, the reader, will ﬁnd this to be a useful handbook. We hope that this book will encourage developers of methods to structure the reporting of their methods in a consistent manner. Equally important, we hope that this handbook will encourage users of the methods to be more adventurous. Neville A. Stanton August 2004 © 2005 by CRC Press LLC TF1539_book.fm Page vii Wednesday, July 28, 2004 10:36 AM Acknowledgments On behalf of the editorial team, I would like to thank all of the contributors to this handbook for their professionalism and diligence. I would also like to thank the book commissioning and production team at Taylor & Francis and CRC Press, especially Tony Moore, Sarah Kramer, Matt Gibbons, Jessica Vakili, Cindy Carelli, and Naomi Lynch. © 2005 by CRC Press LLC TF1539_book.fm Page ix Wednesday, July 28, 2004 10:36 AM Editors Neville A. Stanton is a professor of human-centered design at Brunel University in the U.K. He has a bachelor’s degree in psychology from the University of Hull as well as master and doctoral degrees in human factors from Aston University. Professor Stanton has published over 70 peer-reviewed journal papers and 7 books on human-centered design. He was a visiting fellow of the Department of Design at Cornell University in 1998. He was awarded the Institution of Electrical Engineers Divisional Premium Award for a paper on engineering psychology and system safety in 1998. The Ergonomics Society awarded him the Otto Edholm Medal in 2001 for his contribution to basic and applied ergonomics research. Professor Stanton is on the editorial boards of Ergonomics, Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, and the International Journal of Human Computer Interaction. Professor Stanton is a chartered psychologist and a fellow of the British Psychological Society, a fellow of the Ergonomics Society, and a fellow of the Royal Society for the Arts. Eduardo Salas is a professor of psychology at the University of Central Florida, where he also holds an appointment as program director for the Human Systems Integration Research Department at the Institute for Simulation and Training. He is also the director of UCF’s Ph.D. Applied Experimental & Human Factors Program. Previously, he served as a senior research psychologist and head of the Training Technology Development Branch of the Naval Air Warfare Center Training Systems Division for 15 years. During this period, Dr. Salas served as a principal investigator for numerous R&D programs focusing on teamwork, team training, decision making under stress, and performance assessment. Dr. Salas has coauthored over 200 journal articles and book chapters and has coedited 11 books. He has served on the editorial boards of the Journal of Applied Psychology, Personnel Psychology, Military Psychology, Interamerican Journal of Psychology, Applied Psychology: an International Journal, International Journal of Aviation Psychology, Group Dynamics, and the Journal of Organizational Behavior. His expertise includes helping organizations to foster teamwork, to design and implement team training strategies, to facilitate training effectiveness, to manage decision making under stress, to develop performance measurement tools, and to design learning environments. He is currently working on designing tools and techniques to minimize human errors in aviation, law enforcement, and medical environments. He has served as a consultant in a variety of manufacturing settings, pharmaceutical laboratories, and industrial and governmental organizations. Dr. Salas is a fellow of the American Psychological Association (SIOP and Division 21) and the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, and he is a recipient of the Meritorious Civil Service Award from the Department of the Navy. He received his Ph.D. degree (1984) in industrial and organizational psychology from Old Dominion University. Hal W. Hendrick, Ph.D., CPE, DABFE, is emeritus professor of human factors and ergonomics at the University of Southern California and principal of Hendrick and Associates, an ergonomics and industrial and organizational psychology consulting ﬁrm. He is a certiﬁed professional ergonomist, diplomate of the American Board of Forensic Examiners, and holds a Ph.D. in industrial psychology and an M.S. in human factors from Purdue University, with a minor in industrial engineering. He is a past chair of USC’s Human Factors Department, former executive director of the university’s Institute of Safety and Systems Management, and a former dean at the University of Denver. He earlier was an associate professor at the U.S. Air Force Academy, where he helped develop the psychology major and developed the Cooperative MS Program in Human Factors with Purdue University. Hal is a past president of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society (HFES), the International Ergonomics Association, and the Board of Certiﬁcation in Professional Ergonomics. He is a fellow of the International Ergonomics Association (IEA), HFES, © 2005 by CRC Press LLC TF1539_book.fm Page x Wednesday, July 28, 2004 10:36 AM American Psychological Association, and American Psychological Society. He is a recipient of the USC outstanding teaching award and both the HFES Jack A. Kraft Innovator Award and Alexander C. Williams, Jr., Design Award. He is the author or coauthor of over 180 professional publications, including 3 books, and editor or coeditor of 11 books. Hal conceptualized and initiated the subdiscipline of macroergonomics. Alan Hedge is a professor in the Department of Design and Environmental Analysis at Cornell University. His work focuses on the effects of workplace design on the health, comfort, and performance of people. Recent projects have investigated alternative input device design, ergonomic chairs, and other furniture workstation elements that can reduce musculoskeletal disorder risk factors. He also researches indoor environmental design issues, especially air quality, ventilation, and the sick-building syndrome as well as ofﬁce lighting and computer-vision syndrome. He has coauthored a book, Keeping Buildings Healthy, 25 chapters, and over 150 professional publications. He is active in several professional societies. Karel Brookhuis studied psychology at Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, specializing in experimental psy- chology, in 1980. He then became a research fellow (Ph.D. student) at the Institute for Experimental Psychology, with a specialization in psychophysiology. In 1983 he became a senior researcher at the Trafﬁc Research Centre, which later merged into the Centre for Environmental and Trafﬁc Psychology, at the University of Groningen. In 1986 he became head of the Department of Biopsychological Aspects of Driving Behaviour, later renamed the Department of Task Performance and Cognition. In 1994 he was appointed as a research manager, responsible for the centre’s research planning and quality control. After the centre was closed on January 1, 2000, he became associate professor (UHD) in the Department of Experimental and Work Psychology. Since 2001, Brookhuis has served as a part-time full professor at the Section of Transport Policy and Logistics of the Technical University of Delft. © 2005 by CRC Press LLC TF1539_book.fm Page xi Wednesday, July 28, 2004 10:36 AM Contributors Torbjörn Åkerstedt Gunnar Borg Lee Cooper National Institute for Psychosocial Stockholm University University of Birmingham Factors and Health Department of Psychology Computing Engineering Stockholm, Sweden Stockholm, Sweden Birmingham, U.K. W.G. Allread Wolfram Boucsein Nigel Corlett Ohio State University University of Wuppertal University of Nottingham Institute for Ergonomics Physiological Psychology Institute for Occupational Columbus, OH Wuppertal, Germany Ergonomics Nottingham, U.K. Clint A. Bowers Dee H. Andrews University of Central Florida U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory Department of Psychology Dana M. Costar Warﬁghter Training Research Orlando, FL American Institutes for Research Division Washington, D.C. Mesa, AZ Peter R. Boyce Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Pamela Dalton John Annett