Hammer Matthew Justin

UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI
Date: August 13, 2007

I, Matt Hammer,
hereby submit this work as part of the requirements for the degree of:
Master of Science
in:
Occupational Safety and Ergonomics

It is entitled:
Ergonomic Comparison of Keyboard and Touch

Screen Data Entry While Standing and Sitting
This work and its defense approved by:

Chair: Kermit G. Davis, PhD
Amit Bhattacharya, PhD
Ergonomic Comparison of Keyboard and Touch Screen Data Entry

While Standing and Sitting
A thesis submitted to the
Division of Research and Advanced Studies of the University of Cincinnati
In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF SCIENCE
in the College of Medicine, Department of Environmental Health,

Division of Environmental and Occupational Hygiene
2007
by
Matthew Justin Hammer
B.S., Western Kentucky University, 2005
Thesis Committee:
Kermit G. Davis, PhD, Chair
Amit Bhattacharya, PhD
ii
ABSTRACT
Data entry is a common practice in many facilities throughout the world. From an ergonomic
prospective, these jobs place employees at risk of musculoskeletal disorders due to prolonged
sitting, static postures, and highly repetitive motions. The studys objective was to evaluate the
differences between data entry tasks performed in both sitting and standing positions with
different work heights using a keyboard and a touch screen input device. Twenty subjects
performed multiple food order entries where postural analysis, error rate, self-reported regional
body discomfort, and usability data were measured. The results indicate that the angled touch
screen produced less ergonomic stress and body discomfort as compared to traditional keyboard
and was the preferred input device. The proper position of the touch screen depended upon the
height of the work surfaceangled touch screen for the sitting condition and angled or
horizontal touch screen for the standing at high work surface height.
iii
iv
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to thank my advisor, Dr. Kermit Davis, for his help and guidance as an extremely
helpful mentor through this research project and writing of this thesis. I would also like to give a
special thanks to Susan Kotowski, a student of the Low Back Biomechanics & Workplace Stress
Lab at the University of Cincinnati whom was a vital contributor to this project. In addition, I
would like to thank committee member Dr. Amit Bhattacharya for his help throughout the
project. I am also grateful for fellow students Qiang Zheng and Balaji Sharma for their assistance
in the data collection and analysis. I would also like to mention that the support of my family,
friends, and girlfriend throughout this project and my years at the University of Cincinnati will
not be forgotten. Last but not least, I would like to acknowledge the ERC for funding my
scholarship while I was a student and also the Department of Environmental Health for funding
this research. Without the help and support of all these individuals, this research would not have
been possible.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION....1-4
2.0 MATERIALS AND METHODS...5-27
2.1 Subject Selection.5
2.2 Study Design..9
2.3 Procedure..13
2.4 Test Set-up....13
2.5 Ergonomic Postural Load...14
2.6 Quantification of Body Discomfort..25
2.7 Quantification of Usability.25
2.8 Error Rate...26
2.9 Statistical Analyses......26
3.0 RESULTS..28-51
3.1 Statistical Analyses Results: Analysis of Variance ...28
3.2 Joint Kinematics: Joint Angles, Angular Velocities, and Angular Accelerations...29
3.3 Body Discomfort .45
3.4 Error Rate.47
3.5 Usability Index.47
3.6 Rating of Preference51
4.0 DISCUSSION52-61
4.1 Limitations ..59
4.2 Future Work.60
vi
5.0 CONCLUSIONS..62-63
REFERENCES...64-65
APPENDICES66-68
Appendix 1.0 Current Symptom Survey (Body Discomfort)67
Appendix 2.0 User Satisfaction Survey / (IBM Usability Survey)....68
vii
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES
Table 1: Demographic & Anthropometric Data