Lighting Research Center Monell Chemical Senses Center University of Warwick Troy, NY Philadelphia, PA Department of Psychology Coventry, U.K. Karel A. Brookhuis University of Groningen Renée E. DeRouin Experimental & Work Psychology University of Central Florida Amelia A. Armstrong Groningen, the Netherlands Institute for Simulation & Training Klein Associates Inc. Orlando, FL Fairborn, OH Ogden Brown, Jr. University of Denver Dick de Waard Christopher Baber Denver, CO University of Groningen University of Birmingham Experimental & Work Psychology Computing Engineering Peter Buckle Groningen, the Netherlands Birmingham, U.K. University of Surrey Robens Center for Health Ergonomics David F. Dinges David P. Baker University of Pennsylvania Guildford, U.K. School of Medicine American Institutes for Research Washington, D.C. Philadelphia, PA C. Shawn Burke University of Central Florida Natale Battevi Institute for Simulation & Training James E. Driskell EPM-CEMOC Orlando, FL Florida Maxima Corporation Milan, Italy Winter Park, FL Pascale Carayon J. Matthew Beaubien University of Wisconsin Robin Dunkin-Chadwick American Institutes for Research Center for Quality & Productivity NIOSH Washington, D.C. Improvement Division of Applied Research Madison, WI & Technology Artem Belopolsky Cincinnati, OH University of Illinois Daniela Colombini Department of Psychology EPM-CEMOC J.R. Easter Champaign, IL Milan, Italy Aegis Research Corporation Pittsburgh, PA Jennifer Blume Nancy J. Cooke National Space Biomedical Arizona State University East W.C. Elm Research Institute Applied Psychology Program Aegis Research Corporation Houston, TX Mesa, AZ Pittsburgh, PA © 2005 by CRC Press LLC TF1539_book.fm Page xii Wednesday, July 28, 2004 10:36 AM Eileen B. Entin Bianka B. Hahn R.F. Soames Job Aptima, Inc. Klein Associates Inc. University of Sydney Wodburn, MA Fairborn, OH School of Psychology Sydney, Australia Elliot E. Entin Thomas R. Hales Aptima, Inc. NIOSH Debra G. Jones Wodburn, MA Division of Applied Research SA Technologies, Inc. & Technology Marietta, GA Cincinnati, OH Gary W. Evans Cornell University David B. Kaber Department of Design & George Havenith North Carolina State University Environmental Analysis Loughborough University Department of Industrial Ithaca, NY Department of Human Sciences Engineering Loughborough, U.K. Raleigh, NC Stephen M. Fiore University of Central Florida Alan Hedge Jussi Kantola Institute for Simulation & Training Cornell University University of Louisville Orlando, FL Department of Design & Center for Industrial Ergonomics Environmental Analysis Louisville, KY Ithaca, NY M.M. Fleischer University of Southern California Waldemar Karwowski Los Angeles, CA Hal W. Hendrick University of Louisville Hendrick and Associates Center for Industrial Ergonomics Greenwood Village, CO Louisville, KY Jennifer E. Fowlkes Chi Systems, Inc. Orlando, FL Sue Hignett Kristina Kemmlert Loughborough University National Institute for Working Life Philippe Geslin Department of Human Sciences Solna, Sweden Institut National de la Recherche Loughborough, U.K. Agronomique (INRA) Toulouse, France Mark Kirby Vincent H. Hildebrandt University of Huddersﬁeld and TNO Work & Employment School of Computing and Université de Neuchâtel Institut Hoofddorp, the Netherlands Engineering d’ethnologie and Huddersﬁeld, U.K. Neuchâtel, Switzerland Body@Work Research Center on Physical Activity, Work and Matthias Göbel Health TNO Vumc Gary Klein Berlin University of Technology Amsterdam, the Netherlands Klein Associates Inc. Department of Human Factors Fairborn, OH Engineering and Product Hermann Hinrichs Ergonomics University of Magdeburg Brian M. Kleiner Berlin, Germany Clinic for Neurology Virginia Polytechnical Institute Magdeburg, Germany and State University Thad Godish Grado Department of Industrial Ball State University and Systems Engineering Department of Natural Resources Peter Hoonakker Blacksburg, VA University of Wisconsin Muncie, IN Center for Quality & Productivity Improvement David W. Klinger Gerald F. Goodwin Madison, WI Klein Associates Inc. U.S. Army Research Institute Fairborn, OH Alexandria, VA Karen Jacobs Boston University Programs Arthur F. Kramer Paul Grossman University of Illinois Freiburg Institute for Mindfulness in Occupational Therapy Boston, MA Department of Psychology Research Champaign, IL Freiburg, Germany Florian Jentsch J.W. Gualtieri University of Central Florida Guangyan Li Aegis Research Corporation Department of Psychology Human Engineering Limited Pittsburgh, PA Orlando, FL Bristol, U.K. © 2005 by CRC Press LLC TF1539_book.fm Page xiii Wednesday, July 28, 2004 10:36 AM Jean MacMillan Brian Mullen Michelle M. Robertson Aptima, Inc. Syracuse University Liberty Mutual Research Institute Wodburn, MA Syracuse, NY for Safety Hopkinton, MA Ann Majchrzak Mitsuo Nagamachi University of Southern California Hiroshima International University Suzanne H. Rodgers Marshall School of Business Hiroshima, Japan Consultant in Ergonomics Los Angeles, CA Rochester, NY Leah Newman Melissa M. Mallis Pennsylvania State University D. Roitman NASA Ames Research Center The Harold & Inge Marcus University of Southern California Fatigue Countermeasures Group Department of Industrial & Los Angeles, CA Moffett Field, CA Manufacturing Engineering University Park, PA E.M. Roth W.S. Marras Roth Cognitive Engineering Ohio State University Enrico Occhipinti Brookline, MA Institute for Ergonomics EPM-CEMOC Columbus, OH Milan, Italy Eduardo Salas Michael J. Paley University of Central Florida Philip Marsden Aptima, Inc. Department of Psychology University of Huddersﬁeld Wodburn, MA Orlando, FL School of Computing and Engineering Daniela Panciera Huddersﬁeld, U.K. Steven L. Sauter EPM-CEMOC NIOSH Milan, Italy Division of Applied Research Laura Martin-Milham & Technology University of Central Florida Brian Peacock Cincinnati, OH Institute for Simulation & Training National Space Biomedical Orlando, FL Research Institute Houston, TX Steven M. Shope Lorraine E. Maxwell US Positioning Group, LLC Cornell University Mesa, AZ S.S. Potter Design & Environmental Analysis Aegis Research Corporation Ithaca, NY Pittsburgh, PA Monique Smeets Utrecht University Lynn McAtamney Heather A. Priest Department of Social Sciences COPE Occupational Health and University of Central Florida Utrecht, the Netherlands Ergonomics Services Ltd. Institute for Simulation & Training Nottingham, U.K. Orlando, FL Tonya L. Smith-Jackson Virginia Polytechnic Institute and Olga Menoni Renate Rau State University EPM-CEMOC University of Technology Grado Department of Industrial Milan, Italy Occupational Health Psychology and Systems Engineering Dresden, Germany Blacksburg, VA J. Mokray University of Southern California Mark S. Rea Kimberly A. Smith-Jentsch Los Angeles, CA Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute University of Central Florida Lighting Research Center Department of Psychology J. Steven Moore Troy, NY Orlando, FL Texas A&M University School of Rural Public Health Maria Grazia Ricci Stover H. Snook Bryan, TX EPM-CEMOC Harvard School of Public Health Milan, Italy Boston, MA Lambertus (Ben) J.M. Mulder Hannu Rintamäki Neville A. Stanton University of Groningen Oulu Regional Institute of Brunel University Experimental & Work Psychology Occupational Health School of Engineering Groningen, the Netherlands Oulu, Finland London, U.K. © 2005 by CRC Press LLC TF1539_book.fm Page xiv Wednesday, July 28, 2004 10:36 AM Naomi G. Swanson Guy Walker Christopher D. Wickens NIOSH Brunel University University of Illinois at Urbana- Division of Applied Research School of Engineering Champaign & Technology London, U.K. Institute of Aviation Cincinnati, OH Aviation Human Factors Division Savoy, IL Jørn Toftum Donald E. Wasserman Technical University of Denmark University of Tennessee International Centre for Indoor Institute for the Study of Human Cornelis J.E. Wientjes Environment & Energy Vibration NATO Research & Technology Lyngby, Denmark Knoxville, TN Agency Brussels, Belgium Rendell R. Torres Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Jack F. Wasserman School of Architecture University of Tennessee David Wilder Troy, NY Institute for the Study of Human University of Tennessee Vibration Institute for the Study of Human Susan Vallance Knoxville, TN Vibration Johnson Engineering Knoxville, TN Houston, TX Thomas R. Waters Gordon A. Vos NIOSH Mark S. Young Texas A&M University Division of Applied Research University of New South Wales School of Rural Public Health & Technology Department of Aviation Bryan, TX Cincinnati, OH Sydney, Australia © 2005 by CRC Press LLC TF1539_book.fm Page xv Wednesday, July 28, 2004 10:36 AM Contents 1 Human Factors and Ergonomics Methods Neville A. Stanton......... 