Table 2: Description of Anthropometric & Workstation Measurements
Table 3: Description of Joint Angles & Distances
Table 4: Summary of the P-values for the ANOVA test for the Maximum Joint Angles
Table 5: Summary of the P-values for the ANOVA test for the Maximum Angular Velocities
Table 6: Summary of the P-values for the ANOVA test for the Maximum Accelerations
Table 7: Summary of the P-values for the ANOVA test for the Discomfort
Table 8: Summary of the P-values for the ANOVA test for the Error Rate, Usability Index, and
Perceived Ranking
Table 9: Summary of Kinematics
Table 10: Summary of Results
Figure 1 a-l: Pictures of Conditions and Acronym Descriptions
Figure 2 a-c: Front, Back, and Side Views of Marker Placement
Figure 3 a-d: Peak Motus Views of Sitting / Standing Combinations with Touch Screen /
Keyboard
Figure 4: Maximum Angles: Height Dependent for Lower Extremities
Figure 5: Maximum Angles: Height Dependent for Upper Extremities / Neck
Figure 6: Maximum Angles: Data Entry Device Dependent for Right and Left Hip
Figure 7: Maximum Angles: Data Entry Device Dependent for Right and Left Elbows, Right
Shoulder, and Neck
Figure 8: Maximum Angles: Height / Data Entry Device Dependent for Right Wrist
Figure 9: Maximum Angles: Height / Data Entry Device Dependent for Neck
Figure 10: Maximum Angles: Height / Gender Dependent for Left Knee
viii
Figure 11: Maximum Angles: Height / Gender Dependent for Left and Right Hip
Figure 12: Maximum Angles: Height / Gender Dependent for Left and Right Elbow
Figure 13: Maximum Angular Velocities: Height Dependent for Left and Right Knee and Hip,
Right Elbow
Figure 14: Maximum Angular Velocities: Data Entry Device Dependent (Numerous Body Parts)
Figure 15: Maximum Angular Velocities: Data Entry Device / Gender Dependent for Right Knee
Figure 16: Maximum Angular Velocities: Data Entry Device / Gender Dependent for Left Knee
Figure 17: Maximum Angular Velocities: Data Entry Device / Gender Dependent for Neck
Figure 18: Maximum Accelerations: Height Dependent for Right Knee and Right Hip
Figure 19: Maximum Accelerations: Data Entry Device Dependent for Right and Left Elbows
Figure 20: Maximum Accelerations: Data Entry Device Dependent for Right Hip, Left Shoulder,
and Neck
Figure 21: Maximum Accelerations: Data Entry Device / Gender Dependent for Right Elbow
Figure 22: Maximum Accelerations: Height / Gender Dependent for Right Hip
Figure 23: Maximum Accelerations: Height / Gender Dependent for Left Shoulder
Figure 24: Body Discomfort Rating for Upper and Lower Back
Figure 25: Body Discomfort Rating for Hand, Elbow, Shoulder, and Neck
Figure 26: Body Discomfort Rating for Leg, Knee, and Hip
Figure 27: Error Rate: (as a function of work surface height and type of input device)
Figure 28: Error Rate: (as a function of work surface height and type of order)
Figure 29: Usability Index (as a function of work surface height and type of input device)
Figure 30: Rank of Preference (as a function of work surface height and type of input device)
ix
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Data entry is a common practice in many facilities today, ranging from the manufacturing
industry entering the number of parts produced to the healthcare industry recording patients
data, to the restaurant industry entering food orders. In recent years, calls centers have increased
in popularity as the service sector has increased its prominence in the United States economy. In
fact, according to the North American Call Center Report of 2004 by McDaniel Executive
Recruiters, there are currently 50,600 call centers in the U.S. These call centers employ
approximately 2.86 million agent positions. However, this market will likely see a reduction in
size in the years to come due to self-service technologies, offshore outsourcing, and the effects of
the federal do-not-call list. Regardless of where these call centers are located, though, their
presence is well known and will continue to grow over the years to come. The nature of the work
in these call centers is short periods of data entry while listening to information provided over the
phone. Traditionally, call centers have been locations where calls are either placed or received in
high volume for various purposes, including sales, marketing, telemarketing, customer service, or
technical support (Alibaba website, 2007).
The traditional office data entry jobs have similar requirements with the employee sitting
at a computer and processing information for long periods of time. From an ergonomic
perspective, these types of jobs place employees at risk of musculoskeletal discomfort due to
prolonged sitting, static or near static postures, and highly repetitive motions (Brophy, 1996).
Low intensity exertions and static postures that are typically found during data entry office work
have been found to increase the rate of discomfort in the neck, shoulders, and upper extremities
(Jensen et al., 2002). Static postures have also been identified as a contributing factor for low
back disorders (NIOSH, 1997). With many potential ergonomic stressors and a large number of
1
workers typing in data on a keyboard, there is a need to investigate alternative data entry modes.
One potential input device option would be a touch screen. Touch screens have the ability to be
custom-designed so that entry buttons can be directly linked to specific types of data, which
would be optimal in food services and other retail industries. However, little is known about the
proper position of these screens with respect to ergonomic postural load. There are several
identified advantages of touch screens over traditional keyboard entry including: 1) Touching a
visual display of choices requires little thinking and is a form of direct manipulation that is easy
to learn, 2) Touch screens are the fastest pointing device, 3) Touch screens have easier hand-eye
coordination than mice or keyboards, 4) No extra workspace is required as with other pointing
devices, and 5) Touch screens are durable in public-access and in high-volume usage
(Shneiderman, 1991).
While it appears obvious that the angle of the touch screen would be dependent on the
anthropometric dimensions of the specific individual performing the data entry, past studies
have indicated that there is no specific optimal viewing angle for touch screens. However, in a
study conducted by Schultz and associates (1998), a recommended range of 30 to 55 from the
horizontal is given based on the fact that 92% of the subjects adjusted the display to an angle
within this range. It is also interesting to note that nearly half (46%) adjusted the angle between
44 and 49. While this recommended range is helpful in giving a rough estimation, the
research relied on the perceptions of the individuals rather than quantitative ergonomic
measurement. Furthermore, the proper angle of the touch screen may depend on the position of
the individual (sitting vs. standing) and the relative height of the screen to the individual (desk
at standing or sitting height).
Another key issue referred to above that is a major ergonomic risk factor for data entry
jobs is the prolonged sitting and postures. There have also been several studies that have
evaluated the effects of exercise breaks and work-rest regimens to reduce the effects of
prolonged postures during data entry tasks. Results concluded that micro breaks after short
periods of work may be a good option (Balci, 2004). However, it is unclear the proper
duration of these micro-breaks. A study by Henning et al. found that the average length of
breaks for data entry operators was about 27.4 seconds, which was based on the perception of
when they felt they were ready to continue data entry after the break. However, to date, there is
no absolute guideline regarding the break time required for adequate rest or recovery to take
place (McLean, et al., 2001). In lieu of this limited data for adequate breaks, another alternative
may be to introduce variable postures through altering between standing and sitting positions.
However, the proper position of the data entry device may be dependent on whether the
individual is in a sitting or standing position. The standing posture may also be compromised
by the position of the table. In other words, the proper position of the touch screen may depend
on whether the desk is at waist height (traditional desk height) or elbow height (standing
position).
Thus, this study investigated the ergonomic postural load (postures, accelerations, and
velocities) during data entry utilizing two different input devices: 1) keyboard and 2) touch
screen, which were positioned in three different positions. Further, the impact of standing
versus sitting on the postures and velocities adopted during data entry was also investigated.
It was hypothesized that the touch screen conditions would produce significantly greater
results in both postural load quantification and usability compared to the keyboard conditions.
In particular, the touch screen positioned at a 60 angle from the vertical would provide
3
optimal results in terms of postural load. By providing a sit-stand table and allowing the
subject to adjust the height of the work surface, it was expected that the results would prove
the benefit of these tables in each of the usability, current symptom, and postural load
categories. In addition to postural load, other important factors were also considered in the
evaluation of keyboards and touch screens. First, body discomfort provided an immediate
pain response to the postural demands. Discomfort may lead to increased error rates and
employee turnover (Jackson, 2006). Second, error rate is another important variable when
deciding the best data entry device and the proper position of that device. Therefore, a
comprehensive evaluation was undertaken to identify differences between keyboard and
touch screen data entry that quantified body postures, worker comfort, and performance.
2.0 MATERIALS AND METHODS

This cross-sectional study evaluated the differences in posture, discomfort, and error rates
between the keyboard and touch screen data entry. The impact of touch screen position was
evaluated by comparing three different positions: 1) vertical, 2) horizontal, and 3) 60o angled
position. In addition, the impact of standing was evaluated under two conditions: 1) standing
with desk height at traditional height (73.66 cm) and 2) standing height with elevated desk height
(dependent on subjects selection). A sit-stand table with a pneumatic lift function was used to
adjust the desk surface up and down, depending on the anthropometric data and desired position
of the subject.
2.1 Subject Selection:

Twenty subjects (10 male and 10 female) participated in the study. The subjects were recruited
using a flier that was posted in various places near the University of Cincinnati campus. In order
to be eligible to participate, subjects had to fall in the age range of 18-65 years old. All subjects
were required to sign a consent form approved by the University of Cincinnati Institutional
Review Board (Protocol # 06-09-27-01E). All the subjects were either students, staff members
employed at the university, or colleagues of other subjects with limited data entry experience.
For each subject, standard anthropometric measurements were used to quantify subject
dimensions using standard procedures (NASA 1024). A scale (Model # 7075 3903 V1584), a
GPM Anthropometer (SiberHegner & Co. Ltd), and a tape measure were used to collect various
measurements. Anthropometric and demographic data included: age, birth date, gender, body
weight, stature, shoulder height, elbow height, hip height, knee height, upper arm length, lower
arm length, torso length, upper leg length, and torso circumference. In addition to these
5
variables, table and chair height were measured using the Peak Motus Motion Capture System.
Reflective markers were placed on the side of the work surface and the back of the chair cushion.
These markers then provided accurate height measurements by capturing the distance between
the floor and these points. Table 1 provides a summary of the anthropometric and demographic
data. Table 2 provides descriptions of each anthropometric and workstation measurement.
Table 1: Demographic & Anthropometric Data

Male
Mean
25.1
S.D.
4.1
Age (years)
Female
Male
31.2
177.7
12.5
5.5
Height (cm)
Female
Male
164.9
190.4
7.9
32.5
Weight (lbs)
Female
Male
154.6
148.5
35.5
5.9
Shoulder Height (cm)
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
137.1
109.5
101.4
102.5
95.6
54.7
7.1
4.4
6.0
4.3
6.2
3.8
Female
Male
49.9
35.6
3.5
1.6
Female
Male
33.8
46.7
1.5
1.8
(cm)
Female
Male
43.3
48.2
1.4
1.9
Upper Leg Length (cm)
Female
Male
46.5
50.3
3.2
2.5
Torso Length (cm)
Female
Male
44.3
92.2
3.7
12.8
Female
83.2
17.6
Male
Female
Elbow Height (cm)

Hip Height (cm)
Knee Height (cm)
Upper Arm Length
(cm)
Lower Arm Length
Torso Circumference
(cm)
RIGHT HAND
DOMINANT
Type
Stature
Shoulder Height
Elbow Height

Description
Height of the subject while in a standing position, with shoulders back and arms at sides
Vertical distance from the floor to the superior aspect of the acromion.
Vertical distance from the floor to the posterior tip of the olecranon when the arm is
flexed to 90 degrees at the elbow and the shoulder is in normal position
Hip Height
Knee Height
Vertical distance from the floor to the innominate bone (hip bone)
Vertical distance from the foot-resting surface to the top of the knee cap, just above the
patella
Upper Arm Length
Vertical distance from the posterior tip of the olecranon to the superior aspect of the
acromion when the arm is flexed to 90 degrees at the elbow and the shoulder is in
normal position
Lower Arm Length
Horizontal distance from the posterior tip of the olecranon to the third metacarpal when
the arm is flexed to 90 degrees at the elbow and the fingers are extended
Torso Length
Vertical distance from the L5 vertebrae to the bump just above the C2 spinous process
Torso Circumference
Circumference of the individuals torso, measured at the abdomen section directly on

top of the navel
Upper Leg Length
Vertical distance from top of the knee cap, just above the patella, to the innominate
bone (hip)
Chair Height
Measured as the height from the floor to the chair cushion, depending on the subjects
preference
Measured as the height of the working surface of the sit-stand table, depending on the
Standing Surface Height subjects preference
2.2 Study Design:

The study was designed to evaluate twelve specific combinations of the keyboard or the touch
screen conditions. There were three independent variables: 1) input device (keyboard vs touch
screen), 2) position of touch screen (vertical, horizontal, and angled), and 3) working height
(sitting with desk at sitting height, standing with desk at sitting height, and standing with desk at
standing height). The sitting height desk height was 73.66 cm, a height commonly found in the
workplace and recommended in the literature (Brophy, 1996). The standing heights were user
selected, which were adjusted by a pneumatically adjustable sit-stand table. Standing heights
were measured and recorded for each subject for each task. In all, there were twelve conditions
completed by each subject. A counter balanced and randomized strategy was utilized to ensure
bias was minimized during testing. The three sit-stand conditions (sitting, standing with desk at
sitting height, and standing with desk at standing height) were counter-balanced with the input
device conditions (keyboard, vertical touch screen, horizontal touch screen, and angled touch
screen) being randomly completed within each sit-stand condition. A brief description and photo
of each condition can be found in Figure 1.
There were four specific dependent variables evaluated within this study: 1) postural load
and kinematics; 2) body discomfort; 3) usability data; and 4) error rate. Postural load was
quantified by using the Peak Motus Motion Capture System Version 8.1.4. The basic concept of
this system is using reflective markers to identify joint locations, which allow factors such as
joint angles, velocities, accelerations, and distances to be captured. Body discomfort data was
captured using a Body Discomfort / Current Symptom questionnaire that was given to the
subjects at the completion of each condition. This questionnaire allowed the subject to express if
any discomfort was experienced while performing the data entry tasks. It is broken down into
9
different body parts so the subject can be specific as to where the discomfort was. A second
questionnaire was administered throughout the duration of the study to capture usability data.
This questionnaire contained 18 questions that were targeted at determining how useful the
subject felt that the conditions were. Finally, the last dependent variable in this study was error
rate. This variable is important since the ultimate purpose was to compare keyboards and touch
screens. Error rate was captured by simply tracking the number of errors made during each trial
performed by the subject.
10
Figure 1: a-l
a
SKH
Standing, Keyboard, High
Surface
SKL
Standing, Keyboard, Low
Surface
SAH
Standing, Angled Screen, High
Surface
SAL
Standing, Angled Screen, Low
Surface
CAL
Chair, Angled Screen, Low
Surface
11
CKL
Chair, Keyboard, Low Surface
SVH
Standing, Vertical Screen, High
Surface
SVL
Standing, Vertical Screen, Low
Surface
CVL
Chair, Vertical Screen, Low
Surface
SHH
Standing, Horizontal Screen,
High Surface
SHL
Standing, Horizontal Screen,
Low Surface
CHL
Chair, Horizontal Screen, Low
Surface
12
2.3 Procedure:
After being enrolled into the study, each subject read and signed a consent form. Prior to
beginning the data collection, a full explanation of the study and specifics about the touch screen
and keyboard were given. When subjects were comfortable with the explanation, a short practice
session was completed utilizing both the keyboard and touch screen input devices. Under each
condition (both practice and actual), a list of orders was read, simulating the processing of a
phone order that required the subject to enter the information into the computer via keyboard or
touch screen. There was a predetermined script that was read out loud by a researcher (who was
sitting out of sight at the other end of the room). For this script, there were 18 different orders (6
easy, 6 moderate, 6 complex) created using various combinations of up to 41 different menu
items. The complexity of the orders was determined based on the number of items to be entered
(easy = 3 to 5 items, moderate = 6 to 10 items, and complex = 11 to 15 items). Specifically,
menu items were 18 different drinks, 4 different appetizers, 16 different main courses, and 3
different appetizers. The subject was required to enter six orders for each of the twelve
conditions, for a total data entry of 72 orders. To allow a comparison of postural movements
required to complete the order, the same six orders were given for each condition. Throughout
the data collection process among the twelve conditions, each order was randomized and
arranged in a new sequence to prevent the subject from memorizing what was to be entered. The
six orders entered consisted of: two easy, two moderate, and two complex.
2.4 Test Set-up:
The complete test set-up included 6 motion-capturing cameras, the adjustable sit/stand
table, the chair (with no back or arms), the keyboard, and the VDT computer monitor or the
touch screen. The cameras were part of the Peak Motus Motion Analysis system, where
13
reflective markers could be picked up to identify joint locations and calculate joint angles,
velocities, and distances. To aid in the identification of joint locations for postural analysis, each
subject was equipped with nineteen reflective markers placed on the anatomical joint locations
(left and right sides) at the base of the fifth metacarpal, the wrist, elbow, shoulder, hip, knee,
ankle, and temple, along with the base of the neck. One additional marker was placed on the
subjects left thigh to aid in the identification during the digitizing process. Figure 2: a-c
illustrates where these markers were placed on the subject. A video camera was also positioned
to capture each trial for every subject. These videos were later converted to Windows Media files
and reviewed to give length of trials, postures assumed, and errors made. The overall data
collection time for each subject lasted about 3.5 hours, depending on the speed of data entry and
the number of mistakes made. Each trial time ranged anywhere from 20 seconds to 80 seconds,
again depending on the complexity of the order and the speed of the entry.
2.5 Ergonomic Postural Load Quantification:

The whole body postures and velocities were captured by the Peak Motus Motion
Measuring System. The system utilizes video capturing capabilities through the use of reflective
markers located at bony landmarks that designate specific joints of interest. The joint angles are
then calculated by the Motus software that locates the motion segments via reflective markers.
The Peak Motus System has standard data reduction algorithms for editing, filtering, and
calculating linear and angular displacements, velocities, and accelerations, which was utilized to
calculate joint angles and velocities.
In this particular study, three templates were created: sitting, standing, and calibration
templates. These templates were created to assign proper labels to the reflective markers that
14
would be picked up by the cameras. Also, the templates were designed to identify and determine
certain path segments throughout the trial. The segments identified included standard joint
connections (ankle to knee, knee to hip, hip to shoulder, shoulder to elbow, elbow to wrist, and
wrist to 5th metacarpal) on both sides of the body. Also, specialized segments of interest included
monitor distance (forehead to monitor) and keyboard distance (left hip to keyboard). Sitting
templates were used for the four conditions on which the subject was required to sit, and the
remaining eight conditions were captured using the standing templates. Before data collection
began each day, the Peak Motus Motion Analysis System was calibrated to ensure that the
cameras were capturing the correct volume and that all markers would be seen. This calibration
was done by flipping through all six cameras and eliminating any unwanted reflections. The
volume was then assured by waving a reflective wand in the area to be captured and ensuring
that the standard deviation was below 0.002. Thus, the video capturing system provided accurate
estimations of the joint angles and velocities.
Using the results captured from the Peak Motus Motion Capture System, each trial was
then reviewed using digitizing software in which the reflective markers could be connected to
form segments and a stick figure which identified the subjects body. Figure 3 a-d shows what
the stick figure looks like after all markers have been identified and segments have been
connected. The trials were completely reviewed to ensure all markers were present during the
entire active trial. Once the trials were digitized and all segments were formed to create the stick
figure, the next step was to use the Peak Motus system to calculate joint angles, velocities, and
appropriate distances. The significant joint angles that were of interest included the angle of the
upper and lower arms, the wrists, trunk, and neck. Additional measures about the workstationsubject interaction was also collected and included: 1) chair height, 2) standing surface height, 3)
15
distance between the subjects forehead and the monitor, and 4) distance between the subjects
hip and the keyboard. By knowing these distances, it was possible to review how the different
conditions required different workstation-person interactions. Table 3 provides a description of
how these joint angles and distances were measured.
16
Figure 2:
a.) Front View
Forehead
Left Temple
Right Temple
Left Shoulder
Right Shoulder
Left Elbow
Right Elbow
Left Hip
Right Hip
Right Wrist
Left Wrist
Left Thigh
Right Knee
Left Knee
Right Ankle
17
Left Ankle
b.) Back View
Neck
Right Shoulder
Left Shoulder
Right Elbow
Left Elbow
Left Hip
Right Hip
Right Wrist
Left Wrist
Right
5th
Metacarpal
Left 5th
Metacarpal
Left Knee
Right Knee
Left Ankle
Right
Ankle
18
c.) Side View
Forehead
Left Temple
Left Shoulder
Left Elbow
Left Hip
Left Wrist
Left 5th Metacarpal
Left Thigh
Left Knee
Left Ankle
19
Figure 3:
a.) Sitting with a touch screen
20
b.) Sitting with a keyboard
21
c.) Standing with a touch screen
22
d.) Standing with a keyboard
23
Table 3: Description of Joint Angles and Distances
Table 3: Description of Joint Angles & Distances Measured Using Peak Motus
Right & Left
Shoulder
Measured as the angle between the hip and the elbow markers
Right & Left Elbow Measured as the angle between the shoulder and the wrist markers
Right and Left Wrist Measured as the angle between the elbow and the 5th metacarpal markers
Right and Left Hip Measured as the angle between the knee and the shoulder markers
Right and Left Knee Measured as the angle between the ankle and the hip markers
Neck Flexion
Monitor Distance
Measured as the angle between the shoulder and the temple markers
Measured as the distance between the forehead and the computer monitor markers
Measured as the distance between the left hip and the keyboard markers (to give
Keyboard Distance distance of subjects body from the data entry device)
Chair Height
Measured as the vertical distance from the floor to the marker on the chair cushion
Table Height
Measured as the vertical distance from the floor to the marker on the side of the
worksurface
24
2.6 Quantification of Body Discomfort:

To assess the discomfort levels of subjects throughout the study, a Body Discomfort
Survey was utilized to provide subjective data and opinions of the subjects. By having the
subject complete this survey after each condition, discomfort levels could be quantified and
compared between conditions. The Body Discomfort Survey (Appendix 1) assessed the current
pain levels in nine different body regions including the neck, shoulder, elbow, hand / wrist, upper
back, low back, hip, knee, and lower leg / foot.
Immediately after completing a specific
condition, subjects circled the appropriate pain level on a 0 to 10 Likert scale, with 0 being no
pain, and 10 being most severe pain imaginable. Usability data was also collected and considered
as secondary variables. This data represented an outcome variable of overall user satisfaction
with the condition being completed (considering all independent variables (input device, working
surface height, and position of touch screen)).
2.7 Quantification of Usability:
As mentioned above, a questionnaire was also used to capture usability data. The
Usability Survey (Appendix 2), which was adapted from the IBM Usability Survey, asks
eighteen questions about the subjects opinion of the current workstation. The content of the
questions basically refers to the workstation, the data entry device, screen layout, and overall
ease of use. Responses for this survey range from 1-7, with 1 being strongly disagree and 7
being strongly agree. This survey served as an effective tool in representing the subjects
overall satisfaction level with the condition.
Both the Body Discomfort Survey and the Usability Survey were administered after
every condition (total of 12 times). Once all 12 conditions were completed, the conditions were
25
then reviewed with the subject and they were asked to rank them in order of overall preference.
Refer to the results section and Figure 8 to review more on the rank of preferences collected.
2.8 Error Rate:
As mentioned above, it was also important to compare the touch screen and the keyboard
by the error rates throughout the study. By collecting the amount of errors made and during
which condition the errors occurred, it was possible to evaluate the results to look for trends of
errors. During each of the four keyboard conditions, error rates were captured by verifying that
the order in which the menu items were read was input in that exact order. This was done by
programming the Excel file being used to only show the menu items in a specific column if in
fact the subject had input the items in the correct manner. At the completion of each condition,
the researcher would view the screen to check for errors. On the other hand, during each of the
eight touch screen conditions, the researcher could determine if errors were made by assuring
that what the subject announced as the total amount due actually matched what the correct
amount was. If an error was to be made during any of these trials, the subject was required to
repeat the trial. If an error was made on the second try, that particular trial was skipped and then
repeated at the end of that condition. Also, to save time during the data collection, subjects were
instructed to admit their errors right away if they knew they had made a mistake.
2.9 Statistical Analyses:

Microsoft Excel statistical formulas were used to calculate descriptive statistics such as
the mean and standard deviations of all the questionnaires, errors, rankings, and anthropometric
data. Paired t-tests were performed to determine if group characteristics differed by gender.
Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was conducted using the Statistical Analysis Software (SAS)
26
program to determine if the results for the symptom surveys, usability questionnaires, errors and
rankings differed by group. Post-hoc Tukey tests were conducted on significant results. For the
Motus motion analysis data (joint positions, velocities, and accelerations), a database was
compiled containing the maximum and average values and the standard deviations for each trial
along with the trial details (subject, gender, height of desk, data entry device, and task
complexity). Using SAS, the next step was to determine which groups were statistically different
from each other using a repeated measures split-plot ANOVA at a 95% confidence level. The
final step was to perform post-hoc Tukeys tests to determine which specific variables differed
from each other.
27
3.0 RESULTS
3.1 Statistical Analyses Results: Analysis of Variance:
3.1.a. Joint Kinematics:
The results of the Analyses of Variance indicated several significant effects for the joint
angle, angular velocity, and angular accelerations for many of the body joints that were
monitored (See Tables 1 to 3). As expected, the work surface height had a significant impact on
the joint angles and angular velocities of the majority of the joints (except for left wrist for
posture and right and left shoulders, right and left wrists, and left elbow for velocity). The
angular accelerations were significantly impacted by the work surface height for right and left
knees. The type of input device also had significant impact on the joint angle for the right and
left hip, right and left shoulder, right and left elbow, right wrist, and neck as well as angular
velocity for the right knee, right hip, right and left shoulders, right and left elbow, and neck. The
type of input device also had some impact on the angular accelerations for the left knee, left hip,
right and left elbow, and neck. Gender was only found to be significant for the joint angle for
left knee and left hip. The complexity of the data entry task was found not to impact any of the
joint kinematics.
There were several significant interactions for the joint kinematics. Many of the
significant interactions were found for the joint angles (Table 1). The type of input device by
work surface height interaction was significant for all joint angles except left wrist but was only
significant for right knee, right and left shoulder, and right elbow for angular velocity and right
hip for angular acceleration. The gender by type of input device interaction was also an effect
found to be significant for multiple joint angles (e.g. left knee, right and left hip, right and left
elbow, and right wrist) and some velocities and accelerations (e.g. right and left knee and neck
28
for velocity, left hip for acceleration). The work surface height by gender interaction was also
found to be significant for several kinematic variables: right and left hip and right elbow for joint
angle, right knee, right and left shoulder for angular velocity, and left knee and right elbow for
angular acceleration. One variable (left shoulder joint angle) had a significant effect for the work
surface height by task interaction. Finally there were three significant three-way interactions, all
for the works surface height by type of input device by gender interaction. However, upon visual
inspection the interaction was not meaningful so those results will not be discussed.
3.1.b. Body Discomfort, Error Rate, Usability Index, and Perceived Ranking of Preference:
The results of the ANOVA for discomfort in the different body regions are shown in
Table 4. The condition effect, which is the combination of type of input device and work surface
height, was found to be significant for discomfort in all body regions. There was only one
significant interaction for condition and gender, which was for lower back discomfort.
Table 5 shows the results of the ANOVA analyses for error rate, usability index, and
ranking. For all three of the dependent variables, the effect of condition was significant at
p<0.05. No interaction between gender and condition was found for the error rate, usability
index, or ranking.
3.2. Joint Kinematics: Joint Angles, Angular Velocities, and Angular Accelerations:
3.2.a. Joint Angles:
While there were several joints that had significant differences among the different
effects, caution must be stressed about the interpretation of the actual angles. One has to keep in
mind that a larger angle does not always mean there is more risk. There are several examples of
this where a joint may be bent around 90 (e.g. knee or elbow) and straight when close to 180
(e.g. knee when standing or elbow).
29
Table 4: Summary of the P-values for the Analysis of Variance test for the maximum joint angles for each body region: right
and left knee, right and left hip, right and left shoulder, right and left elbow, right and left wrist, and neck.
Joint Angles
Gender (GNDR)
Work Surface Height (HGHT)
Type of Input Device (DEVICE)
Task Complexity (TASK)
HGHT*GNDR
DEVICE*GNDR
TASK*GNDR
HGHT*DEVICE
HGHT*TASK
DEVICE*TASK
HGHT*DEVICE*GNDR
HGHT*TASK*GNDR
DEVICE*TASK*GNDR
HGHT*DEVICE*TASK
HGHT*DEVICE*TASK*GNDR
RKNEE
0.26
<.0001
0.20
0.87
0.38
0.60
0.87
0.0002
0.45
0.76
0.91
0.87
0.49
0.87
0.96
LKNEE
0.03
<.0001
0.11
0.75
0.01
0.68
0.93
<.0001
0.76
0.60
0.52
0.95
0.57
0.94
0.88
RHIP
0.07
<.0001
<.0001
0.52
<.0001
0.003
0.92
<.0001
0.14
0.85
0.02
0.45
0.97
0.92
0.94
LHIP
0.01
<.0001
<.0001
0.45
<.0001
0.004
0.72
<.0001
0.25
0.98
0.08
0.79
0.84
0.64
0.98
RSHLDR
0.63
<.0001
<.0001
0.16
0.07
0.07
0.29
<.0001
0.88
0.38
0.14
0.85
0.81
0.53
0.95
LSHLDR
0.81
<.0001
<.0001
0.96
0.92
0.39
0.72
<.0001
0.02
0.07
0.01
0.93
0.30
0.87
0.95
RELBOW
0.24
<.0001
<.0001
0.35
<.0001
0.01
0.79
0.0002
0.75
0.90
0.63
0.66
0.82
0.77
0.98
LELBOW
0.61
<.0001
<.0001
0.41
<.0001
0.21
0.97
0.04
0.90
0.30
0.66
0.69
0.67
1.00
0.97
RWRIST
0.09
0.04
0.02
0.91
0.04
0.86
0.43
0.0004
0.53
0.76
0.05
0.32
0.89
0.83
0.97
LWRIST
0.65
0.41
0.09
0.89
0.26
0.12
0.17
0.99
0.36
0.52
0.33
0.75
0.69
0.95
0.98
NECK
0.48
<.0001
<.0001
0.10
0.08
0.88
0.83
0.0001
0.72
0.64
0.64
0.64
0.76
0.95
0.99
Table 5: Summary of the P-values for the Analysis of Variance test for the maximum angular velocities for each body region:
right and left knee, right and left hip, right and left shoulder, right and left elbow, right and left wrist, and neck.
Angular Velocities
Gender (GNDR)
HGHT*GNDR
DEVICE*GNDR
TASK*GNDR
HGHT*DEVICE
HGHT*TASK
DEVICE*TASK
HGHT*DEVICE*GNDR
HGHT*TASK*GNDR
DEVICE*TASK*GNDR
HGHT*DEVICE*TASK
RKNEE
0.15
<.0001
0.001
0.96
0.03
0.03
0.37
0.002
0.36
0.51
0.09
0.92
0.99
0.03
0.40
LKNEE
0.24
<.0001
0.26
0.37
0.18
0.03
0.67
0.07
0.71
0.39
0.07
0.92
0.34
0.54
0.98
RHIP
0.22
<.0001
0.05
0.62
0.76
0.10
0.52
0.33
0.54
0.16
0.91
0.60
0.64
0.38
0.62
LHIP
0.42
0.0002
0.50
0.28
0.06
0.33
0.55
0.15
0.36
0.31
0.27
0.47
0.63
0.60
0.89
RSHLDR
0.17
0.76
<.0001
0.42
0.04
0.51
0.13
<.0001
0.99
0.35
0.08
0.94
0.53
0.21
0.55
30
LSHLDR
0.19
0.39
0.0001
0.31
0.01
0.11
0.83
0.01
0.29
0.25
0.16
0.47
0.95
0.63
0.93
RELBOW
0.15
0.02
0.01
0.69
0.91
0.42
0.25
0.05
0.52
0.73
0.79
0.99
0.30
0.61
0.57
LELBOW
0.71
0.08
<.0001
0.52
0.42
0.22
0.73
0.65
0.43
0.78
0.06
0.38
0.83
0.95
0.83
RWRIST
0.06
0.39
0.13
0.93
0.75
0.92
0.43
0.37
0.60
0.77
0.93
0.38
0.37
0.92
0.60
LWRIST
0.82
0.14
0.18
0.38
0.55
0.32
0.40
0.78
0.83
0.91
0.70
0.39
0.72
0.77
0.84
NECK
0.93
0.30
0.001
0.83
0.29
0.05
0.75
0.20
0.55
0.82
0.45
0.70
0.39
0.59
0.51
Table 6: Summary of the P-values for the Analysis of Variance test for the maximum accelerations for each body region: right
and left knee, right and left hip, right and left shoulder, right and left elbow, right and left wrist, and neck.
Accelerations
Gender (GNDR)
HGHT*GNDR
DEVICE*GNDR
TASK*GNDR
HGHT*DEVICE
HGHT*TASK
DEVICE*TASK
HGHT*DEVICE*GNDR
HGHT*TASK*GNDR
DEVICE*TASK*GNDR
HGHT*DEVICE*TASK
RKNEE
0.07
<.0001
0.36
0.44
0.60
0.43
0.27
0.07
0.07
0.59
0.09
0.96
0.99
0.10
0.49
LKNEE
0.37
<.0001
0.01
0.12
0.05
0.76
0.18
0.02
0.53
0.06
0.35
0.41
0.96
0.19
0.37
RHIP
0.90
0.18
0.17
0.26
0.46
0.20
0.15
0.48
0.28
0.13
0.13
0.38
0.46
0.12
0.19
LHIP
0.28
0.12
0.01
0.78
0.95
0.02
0.80
0.06
0.68
0.91
0.53
0.45
0.61
0.99
0.81
RSHLDR
0.89
0.91
0.48
0.40
0.40
0.33
0.60
0.39
0.61
0.51
0.55
0.70
0.44
0.75
0.84
LSHLDR
0.55
0.94
0.49
0.41
0.57
0.35
0.39
0.53
0.61
0.61
0.51
0.64
0.59
0.70
0.77
RELBOW
0.12
0.54
0.01
0.15
0.05
0.12
0.16
0.005
0.92
0.81
0.08
0.32
0.55
0.10
0.78
LELBOW
0.62
0.87
0.0001
0.10
0.42
0.90
0.74
0.39
0.78
0.17
0.68
0.70
0.55
0.49
0.94
RWRIST
0.25
0.50
0.71
0.62
0.50
0.74
0.70
0.94
0.71
0.80
0.93
0.79
0.88
0.97
0.99
LWRIST
0.66
0.36
0.65
0.49
0.40
0.55
0.48
0.73
0.51
0.20
0.60
0.59
0.19
0.45
0.10
NECK
0.89
0.55
0.0003
0.64
0.72
0.36
0.91
0.78
0.67
0.42
0.23
0.87
0.31
0.96
0.98
Table 7: Summary of the P-values for the Analysis of Variance test for the discomfort: knee, hips, shoulders, elbows, wrists,
neck, lower back, and upper back.
Accelerations
Gender (GNDR)
Condition (COND)
GNDR*COND
Knees
0.68
<.0001
0.47
Hips
0.39
<.0001
0.21
Shoulders
0.80
<.0001
0.34
Elbows
0.34
<.0001
0.23
Wrists
0.89
0.03
0.32
Neck
0.84
<.0001
0.06
Upper
Back
0.95
<.0001
0.16
Lower
Back
0.94
<.0001
0.03
Table 8: Summary of the P-values for the Analysis of Variance test for the error rate, usability index, and perceived ranking.
Accelerations
Gender (GNDR)
Condition (COND)
GNDR*COND
Error Rate
0.85
0.02
0.13
Usability
Index
0.73
<.0001
0.93
Ranking
N/A
<.0001
0.53
31
It was not surprising that the knee and hip angles were different as a function of work
surface height where the standing conditions had more neutral postures (closer to 180o) as
compared to the sitting condition (closer to 90o) (See Figure 4). There were some small
differences in the knee and hip angles for the standing at low surface and standing at high surface
(about 5o for knee and 15o for hip). Other differences were found for the elbows, shoulders and
neck for the different work surface heights (Figure 5). The sitting condition had the most flexed
elbow positions (at about 100o) with the standing at the low height having the most extended
elbow position (about 145o). Both the sitting and standing at the low height table conditions had
greater shoulder flexion than the standing at the higher height table (about 10o). A similar trend
was found between the low height work surface (sitting or standing) and standing at the high
height for neck (about 10o less flexion).
In Figure 6, the vertical position of the touch screen input device had the most flexed hip
position (in both hips) by about 10o. Similar trends were found for the joint angles of right and
left elbow (about 7.5o), right shoulder (about 15o), and neck (up to 20o) (see Figure 7). For the
neck, the keyboard condition was found to require the most flexed posture (10o more than the
vertical touch screen).
There were a couple of interesting interactions between work surface height and type of
input device. In Figure 8, the horizontal touch screen and keyboard input devices were found to
have the most right wrist flexion when the work surface was low and standing. Standing at the
high surface utilizing these two types of input devices produced the least amount of right wrist
flexion (about 5o less). There was little difference between the different work surface heights
when using the vertical or angled touch screens (less than 2o). The best neck postures were found
for the angled and horizontal touch screens, particularly for the standing high work surface (See
32
Maximum Angles:
Height Dependent
Sitting
Standing, High Surface
Standing, Low Surface
250
A
Degrees
200
150
100
50
0
Right Knee
Left Knee
Right Hip
Left Hip
Figure 4: Maximum angles of the right and left lower extremities (knee and hip) as a function of
work surface height. Alpha characters that are similar are not significantly different.
Maximum Angles:
Height Dependent
Sitting
180
Degrees
160
140
A
A
B
C
120
A
B
B
C
100
80
A
B
60
40
20
0
Right Elbow
Left Elbow
Right
Shoulder
Left Shoulder
Neck
Figure 5: Maximum angles of the right and left upper extremities (elbow and shoulder) and neck
as a function of work surface height. Alpha characters that are similar are not
significantly different.
33
Maximum Angles:
Data Entry Device Dependent
Angled
Horizontal
Vertical
Keyboard
200
A
Degrees
180
160
140
120
100
80
Right Hip
Left Hip
Figure 6: Maximum angles of the right and left hip as a function of type of data entry device.
Alpha characters that are similar are not significantly different.
Maximum Angles:
Angled
Horizontal
Vertical
Keyboard
180
160
140
AB
A
C BC
A
C C
A
B
Degrees
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Right Elbow
Left Elbow
Right Shoulder
Neck
Figure 7: Maximum angles of the right and left elbow, right shoulder, and neck as a function of
type of data entry device. Alpha characters that are similar are not significantly
different.
34
Maximum Angles:
Height / Data Entry Device
RIGHT WRIST
16
14
Degrees
12
10
8
6
4
2
StandHigh
0
ANGLED
Sit
StandLow
HORIZONTAL
KEYBOARD
VERTICAL
Data Entry Device
Figure 8: Maximum angles of the right wrist as a function of work surface height and type of data
entry device.
Maximum Angles:
Height / Data Entry Device
NECK
165
155
Degrees
145
135
125
115
StandHigh
105
ANGLED
Sit
StandLow
HORIZONTAL
KEYBOARD
VERTICAL
Data Entry Device
Figure 9: Maximum angles of the neck as a function of work surface height and type of data entry
device.
35
Figure 9). The keyboard and vertical touch screen had significantly more neck flexion,
particularly when standing at the low work surface height. In all, the neck flexion was impacted
by both the type of input device and the height of the work surface.
Although there was a small difference between males and females for left knee flexion,
the difference only occurred in the sitting position with the low work surface (See Figure 10). As
expected from the main effect of surface height for left knee angle, the standing condition had
straighter legs. A similar trend was found for left and right hip angle (see Figure 11) where any
difference between males and females occurred for the sitting condition, although this was
minimal.
A more complex interaction between gender and work surface height (Figure 12) was
found for right and left elbow angle. There was a general trend of more extended elbow angles
for the standing positions as compared to the sitting condition. Males used a straighter arm (large
elbow angle) as compared to females when in the sitting in low work surface and standing in the
high surface. Under the standing high surface, females utilized the extended elbow angle. Under
the standing low surface height, the females actually had elbow angles that were straighter
(opposite of the other surface height conditions).
3.2.b. Angular Velocities:
In Figure 13, the lower extremity angular velocities were impacted by the surface height
conditions. In general, the sitting at low surface height had lower angular velocities for knee and
hip motion. No differences were found between the two standing height conditions. Standing at
the high work surface was found to have the lowest elbow angular velocity (about 5 to 8o/s
slower). No differences were found between sitting and standing at the low work surface height.
36
Height / Gender
LEFT KNEE
180
160
Degrees
140
120
100
80
Male
Female
60
Standing High Surface
Sitting
Standing Low Surface
Figure 10: Maximum angles of the left knee as a function of work surface height and gender.
Height / Gender
HIP
Degrees
LHIP - Male
LHIP - Female
RHIP - Male
RHIP - Female
180
170
160
150
140
130
120
110
100
90
Standing High
Surface
Sitting
Standing Low
Surface
Figure 11: Maximum angles of the right and left hip as a function of work surface height and
gender.
37
Height / Gender
ELBOW
160
LELBOW - Male
LELBOW - Female
RELBOW - Male
RELBOW - Female
150
Degrees
140
130
120
110
100
90
80
Standing High Surfa ce
Sitting
Sta nding Low Surface
Figure 12: Maximum angles of the right and left elbow as a function of work surface height and
gender
Maximum Angular Velocities:

Height Dependent
Sitting
120
Degrees/Second
100
80
60
A
A
B
A
40
AB
B
B
20
0
Right Knee
Left Knee
Right Hip
Left Hip
Right Elbow
Figure 13: Maximum angular velocities of the right and left lower extremities (knee and hip) and
right elbow as a function of work surface height. Alpha characters that are similar are
not significantly different.
38
In Figure 14, the type of input device impacted the angular velocities of several joints:
right knee, right hip, right and left elbow, right and left shoulder, and neck. In general, the
keyboard and vertical touch screen had the greatest velocities for all these joints while the angled
and horizontal touch screen had the lowest velocities (around 10 to 25o/s between the highest and
lowest). The differences between the input devices were influenced by gender (Figure 15).
Differences between the input devices were more pronounced for females where the keyboard
and vertical touch pad devices produced significantly more velocity in the right knee. A similar
effect was found for the left knee where the main difference for the vertical touch screen was due
to the females who had more angular velocity than the males (almost 25 o/s). Another difference
between males and females was noted for the horizontal touch screen condition where females
had more angular velocity on the left knee (about 12o/s). Neck velocities were also found to be
different between the males and females where females had the higher velocities when using the
horizontal touch screen and keyboard input devices but lower velocities when using the angled
touch screen (see Figure 17). Basically, the interaction indicated that males and females moved
their necks differently while utilizing the different input devices.
3.2.c. Angular Accelerations:
The maximum angular accelerations for the right knee and right hip had a similar trend as
the velocity trends for the different work surface heights (Figure 18). Basically, the sitting
accelerations were lower than both of the standing conditions. The right and left elbow
accelerations were also found to be lowest for the horizontal touch screen input device (about 40
o 2
/s ), refer to Figure 19. The angled touch screen condition was also found to significantly reduce
the left accelerations as compared to the keyboard and vertical touch screen. Several other joints
also showed increase accelerations for the keyboard input device conditions as compared to the
39
Maximum Angular Velocities:

Angled
Horizontal
Vertical
Keyboard
Degrees/Second
160
140
A A
120
A
100
60
B B
AB
A
A
AB
AB
AB
80
AB
AB
B
B B
B
B
B
40
20
0
RKNEE
RHIP
RELBOW LELBOW RSHLDR
LSHLDR
NECK
Figure 14: Maximum angular velocities of the right knee, right hip, right and left upper extremities
(elbow and shoulder) and neck as a function of type of data entry device. Alpha
characters that are similar are not significantly different.
Maximum Angular Velocities: Gender / Data Entry Device

Right Knee
60
Degrees/Second
Female
Male
50
40
30
20
10
Angle
Horizontal
Keyboard
Vertical
Figure 15: Maximum angular velocities of the right knee as a function of type of data entry device
and gender.
40

Left Knee
60
Degrees/Second
Female
Male
50
40
30
20
10
Angle
Horizontal
Keyboard
Vertical
Figure 16: Maximum angular velocities of the left knee as a function of type of data entry device
and gender.

Neck
90
Female
Male
Degrees/Second
80
70
60
50
40
30
Angle
Horizontal
Keyboard
Vertical
Figure 17: Maximum angular velocities of the neck as a function of type of data entry device and
gender.
41
Maximum Acceleration:
Height Dependent
Sitting
700
Degrees / Second 2
600
A
A
500
400
300
200
100
0
Right Knee
Right Hip
Figure 18: Maximum angular accelerations of the right knee and right hip as a function of work
surface height. Alpha characters that are similar are not significantly different.
Angled
Horizontal
Vertical
Keyboard
800
Degrees / Second 2
700
600
AB
AB
500
AB
400
BC
C
300
200
100
0
Right Elbow
Left Elbow
Figure 19: Maximum angular accelerations of the right and left elbow as a function of type of data
entry device. Alpha characters that are similar are not significantly different.
42
touch screens, specifically the right hip and the neck (Figure 20). The left shoulder acceleration
was lowest for the angled touch screen and highest for vertical touch screen.
The effect of the type of input device on elbow acceleration was driven by females
(Figure 21). The differences between the devices were a direct result of the female responses
since the males right elbow accelerations was virtually unchanged across the different input
devices. The impact of gender was also seen for right hip and right shoulder for the different
work surface heights (Figures 22 and 23). Females produced more right hip accelerations during
the standing low surface than males, although the general trends remained across the work
surface height conditions. A more interesting trend between the genders occurred for the right
shoulder accelerations where females had greater accelerations than the males during the low
height conditions (both sitting and standing).
Angled
Horizontal
Vertical
Keyboard
700
600
Degrees / Second
500
B
400
300
AB
B
200
AB
AB
100
0
Right Hip
Left Shoulder
Neck
Figure 20: Maximum angular accelerations of the right and left elbow as a function of type of data
entry device. Alpha characters that are similar are not significantly different.
43
Gender / Data Entry Device

RIGHT ELBOW
Degrees / Second
550
500
450
400
350
RELBOW - Female
RELBOW - Male
300
ANGLED
HORIZONTAL
KEYBOARD
VERTICAL
Figure 21: Maximum angular accelerations of the right elbow as a function of type of data entry
device and gender.
Height / Gender
RIGHT HIP
350
Degrees / Second
RHIP - Male
RHIP - Female
300
250
200
150
100
Sitting
Figure 22: Maximum angular accelerations of the right hip as a function of work surface height
and gender.
44
Height / Gender
LEFT SHOULDER
300
LSHLDR - Male
Degrees / Second
280
LSHLDR - Female
260
240
220
200
180
160
140
120
100
Sitting
Figure 23: Maximum angular accelerations of the left shoulder as a function of work surface height
and gender.
3.3. Body Discomfort:

Figure 24 shows the discomfort in the upper and lower back for the different work station
height and type of input device. Standing at the low work surface device while entering data with
the vertical touch screen had the most discomfort, especially in the upper and lower back.
Several other conditions were found to have the lowest low back and upper back discomfort
including most of the sitting conditions and the standing at the high work surface height (with the
exception of the vertical touch screen). Similar discomfort responses were seen for the hand,
elbow, neck, and shoulder (Figure 25). For most of these body regions, the standing at low work
height and using the vertical touch screen produced the greatest discomfort. The angled touch
screen produced the lowest discomfort, slightly below the horizontal touch screen and keyboard
conditions when sitting or standing at the high work surface height. The horizontal touch screen
45
Body discomfort (scale 0 to 10)
5
4
3
2
1
0
CKL CAL CHL CVL
SKL
SAL
UBACK
SHL
SVL SKH SAH SHH SVH
LBACK
Figure 24: Body discomfort rating for upper and lower back as a function of work surface height and type
of input device (0= No discomfort 10= Severe discomfort) with conditions: CKL= Chair
(Sitting), KeyboardLow Surface; CAL= Chair (Sitting) , Angled ScreenLow surface; CHL=
Chair (Sitting), Horizontal ScreenLow surface; CVL= Chair (Sitting), Vertical ScreenLow
Surface; SKL= Standing, KeyboardLow Surface; SAL= Standing , Angled ScreenLow
surface; SHL= Standing, Horizontal ScreenLow surface; SKH= Standing, KeyboardHigh
Surface; SAH= Standing , Angled ScreenHigh surface; SHH= Standing, Horizontal Screen
High surface; SVH= Standing, Vertical ScreenHigh Surface.
5
4
3
2
1
0
CKL CAL
CHL CVL
HAND
SKL
SAL
ELBOW
SHL
NECK
SVL SKH SAH SHH SVH