1-1 Physical Methods 2 Physical Methods Alan Hedge................................. 2-1 3 PLIBEL — The Method Assigned for Identiﬁcation of Ergonomic Hazards Kristina Kemmlert.......................... 3-1 4 Musculoskeletal Discomfort Surveys Used at NIOSH Steven L. Sauter, Naomi G. Swanson, Thomas R. Waters, Thomas R. Hales, and Robin Dunkin-Chadwick.................... 4-1 5 The Dutch Musculoskeletal Questionnaire (DMQ) Vincent H. Hildebrandt....................................... 5-1 6 Quick Exposure Checklist (QEC) for the Assessment of Workplace Risks for Work-Related Musculoskeletal Disorders (WMSDs) Guangyan Li and Peter Buckle................................. 6-1 7 Rapid Upper Limb Assessment (RULA) Lynn McAtamney and Nigel Corlett... 7-1 8 Rapid Entire Body Assessment Lynn McAtamney and Sue Hignett..... 8-1 9 The Strain Index J. Steven Moore and Gordon A. Vos................ 9-1 10 Posture Checklist Using Personal Digital Assistant (PDA) Technology Karen Jacobs................................................ 10-1 11 Scaling Experiences during Work: Perceived Exertion and Difﬁculty Gunnar Borg............................................... 11-1 12 Muscle Fatigue Assessment: Functional Job Analysis Technique Suzanne H. Rodgers.......................................... 12-1 13 Psychophysical Tables: Lifting, Lowering, Pushing, Pulling, and Carrying Stover H. Snook............................................. 13-1 14 Lumbar Motion Monitor W.S. Marras and W.G. Allread............. 14-1 15 The Occupational Repetitive Action (OCRA) Methods: OCRA Index and OCRA Checklist Enrico Occhipinti and Daniela Colombini........... 15-1 © 2005 by CRC Press LLC TF1539_book.fm Page xvi Wednesday, July 28, 2004 10:36 AM 16 Assessment of Exposure to Manual Patient Handling in Hospital Wards: MAPO Index (Movement and Assistance of Hospital Patients) Olga Menoni, Maria Grazia Ricci, Daniela Panciera, and Natale Battevi 16-1 Psychophysiological Methods 17 Psychophysiological Methods Karel A. Brookhuis................... 17-1 18 Electrodermal Measurement Wolfram Boucsein.................... 18-1 19 Electromyography (EMG) Matthias Göbel........................ 19-1 20 Estimating Mental Effort Using Heart Rate and Heart Rate Variability Lambertus (Ben) J.M. Mulder, Dick de Waard, and Karel A. Brookhuis....... 20-1 21 Ambulatory EEG Methods and Sleepiness Torbjörn Åkerstedt........ 21-1 22 Assessing Brain Function and Mental Chronometry with Event-Related Potentials (ERP) Arthur F. Kramer and Artem Belopolsky............. 22-1 23 MEG and fMRI Hermann Hinrichs............................. 23-1 24 Ambulatory Assessment of Blood Pressure to Evaluate Workload Renate Rau................................................. 24-1 25 Monitoring Alertness by Eyelid Closure Melissa M. Mallis and David F. Dinges........................... 25-1 26 Measurement of Respiration in Applied Human Factors and Ergonomics Research Cornelis J.E. Wientjes and Paul Grossman....... 26-1 Behavioral and Cognitive Methods 27 Behavioral and Cognitive Methods Neville A. Stanton............. 27-1 28 Observation Neville A. Stanton, Christopher Baber, and Mark S. Young... 28-1 29 Applying Interviews to Usability Assessment Mark S. Young and Neville A. Stanton........................... 29-1 30 Verbal Protocol Analysis Guy Walker............................ 30-1 31 Repertory Grid for Product Evaluation Christopher Baber........... 31-1 32 Focus Groups Lee Cooper and Christopher Baber.................. 32-1 33 Hierarchical Task Analysis (HTA) John Annett..................... 33-1 34 Allocation of Functions Philip Marsden and Mark Kirby............ 34-1 © 2005 by CRC Press LLC TF1539_book.fm Page xvii Wednesday, July 28, 2004 10:36 AM 35 Critical Decision Method Gary Klein and Amelia A. Armstrong....... 35-1 36 Applied Cognitive Work Analysis (ACWA) W.C. Elm, E.M. Roth, S.S. Potter, J.W. Gualtieri, and J.R. Easter........................ 36-1 37 Systematic Human Error Reduction and Prediction Approach (SHERPA) Neville A. Stanton........................................... 37-1 38 Task Analysis for Error Identiﬁcation Neville A. Stanton and Christopher Baber............................................ 38-1 39 Mental Workload Mark S. Young and Neville A. Stanton............ 39-1 40 Multiple Resource Time Sharing Models Christopher D. Wickens...... 40-1 41 Critical Path Analysis for Multimodal Activity Christopher Baber..... 41-1 42 Situation Awareness Measurement and the Situation Awareness Global Assessment Technique Debra G. Jones and David B. Kaber..... 42-1 Team Methods 43 Team Methods Eduardo Salas................................. 43-1 44 Team Training Eduardo Salas and Heather A. Priest................ 44-1 45 Distributed Simulation Training for Teams Dee H. Andrews......... 45-1 46 Synthetic Task Environments for Teams: CERTT’s UAV-STE Nancy J. Cooke and Steven M. Shope............................ 46-1 47 Event-Based Approach to Training (EBAT) Jennifer E. Fowlkes and C. Shawn Burke......................................... 47-1 48 Team Building Eduardo Salas, Heather A. Priest, and Renée E. DeRouin............................................ 48-1 49 Measuring Team Knowledge Nancy J. Cooke...................... 49-1 50 Team Communications Analysis Florian Jentsch and Clint A. Bowers... 50-1 51 Questionnaires for Distributed Assessment of Team Mutual Awareness Jean MacMillan, Michael J. Paley, Eileen B. Entin, and Elliot E. Entin... 51-1 52 Team Decision Requirement Exercise: Making Team Decision Requirements Explicit David W. Klinger and Bianka B. Hahn......... 52-1 53 Targeted Acceptable Responses to Generated Events or Tasks (TARGETs) Jennifer E. Fowlkes and C. Shawn Burke.......................... 53-1 © 2005 by CRC Press LLC TF1539_book.fm Page xviii Wednesday, July 28, 2004 10:36 AM 54 Behavioral Observation Scales (BOS) J. Matthew Beaubien, Gerald F. Goodwin, Dana M. Costar, David P. Baker, and Kimberly A. Smith-Jentsch....... 54-1 55 Team Situation Assessment Training for Adaptive Coordination Laura Martin-Milham and Stephen M. Fiore....................... 55-1 56 Team Task Analysis C. Shawn Burke............................ 56-1 57 Team Workload Clint A. Bowers and Florian Jentsch................ 57-1 58 Social Network Analysis James E. Driskell and Brian Mullen.......... 58-1 Environmental Methods 59 Environmental Methods Alan Hedge............................. 59-1 60 Thermal Conditions Measurement George Havenith................ 60-1 61 Cold Stress Indices Hannu Rintamäki............................ 61-1 62 Heat Stress Indices Alan Hedge................................. 62-1 63 Thermal Comfort Indices Jørn Toftum........................... 63-1 64 Indoor Air Quality: Chemical Exposures Alan Hedge............... 64-1 65 Indoor Air Quality: Biological/Particulate-Phase Contaminant Exposure Assessment Methods Thad Godish....................... 65-1 66 Olfactometry: The Human Nose as Detection Instrument Pamela Dalton and Monique Smeets.............................. 66-1 67 The Context and Foundation of Lighting Practice Mark S. Rea and Peter R. Boyce................................. 67-1 68 Photometric Characterization of the Luminous Environment Mark S. Rea................................................. 68-1 69 Evaluating Ofﬁce Lighting Peter R. Boyce......................... 69-1 70 Rapid Sound-Quality Assessment of Background Noise Rendell R. Torres............................................ 70-1 71 Noise Reaction Indices and Assessment R.F. Soames Job............ 71-1 72 Noise and Human Behavior Gary W. Evans and Lorraine E. Maxwell.. 72-1 73 Occupational Vibration: A Concise Perspective Jack F. Wasserman, Donald E. Wasserman, and David Wilder.......................... 73-1 © 2005 by CRC Press LLC TF1539_book.fm Page xix Wednesday, July 28, 2004 10:36 AM 74 Habitability Measurement in Space Vehicles and Earth Analogs Brian Peacock, Jennifer Blume, and Susan Vallance................. 74-1 Macroergonomic Methods 75 Macroergonomic Methods Hal W. Hendrick...................... 75-1 76 Macroergonomic Organizational Questionnaire Survey (MOQS) Pascale Carayon and Peter Hoonakker............................ 76-1 77 Interview Method Leah Newman............................... 77-1 78 Focus Groups Leah Newman................................... 78-1 79 Laboratory Experiment Brian M. Kleiner......................... 79-1 80 Field Study and Field Experiment Hal W. Hendrick................. 80-1 81 Participatory Ergonomics (PE) Ogden Brown, Jr.................... 81-1 82 Cognitive Walk-Through Method (CWM) Tonya L. Smith-Jackson..... 82-1 83 Kansei Engineering Mitsuo Nagamachi........................... 83-1 84 HITOP Analysis™ Ann Majchrzak, M.M. Fleischer, D. Roitman, and J. Mokray.............................................. 84-1 85 TOP-Modeler© Ann Majchrzak................................ 85-1 86 The CIMOP System© Waldemar Karwowski and Jussi Kantola........ 86-1 87 Anthropotechnology Philippe Geslin............................. 87-1 88 Systems Analysis Tool (SAT) Michelle M. Robertson................. 88-1 89 Macroergonomic Analysis of Structure (MAS) Hal W. Hendrick....... 89-1 90 Macroergonomic Analysis and Design (MEAD) Brian M. Kleiner...... 90-1 © 2005 by CRC Press LLC TF1539_book.fm Page 1 Wednesday, July 28, 2004 10:36 AM 1 Human Factors and Ergonomics Methods 1.1 Aims of the Handbook..................................................... 1-1 1.2 Layout of the Handbook.................................................. 1-3 1.3 Layout of Each Entry........................................................ 1-5 1.4 Other Methods Books....................................................... 1-5 1.5 Challenges for Human Factors and Ergonomics Neville A. Stanton Methods............................................................................. 1-6 Brunel University References..................................................................................... 1-8 1.1 Aims of the Handbook The main aim of this handbook is to provide a comprehensive, authoritative, and practical account of human factors and ergonomics methods. It is intended to encourage people to make full use of human factors and ergonomics methods in system design. Research has suggested that even professional ergon- omists tend to restrict themselves to two or three of their favorite methods, despite variations in the problems that they address (Baber and Mirza, 1988; Stanton and Young, 1998). If this book leads people to explore human factors and ergonomics methods that are new to them, then it will have achieved its goal. The page constraints of this handbook meant that coverage of the main areas of ergonomics had to be limited to some 83 methods. The scope of coverage, outlined in Table 1.1, was determined by what ergonomists do. From these deﬁnitions, it can be gleaned that the domain of human factors and ergonomics includes: Human capabilities and limitations Human–machine interaction Teamwork Tools, machines, and material design Environmental factors Work and organizational design These deﬁnitions also put an emphasis (sometimes implicit) on analysis of human performance, safety, and satisfaction. It is no wonder, then, that human factors and ergonomics is a discipline with a strong tradition in the development and application of methods. Hancock and Diaz (2002) argue that, as a scientiﬁc discipline, ergonomics holds the moral high ground, with the aim of bettering the human condition. They suggest that this may be at conﬂict with other aims of improving system effectiveness and efﬁciency. No one would argue with the aims of improved comfort, satisfaction, and well-being, but the drawing of boundaries between the improvements for individuals and improvements for the whole system might cause some heated debate. Wilson (1995) suggests that the twin interdependent aims of ergonomics might not be easy to resolve, but ergonomists have a duty to both individual jobholders and the employing organization. Ethical concerns about the issue of divided 1-1 © 2005 by CRC Press LLC TF1539_book.fm Page 2 Wednesday, July 28, 2004 10:36 AM 1-2 Handbook of Human Factors and Ergonomics Methods TABLE 1.1 Deﬁnitions of Human Factors and Ergonomics Author Deﬁnition of Human Factors and Ergonomics Murrell, 1965 …the scientiﬁc study of the relationship between man and his working environment. In this sense, the term environment is taken to cover not only the ambient environment in which he may work but also his tools and materials, his methods of work and the organization of the work, either as an individual or within a working group. All these are related to the nature of man himself; to his abilities, capacities and limitations. Grandjean, 1980 …is a study of man’s behavior in relation to his work. The object of this research is man at work in relation to his spatial environment…the most important principle of ergonomics: Fitting the task to the man. Ergonomics is interdisciplinarian: it bases its theories on physiology, psychology, anthropometry, and various aspects of engineering. Meister, 1989 …is the study of how humans accomplish work-related tasks in the context of human- machine system operation and how behavioral and nonbehavioral variables affect that accomplishment. Sanders and McCormick, 1993 …discovers and applies information about human behavior, abilities, limitations, and other characteristics to the design of tools, machines, tasks, jobs, and environments for productive, safe, comfortable, and effective human use. Hancock, 1997 …is that branch of science which seeks to turn human–machine antagonism into human–machine synergy. Source: Dempsey, P.G., Wolgalter, M.S., and Hancock, P.A. (2000), Theor. Issues Ergonomics Sci., 1, 3–10. With permission. responsibilities might only be dealt with satisfactorily by making it clear to all concerned where one’s loyalties lie. The International Encyclopedia of Human Factors and Ergonomics (Karwowski, 2001) has an entire section devoted to methods and techniques. Many of the other sections of the encyclopedia also provide references to, if not actual examples of, ergonomics methods. In short, the importance of human factors and ergonomics methods cannot be overstated. These methods offer the ergonomist a structured approach to the analysis and evaluation of design problems. The ergonomist's approach can be described using the scientist-practitioner model. As a scientist, the ergonomist is: Extending the work of others Testing theories of human–machine performance Developing hypotheses Questioning everything Using rigorous data-collection and data-analysis techniques Ensuring repeatability of results Disseminating the ﬁnding of studies As a practitioner, the ergonomist is: Addressing real-world problems Seeking the best compromise under difﬁcult circumstances Looking to offer the most cost-effective solution Developing demonstrators and prototype solutions Analyzing and evaluating the effects of change Developing benchmarks for best practice Communicating ﬁndings to interested parties Most ergonomists will work somewhere between the poles of scientist and practitioner, varying the emphasis of their approach depending upon the problems that they face. Human factors and ergonomist methods are useful in the scientist-practitioner model because of the structure, and the potential for repeatability, that they offer. There is an implicit guarantee in the use of methods that, provided they are © 2005 by CRC Press LLC TF1539_book.fm Page 3 Wednesday, July 28, 2004 10:36 AM Human Factors and Ergonomics Methods 1-3 used properly, they will produce certain types of useful products. It has been suggested that human factors and ergonomist methods are a route to making the discipline accessible to all (Diaper, 1989; Wilson, 1995). Despite the rigor offered by methods, however, there is still plenty of scope for the role of experience. Stanton and Annett (2000) summarized the most frequently asked questions raised by users of ergonomics methods as follows: How deep should the analysis be? Which methods of data collection should be used? How should the analysis be presented? Where is the use of the method appropriate? How much time and effort does each method require? How much and what type of expertise is needed to use the method? What tools are there to support the use of the method? How reliable and valid is the method? It is hoped that the contributions to this book will help answer some of those questions. 1.2 Layout of the Handbook The handbook is divided into six sections, each section representing a specialized ﬁeld of ergonomics with a representative selection of associated methods. The sequence of the sections and a brief description of their contents are presented in Table 1.2. The six sections are intended to represent all facets of human factors and ergonomics in systems analysis, design, and evaluation. Three of the methods sections (Sections I through III) are concerned with the individual person and his or her interaction with the world (i.e., physical methods, psychophysiological methods, and behavioral–cognitive methods). One of the methods sections (Section IV) is concerned with the social groupings and their interaction with the world (i.e., team methods). Another of the methods sections (Section V) is concerned with the effect TABLE 1.2 Description of the Contents of the Six Methods Sections of the Handbook Methods Sections in Handbook Brief Description of Contents Section I: Physical Methods This section deals with the analysis and evaluation of musculoskeletal factors The topics include: measurement of discomfort, observation of posture, analysis of workplace risks, measurement of work effort and fatigue, assessing lower back disorder, and predicting upper-extremity injury risks Section II: Psychophysiological This section deals with the analysis and evaluation of human psychophysiology Methods The topics include: heart rate and heart rate variability, event-related potentials, galvanic skin response, blood pressure, respiration rate, eyelid movements, and muscle activity Section III: Behavioral–Cognitive This section deals with the analysis and evaluation of people, events, artifacts, and Methods tasks The topics include: observation and interviews, cognitive task analysis methods, human error prediction, workload analysis and prediction, and situational awareness Section IV: Team Methods This section deals with the analysis and evaluation of teams The topics include: team training and assessment requirements, team building, team assessment, team communication, team cognition, team decision making, and team task analysis Section V: Environmental Methods This section deals with the analysis and evaluation of environmental factors The topics include: thermal conditions, indoor air quality, indoor lighting, noise and acoustic measures, vibration exposure, and habitability Section VI: Macroergonomics This section deals with the analysis and evaluation of work systems Methods The topics include: organizational and behavioral research methods, manufacturing work systems, anthropotechnology, evaluations of work system intervention, and analysis of the structure and processes of work systems © 2005 by CRC Press LLC TF1539_book.fm Page 4 Wednesday, July 28, 2004 10:36 AM 1-4 Handbook of Human Factors and Ergonomics Methods that the environment has on people (i.e., environmental methods). Finally, the last of the methods sections (Section VI) is concerned with the overview of work systems (i.e., macroergonomics methods). These sets of methods are framed by the classic onion-layer analysis model, working from the individual, to the team, to the environment, to the work system. In theoretical system terms, the level of analysis can be set at all four levels, or it may focus at only one or two levels. The system boundaries will depend upon the purpose of the analysis or evaluation. Each section of the handbook begins with an introduction written by the editor of that section. The introduction provides a brief overview of the ﬁeld along with a description of the methods covered in the sequence that they appear. The editor responsible for that section determined the contents of each section. Their brief was to provide a representative set of contemporary methods that they felt were useful for ergonomic analyses and evaluation. Given the restrictions on page length for the handbook, this was a tall order. Nonetheless, the ﬁnal set of chapters does present a good overview of contemporary devel- opments in ergonomics methods and serves as a useful handbook. Some of the methods in Section V, Environmental Methods, do not follow the template approach, especially in lighting and thermal meth- ods. This is because there is no single method that is favored or complete. Therefore, it would be very misleading to select any single method. Wilson (1995) divides ergonomics methods into ﬁve basic types of design data: 1. Methods for collecting data about people (e.g., collection of data on physical, physiological, and psychological capacities) 2. Methods used in system development (e.g., collection of data on current and proposed system design) 3. Methods to evaluate human–machine system performance (e.g., collection of data on quantitative and qualitative measures) 4. Methods to assess the demands and effects on people (e.g., collection of data on short-term and longer-term effects on the well-being of the person performing the tasks being analyzed) 5. Methods used in the development of an ergonomics management program (e.g., strategies for supporting, managing, and evaluating sustainable ergonomics interventions). These ﬁve basic types of design data have been put into a table to help in assessing their relationship with the six methods section in this book, as shown in Table 1.3. As Table 1.3 shows, the methods in this handbook cover all of the ﬁve basic types of design data. The darker shading represents a primary source of design data, and the lighter shading represents a secondary, or contributory, source of design data. TABLE 1.3 Mapping Wilson's Five Basic Types of Design Data onto the Method Sections in the Handbook Demand and Ergonomics Data about Systems Human–Machine Effects on Management People Development Performance People Programs Physical Psychophysiological Behavioral– Cognitive Team Environmental Macroergonomics © 2005 by CRC Press LLC TF1539_book.fm Page 5 Wednesday, July 28, 2004 10:36 AM Human Factors and Ergonomics Methods 1-5 1.3 Layout of Each Entry The layout of each chapter is standardized to assist the reader in using the handbook. This approach was taken so that the reader would easily be able to locate the relevant information about the method. All of the information is given in a fairly brief form, and the reader is encouraged to consult other texts and papers for more background research on the methods and more case examples of application of the methods. The standard layout is described in Table 1.4. The standardized approach should support quick reference to any particular method and encourage the readers to browse through potential methods before tackling the particular problem that they face. It is certainly the intention of this text to encourage the use of ergonomics methods, provided that suitable support and mentoring is in place to ensure that the methods are used properly. 1.4 Other Methods Books The number of methods books continues to grow, making it impossible to keep up with every text and to choose or recommend a single method book for all purposes. The best advice is to select two or three that meet most of your needs, unless you can afford to stock a comprehensive library. There tend to be four types of methods books. The ﬁrst type is the specialized and single authored, such as Hierarchical Task Analysis (Shepherd, 2001). The second type of book is specialized and edited, such as Task Analysis (Annett and Stanton, 2000). The third type of book is generalized and edited, such as Evaluation of Human Work (Wilson and Corlett, 1995). The fourth kind of book is generalized and authored, such as A Guide to Methodology in Ergonomics (Stanton and Young, 1999). This classiﬁcation in presented in Table 1.5. TABLE 1.4 Layout of the Chapters in the Handbook Section Chapter Description of Contents Name and acronym Name of the method and its associated acronym Author name and afﬁliation Names and afﬁliations of the authors Background and applications Introduces the method, its origins and development, and applications Procedure and advice Describes the procedure for applying the method and general points of expert advice Advantages A list or description of the advantages associated with using the method Disadvantages A list or description of the disadvantages associated with using the method Example Provides one or more examples of the application to show the output of the method Related methods Lists any closely related methods, particularly if the input comes from another method or the method's output feeds into another method Standards and regulations Lists any national or international standards or regulations that have implications for the use of the method Approximate training and Provides estimates of the training and application times to give the reader an idea of application times the commitment Reliability and validity Cites any evidence on the reliability or validity of the method Tools needed A description of the tools, devices, and software needed to carry out the method References A bibliographic list of recommended further reading on the method and the surrounding topic area TABLE 1.5 Methods Books Taxonomy Specialized Generalized Authored Hierarchical Task Analysis A Guide to Methodology in Ergonomics by Andrew Shepherd by Neville Stanton and Mark Young Edited Task Analysis Evaluation of Human Work by John Annett and Neville Stanton by John Wilson and Nigel Corlett © 2005 by CRC Press LLC TF1539_book.fm Page 6 Wednesday, July 28, 2004 10:36 AM 1-6 Handbook of Human Factors and Ergonomics Methods TABLE 1.6 Overview of Other Methods Books Author(s) Title Edited/Authored Date (ed.) Pages Coverage a Annett and Task Analysis Edited 2000 242 B/C, T Stanton (1st) Corlett and The Ergonomics of Workspace and Edited 1995 128 P, B/C Clarke Machines (2nd) Diaper and Task Analysis in Human–Computer Edited 2004 760 B/C, T Stanton Interaction (1st) Helender et al. Handbook of Human–Computer Edited 1997 1582 P, B/C, T, M Interaction (2nd) Jacko and Sears The Human–Computer Interaction Edited 2003 1277 P, B/C, T, M Handbook (1st) Jordan et al. Usability Evaluation in Industry Edited 1996 252 P, B/C (1st) Karwowski and The Occupational Ergonomics Edited 1999 2065 P, PP, B/C, T, E, M Marras Handbook (1st) Kirwan A Guide to Practical Human Authored 1994 592 B/C Reliability Assessment (1st) Kirwan and A Guide to Task Analysis Edited 1992 417 B/C Ainsworth (1st) Salvendy Handbook of Human Factors and Edited 1997 2137 P, PP, B/C, T, E, M Ergonomics (2nd) Schraagen et al. Cognitive Task Analysis Edited 1999 B/C (1st) Seamster et al. Applied Cognitive Task Analysis Authored 1997 338 B/C (1st) Shepherd Hierarchical Task Analysis Authored 2001 270 B/C (1st) Stanton Human Factors in Consumer Edited 1998 287 P, B/C Products (1st) Stanton and A Guide to Methodology in Authored 1999 150 B/C Young Ergonomics (1st) Wilson and Evaluation of Human Work Edited 1995 1134 P, PP, B/C, T, E, M Corlett (2nd) aKey to coverage: physical methods (P), psychophysiological methods (PP), behavioral and cognitive methods (B/C), team methods (T), environmental methods (E), macroergonomic methods (M). An analysis of 15 other methods books published over the past decade shows the range of edited and authored texts in this ﬁeld, the length of the books, and their coverage. Any of these books could complement this handbook. Where they differ is in their scope (e.g., either being focused on human–com- puter interaction or more generalized) and their coverage (e.g., either covering one or two areas of ergonomics or having more general coverage). A summary of the texts is presented in Table 1.6. As Table 1.6 indicates, there is certainly no shortage of ergonomics methods texts. Selection of the appropriate text will depend on the intended scope and coverage of the ergonomics intervention required. 1.5 Challenges for Human Factors and Ergonomics Methods Ergonomics science abounds with methods and models for analyzing tasks, designing work, predicting performance, collecting data on human performance and interaction with artifacts and the environment in which this interaction takes place. Despite the plethora of methods, there are several signiﬁcant challenges faced by the developers and users of ergonomics methods. These challenges include: Developing methods that integrate with other methods Linking methods with ergonomics theory Making methods easy to use © 2005 by CRC Press LLC TF1539_book.fm Page 7 Wednesday, July 28, 2004 10:36 AM Human Factors and Ergonomics Methods 1-7 Providing evidence of reliability and validity Showing that the methods lead to cost-effective interventions Encouraging ethical application of methods Annett (2002) questions the relative merits for construct and criterion-referenced validity in the devel- opment of ergonomics theory. He distinguishes between construct validity (how acceptable the underlying theory is), predictive validity (the usefulness and efﬁciency of the approach in predicting the behavior of an existing or future system), and reliability (the repeatability of the results). Investigating the matter further, Annett identiﬁes a dichotomy of ergonomics methods: analytical methods and evaluative methods. Annett argues that analytical methods (i.e., those methods that help the analyst gain an understanding of the mechanisms underlying the interaction between human and machines) require construct validity, whereas evaluative methods (i.e., those methods that estimate parameters of selected interactions between human and machines) require predictive validity. This distinction is made in Table 1.7. This presents an interesting debate for ergonomics: Are the methods really this mutually exclusive? Presumably, methods that have dual roles (i.e., both analytical and evaluative, such as task analysis for error identiﬁcation) must satisfy both criteria. It is possible for a method to satisfy three types of validity: construct (i.e., theoretical validity), content (i.e., face validity), and predictive (i.e., criterion-referenced empirical validity). The three types of validity represent three different stages in the design, development, and application of the methodology, as illustrated in Figure 1.1. There is also the question of reliability, and a method should be demonstrably stable over time and between people. Any differences in analyses should be due entirely to differences in the aspect of the world being assessed rather than differences in the assessors. Theoretical and criterion-referenced empirical validation should be an essential part of the method development and reporting process. This in turn should inform the method selection process. Stanton and Young (1999) have recommended a structured approach for selecting methods for ergonomic analysis, design, and evaluations. This has been adapted for more generic method selection and is presented in Figure 1.2. As shown in Figure 1.1, method selection is a closed-loop process with three feedback loops. The ﬁrst feedback loop validates the selection of the methods against the selection criteria. The second feedback loop validates the methods against the adequacy of the ergonomic intervention. The third feedback loop validates the initial criteria against the adequacy of the intervention. There could be errors in the development of the initial criteria, the selection of the methods, and the appropriateness of the inter- vention. Each should be checked. The main stages in the process are identiﬁed as: determine criteria (where the criteria for assessment are identiﬁed), compare methods against criteria (where the pool of methods are compared for their suitability), application of methods (where the methods are applied), implementation of ergonomics intervention (where an ergonomics program is chosen and applied), and evaluation of the effectiveness of the intervention (where the assessment of change brought about by the intervention is assessed). TABLE 1.7 Annett's Dichotomy of Ergonomics Methods Analytic Evaluative Primary purpose Understand a system Measure a parameter Examples Task analysis, training needs analysis, etc. Measures of workload, usability, comfort, fatigue, etc. Construct validity Based on an acceptable model of the system and Construct is consistent with theory and how it performs other measures of parameter Predictive validity Provides answers to questions, e.g., structure of Predicts performance tasks Reliability Data collection conforms to an underlying model Results from independent samples agree Source: Adapted from Annett, J. (2002), Theor. Issues Ergonomics Sci., 3, 229–232. With permission. © 2005 by CRC Press LLC TF1539_book.fm Page 8 Wednesday, July 28, 2004 10:36 AM 1-8 Handbook of Human Factors and Ergonomics Methods Construct validity Theory or model of performance Content validity Methodology for prediction Predictive Prediction of validity performance Actual performance Validation of Validation of Validation of theory method prediction FIGURE 1.1 Validation of methods. (Adapted from Diaper, D. and Stanton, N.A. , The Handbook of Task Analysis for Human-Computer Interaction, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ. With permission.) Develop criteria for Assess pool of ergonomic analysis methods against criteria Validate selection process Validate Select and Validate assessment apply methods: criteria process Analyse output development Assessment of the Decide upon effectiveness of the ergonomics intervention intervention FIGURE 1.2 Validating the methods selection ergonomics intervention process. (Adapted from Stanton, N.A. and Young, M.S. , A Guide to Methodology in Ergonomics, Taylor & Francis, London. With permission.) The ultimate criteria determining the usefulness of ergonomics methods will be whether or not they help in analyzing tasks, designing work, predicting performance, collecting data on human performance and interaction with artifacts and the environment in which this interaction takes place. This requires that the twin issues of theoretical validity and predictive validity be addressed when developing and testing old and new methods. The approach taken in this handbook provides a benchmark on reporting on human factors and ergonomics methods. The information provided here is what all developers should ask of their own methods and, at the very least, all users of methods should demand of the developers. References Annett, J. (2002), A note on the validity and reliability of ergonomics methods, Theor. Issues Ergonomics Sci., 3, 229–232. Annett, J. and Stanton, N.A. (2000), Task Analysis, Taylor & Francis, London. © 2005 by CRC Press LLC TF1539_book.fm Page 9 Wednesday, July 28, 2004 10:36 AM Human Factors and Ergonomics Methods 1-9 Baber, C. and Mirza, M.G. (1988), Ergonomics and the evaluation of consumer products: surveys of evaluation practices, in Human Factors in Consumer Product Design, Stanton, N.A., Ed., Taylor & Francis, London. Corlett, E.N. and Clarke, T.S. (1995), The Ergonomics of Workspaces and Machines, 2nd ed., Taylor & Francis, London. Dempsey, P.G., Wolgalter, M.S., and Hancock, P.A. (2000), What’s in a name? Using terms from deﬁnitions to examine the fundamental foundation of human factors and ergonomics science, Theor. Issues Ergonomics Sci., 1, 3–10. Diaper, D. (1989), Task Analysis in Human Computer Interaction, Ellis Horwood, Chichester, U.K. Diaper, D. and Stanton, N.A. (2004), The Handbook of Task Analysis for Human-Computer Interaction, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ. Diaper, D. and Stanton, N.A. (2004), Wishing on a star: the future of task analysis, in The Handbook of Task Analysis for Human-Computer Interaction, Diaper, D. and Stanton, N.A., Eds., Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 603–619. Grandjean, E. (1980), Fitting the Task to the Man, Taylor & Francis, London. Hancock, P.A. (1997), Essays on the Future of Human-Machine Systems, Banta, Minneapolis, MN. Hancock, P.A. and Diaz, D.D. (2002), Ergonomics as a foundation for a science of purpose, Theor. Issues Ergonomics Sci., 3 (2), 115–123. Helender, M.G., Landauer, T.K., and Prabhu, P.V. (1997), Handbook of Human-Computer Interaction, 2nd ed., Elsevier, Amsterdam. Jacko, J.A. and Sears, A. (2003), The Human-Computer Interaction Handbook, Lawrence Erlbaum Asso- ciates, Mahwah, NJ. Jordan, P.W., Thomas, B., Weerdmeester, B.A., and McClelland, I.L. (1996), Usability Evaluation in Industry, Taylor & Francis, London. Karwowski, W. and Marras, W.S. (1998), The Occupational Ergonomics Handbook, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL. Karwowski, W. (2001), International Encyclopedia of Ergonomics and Human Factors, Vols. I–III, Taylor & Francis, London. Kirwan, B. (1994), A Guide to Practical Human Reliability Assessment, Taylor & Francis, London. Kirwan, B. and Ainsworth, L. (1992), A Guide to Task Analysis, Taylor & Francis, London. Meister, D. (1989), Conceptual Aspects of Human Factors, Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD. Murrell, K.F.H. (1965), Human Performance in Industry, Reinhold Publishing, New York. Salvendy, G. (1997), Handbook of Human Factors and Ergonomics, 2nd ed., Wiley, New York. Sanders, M.S. and McCormick, E.J. (1993), Human Factors Engineering and Design, McGraw-Hill, New York. Schraagen, J.M., Chipman, S., and Shalin, V. (1999), Cognitive Task Analysis, Lawrence Erlbaum Associ- ates, Mahwah, NJ. Seamster, T.L., Redding, R.E., and Kaempf, G.L. (1997), Applied Cognitive Task Analysis in Aviation, Avebury, Aldershot, U.K. Shepherd, A. (2001), Hierarchical Task Analysis, Taylor & Francis, London. Stanton, N.A. (1998), Human Factors in Consumer Product Design, Taylor & Francis, London. Stanton, N.A. and Young, M. (1998), Is utility in the mind of the beholder? A review of ergonomics methods, Appl. Ergonomics, 29, 41–54. Stanton, N.A. and Annett, J. (2000), Future directions for task analysis, in Task Analysis, Annett, J. and Stanton, N.A., Eds., Taylor & Francis, London, pp. 229–234. Stanton, N.A. and Young, M.S. (1999), A Guide to Methodology in Ergonomics, Taylor & Francis, London. Wilson, J.R. (1995), A framework and context for ergonomics methodology, in Evaluation of Human Work, 2nd ed., Wilson, J.R. and Corlett, E.N., Eds., Taylor & Francis, London, pp. 1–39. Wilson, J.R. and Corlett, E.N. (1995), Evaluation of Human Work, 2nd ed., Taylor & Francis, London. © 2005 by CRC Press LLC TF1539_book.fm Page 11 Wednesday, July 28, 2004 10:36 AM Physical Methods © 2005 by CRC Press LLC TF1539_book.fm Page 1 Wednesday, July 28, 2004 10:36 AM 2 Physical Methods Alan Hedge Cornell University References..................................................................................... 2-6 The use of physical methods to assess how work is being performed is crucial to the work of many ergonomists. The physical methods included in this section can be used to obtain essential surveillance data for the management of injury risks in the workforce. It is generally accepted that many musculosk- eletal injuries begin with the worker experiencing discomfort. If ignored, the risk factors responsible for the discomfort eventually will lead to an increase in the severity of symptoms, and what began as mild discomfort will gradually become more intense and will be experienced as aches and pains. If left unchecked, the aches and pains that signal some cumulative trauma eventually may result in an actual musculoskeletal injury, such as tendonitis, tenosynovitis, or serious nerve-compression injury like carpal tunnel syndrome. Sensations of discomfort are the body’s early warning signs that some attribute of the worker’s job should be changed. Discomfort will also adversely affect work performance, either by decreasing the quantity of work, decreasing the quality of work through increased error rates, or both. Reducing the levels of discomfort actually decreases the risk of an injury occurring. Consequently, changes in levels of discomfort can also be used to gauge the success of the design of an ergonomic product or the implementation of an ergonomic program intervention. Three methods are presented (Chapters 3 through 5) that can be used to assess levels of musculoskeletal discomfort among workers. These methods all use self-report surveys to quantify discomfort, because discomfort cannot be directly observed or objectively measured. The methods in this section are repre- sentative of the range of methods available to the ergonomist. The section does not present a compre- hensive set of all available methods for assessing discomfort. Other methods are available, and several of these are referenced in the chapters included in this section. The three chosen methods presented here are PLIBEL, the U.S. National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) discomfort surveys, and the Dutch Musculoskeletal Survey. The PLIBEL method is one of the earliest methods developed to gauge a worker’s degree of muscu- loskeletal discomfort. It comprises a checklist of items derived from a comprehensive review of the ergonomics literature. It allows workers to systematically assess workplace ergonomic hazards associated with ﬁve body regions by completing a simple checklist. An assessment can be made for a task or several tasks or for a complete job. PLIBEL results can serve as the basis for discussions on improvements to job design. PLIBEL is available in several languages. The NIOSH discomfort questionnaires have been extensively used in U.S. studies of ergonomic hazards. This self-report method allows the ergonomist to easily assess measures of musculoskeletal discomfort in numerous body regions, such as the intensity, frequency, and duration of discomfort. This chapter also gives a comprehensive list of NIOSH research reports. The Dutch Musculoskeletal Survey represents one of the most comprehensive and thoroughly validated survey measures of musculoskeletal discomfort. It exists in short and long forms, depending on the intent of its use. It comprises a collection of scales that deal with a broad range of workplace ergonomic hazards, and thus the ergonomist can selectively choose the relevant scales. Analytical software is also available for this survey, though only in Dutch at present. 2-1 © 2005 by CRC Press LLC TF1539_book.fm Page 2 Wednesday, July 28, 2004 10:36 AM 2-2 Handbook of Human Factors and Ergonomics Methods Other survey questionnaires are also available to researchers, such as the Cornell Musculoskeletal Discomfort Survey (Hedge et al., 1999); the Standardized Nordic Questionnaire (SNQ), which focuses on general body, low back, and neck/shoulder complaints (Kuorinka et al., 1987); and a more recent revision of this (Dickinson et al., 1992) called the Nordic Musculoskeletal Questionnaire (NMQ). These instruments can be self-administered or interview administered. Although self-reports of discomfort provide valuable information to the ergonomist, they are intrusive and they do require some effort on the part of the worker to answer the various questions, and this may be disrupting to work activities. There is considerable value in using unobtrusive methods to gauge injury risks. Consequently, several methods have been developed to systematically assess a worker’s posture while performing work. Posture is an observable reﬂection of musculoskeletal activity, and these methods all allow the ergonomist to assess risks by systematic observation alone. This means that ergonomic analyses can be performed on visual recordings of workplaces, such as videotapes or photographs. It is assumed that every body segment moves through a range of motion, termed the “neutral zone,” within which the anatomical stresses and strains are insufﬁcient to initiate an injury process. However, the further the worker makes excursions away from this neutral zone, the greater the injury risk, especially when such excursions are frequently repeated and/or sustained for extended periods. These postural observation methods also offer the advantage that they allow high-risk postures to be readily identiﬁed for corrective action, often even before the worker has been exposed for a sufﬁcient time to develop signiﬁcant musculoskeletal discomfort. Thus, when correctly used, posture targeting methods provide even earlier risk detection capabilities than do discomfort surveys. Four methods (Chapters 6 through 9) are presented that provide the ergonomist with an excellent arsenal of postural evaluation tools. The Quick Exposure Checklist has a high level of usability and sensitivity, and it allows for quick assessment of the exposure to risks for work-related musculoskeletal disorders. This method has the advantage that it can be used to analyze interactions between various workplace risks, even by relatively inexperienced raters. The RULA and REBA posture-targeting methods are probably the most well-known methods for rapid assessment of risks. The RULA method is well suited to analyzing sedentary work, such as computer work. The REBA method is ideal for rapid assessment of standing work. Both of these methods have been extensively used in ergonomic research studies and also in evaluating the impact of workplace design changes on body posture. The Strain Index is a more comprehensive method that speciﬁcally focuses on the risks of developing distal upper extremity musculoskeletal disorders, i.e., injuries of the elbow, forearm, wrist, and hand. All of these methods take little time to administer and can be used in a wide variety of work situations. The methods can be used to assess overall postural risks and/or those to speciﬁc body segments. Other similar posture-targeting methods, such as the Ovako Working Posture Analysis System (OWPAS) (Karhu et al., 1977) and the Portable Ergonomics Observation (PEO) method (Fransson-Hall et al., 1995), have not been included but can also be used. The OWPAS method involves direct observation and sampling of tasks using a whole-body posture-coding system to estimate injury risks. The PEO method records hand, neck, trunk, and knee postures and also evaluates manual handling activities, such as lifting. Real-time observations are directly entered into a computer. Ergonomists can use posture- targeting methods to measure the success of any ergonomic design changes to equipment or to the layout of a workplace, and the ability to quantify changes in likely injury risk can be a valuable aid to management decision making. With the advent of handheld personal digital assistants (PDAs), the ergonomist can easily carry an extensive ergonomics toolkit into any workplace and generate almost instant analyses and reports, as is shown in Chapter 10, which discusses the use of PDAs. The measurement of work effort and fatigue was one of the earliest challenges that ergonomists faced, and this challenge remains today. Although the performance of work in more-deviated postures invariably requires more muscular effort, which in turn may accelerate muscular fatigue, none of the methods used to assess discomfort or posture actually yields information on the degree of work effort or on the level © 2005 by CRC Press LLC TF1539_book.fm Page 3 Wednesday, July 28, 2004 10:36 AM Physical Methods 2-3 of accumulated fatigue that could amplify an injury risk. Two methods are included that quantify effort and fatigue. The Borg Ratings of Perceived Exertion scale (Chapter 11) provides a physiologically validated method for quantifying how much effort is involved in performing physical work. The Muscle Fatigue Assessment method (Chapter 12) characterizes discomfort and identiﬁes the ways that workers change their behavior in an attempt to cope with accumulated fatigue. Both methods are invaluable to the successful design of physical jobs so that neither the quantity nor quality of work performance will suffer over the course of a work shift, and so that the worker will not experience undue physical demands or fat

Handbook Of Human Factors And Ergonomics Methods PDF

Document Details

Tags

Related

Summary

Full Transcript

Upgrade to continue