SHLDR
Figure 25: Body discomfort rating for hand, elbow, neck, and shoulder as a function of work surface height
and type of input device (0= No discomfort 10= Severe discomfort) with conditions: CKL=
Chair (Sitting), KeyboardLow Surface; CAL= Chair (Sitting) , Angled ScreenLow surface;
CHL= Chair (Sitting), Horizontal ScreenLow surface; CVL= Chair (Sitting), Vertical
ScreenLow Surface; SKL= Standing, KeyboardLow Surface; SAL= Standing , Angled
ScreenLow surface; SHL= Standing, Horizontal ScreenLow surface; SKH= Standing,
KeyboardHigh Surface; SAH= Standing , Angled ScreenHigh surface; SHH= Standing,
Horizontal ScreenHigh surface; SVH= Standing, Vertical ScreenHigh Surface.
46
also increased the discomfort when in a sitting posture or standing at the low work surface
height.
The discomfort in the legs, knee, and hips also showed a similar trend with the vertical
touch screen when standing at the low surface height having the greatest discomfort in these
regions (Figure 26). The standing at the low work surface height had slightly more discomfort
than the sitting conditions with the two standing heights being approximately the same in
discomfort (with the expectation of the vertical touch screen while standing at low work surface
height). In all, the vertical touch screen position produced the most discomfort in all body
regions while many of the sitting conditions had the least discomfort.
3.4. Error Rate:
The error rate revealed an interesting trend across the surface heights and input device
conditions (Figure 27). For all work surface heights, the vertical touch screen had the highest
error rates (about 15% more than other input devices). The standing at the low surface height had
the highest error rates among all input devices, showing above 15% error rates. The non-vertical
touch screen input devices under the sitting and standing at the high work surface had error rates
around 10%. As expected, the complexity of the data entry influenced the error rates (Figure
28). The easiest orders had an error rate around 8% while the complex orders had an error rate of
about 20%. No other effects influenced the error rate.
3.5. Usability Index:
The usability index as rated by the participants was greatest for the angled and horizontal
touch screens while standing at the high work surface and lowest for the vertical touch screen
while standing at the low work surface height (Figure 29). While there were other trends among
the usability for the other conditions, none were statistically significantly different from each
47
other. It is worth noting that the vertical touch screen was generally the worse rated usability in
all the surface height conditions.
48
5
4
3
2
1
0
CKL
CAL
CHL
CVL
SKL
LEG
SAL
KNEE
SHL
SVL
SAH SHH SKH SVH
HIP
Error Rates for Completing Trial (%)
Figure 26: Body discomfort rating for leg, knee, and hip as a function of work surface height and type of
input device (0= No discomfort 10= Severe discomfort) with conditions: CKL= Chair (Sitting),
KeyboardLow Surface; CAL= Chair (Sitting) , Angled ScreenLow surface; CHL= Chair
(Sitting), Horizontal ScreenLow surface; CVL= Chair (Sitting), Vertical ScreenLow
0.35
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
CKL CAL CHL CVL SKL SAL SHL SVL SKH SAH SHH SVH
Figure 27: Error rate as a function of work surface height and type of input device. CKL= Chair (Sitting),
KeyboardLow Surface; CAL= Chair (Sitting) , Angled ScreenLow surface; CHL= Chair
(Sitting), Horizontal ScreenLow surface; CVL= Chair (Sitting), Vertical ScreenLow
49
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
AB
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
EASY
MEDIUM
Type of Order
COMPLEX
Usability Index
(average of 18 items with scores 1 to 7)
Figure 28: Error rate as a function of work surface height and type of order (difficulty based on the number
of items included). Alpha characters that are similar are not significantly different.
3
CKL
CAL
CHL
CVL
SKL
SAL
SHL
SVL
SKH
SAH
SHH
SVH
Figure 29: Usability Index as a function of work surface height and type of input device (values between 1
and 7). CKL= Chair (Sitting), KeyboardLow Surface; CAL= Chair (Sitting) , Angled Screen
Low surface; CHL= Chair (Sitting), Horizontal ScreenLow surface; CVL= Chair (Sitting),
Vertical ScreenLow Surface; SKL= Standing, KeyboardLow Surface; SAL= Standing ,
Angled ScreenLow surface; SHL= Standing, Horizontal ScreenLow surface; SKH=
Standing, KeyboardHigh Surface; SAH= Standing , Angled ScreenHigh surface; SHH=
Standing, Horizontal ScreenHigh surface; SVH= Standing, Vertical ScreenHigh Surface.
50
3.6. Rating of Preference:

The angled touch screen while sitting at low surface height and standing at high work
surface was ranked as the most favorite while the vertical touch screen while standing at
the low surface height was least favorite and was ranked worst for almost all participants
(See Figure 30). The keyboard input devices for the sitting and standing at the high surface
height was also found to be favorable by the participants. Several of the conditions were in
the middle rankings of favorability including the angled and horizontal at low surface height
and vertical while sitting and standing at high surface height.
Rank
12
10
8
CD
CD
BC
BC
BC
SVH
SHL
SKL
SVL
6
4
2
0
CAL
SAH
SKH
CKL
SHH
CHL
SAL
CVL
Figure 30: Rank of Preference based on subjects perception as a function of work surface height and type
of input device (1=Favorite to 12-Least favorite). CKL= Chair (Sitting), KeyboardLow
Surface; CAL= Chair (Sitting) , Angled ScreenLow surface; CHL= Chair (Sitting), Horizontal
ScreenLow surface; CVL= Chair (Sitting), Vertical ScreenLow Surface; SKL= Standing,
KeyboardLow Surface; SAL= Standing , Angled ScreenLow surface; SHL= Standing,
Horizontal ScreenLow surface; SKH= Standing, KeyboardHigh Surface; SAH= Standing ,
Angled ScreenHigh surface; SHH= Standing, Horizontal ScreenHigh surface; SVH=
Standing, Vertical ScreenHigh Surface.
51
4.0 DISCUSSION
The results of the study provided interesting insight into the multiple factors that impact
the postural response, pain responses and effectiveness of data entry in environments such as call
centers, restaurants, and other order taking operations. The type of input device had impact on
several key kinematic variables. First, the joint angles were impacted by the input device utilized
to enter the order. The vertical touchscreen placed several joints, such as the neck, right and left
elbows, and right shoulder, in less advantageous positions as compared to the angled and
horizontal touch screens. In some cases, these poor postures were similar to or worse than the
keyboard data entry method (e.g. right shoulder). The right wrist, which was the dominant hand
in 85% of the participants and was typically utilized to operate the input devices, was flexed the
least when utilizing the horizontal touch screen and the keyboard during the standing high work
surface conditions. Based on the results and visual observation through video, the left hand
typically remained bent at or around a 90 angle and rested on the desk while the right arm
performed the data entry in an extended position. The extended elbow position produced higher
angles in the shoulders although this remained relatively stationary.
Extended static postures in awkward postures for extended periods of time produce
increased stress on the joints, potentially causing fatigue and ultimately increasing the risk of
injury for that particular joint (Granta, 1996). The upper extremity joints such as the shoulder,
elbows, and wrists are particularly susceptible to postural loading during data entry. In order to
put the posture results into context, the values were compared to the published work by
McAtamney: Rapid Entire Body Assessment (REBA) and Rapid Upper Limb Assessment
(RULA). These tools suggest that a range of 60-100 elbow flexion is considered to be the
safe range. Based on these recommendations, none of the input devices were ideal for either
52
the right or left elbows. Based on the recommendations from REBA and RULA, the shoulder
posture for the vertical touch screen would be considered risky (angle > 45o) while the other
three input devices would have elevated risk (angle between 20o and 45o). The neck flexion
would be considered to be poor for all input devices based on the REBA and RULA
recommendations of 20 flexion, although the vertical touch screen and keyboard devices were
far worse than the others. In general, the right wrist postures would be considered in the
relatively safe range based on the 15o REBA and RULA recommendations.
Second, the input devices also impacted the joint motions (e.g. angular velocities).
Basically, faster movements (increased angular velocities and accelerations) during work tasks
place the employee at a higher risk of discomfort and musculoskeletal disorders (Brophy, 1996).
For many of the joints, the vertical touch screen and the keyboard produced the greatest
velocities, thus increasing the stress on the joint. In Figure 14, these two input devices were
found to increase the velocities in 5 different joints. To a lesser extent, the accelerations of these
joints followed a similar pattern with the keyboard having the highest accelerations followed by
the vertical touch screen.
With data entry, the upper extremities and neck joints would be the most important to
consider with respect to injury. Based on the results in Figures 7, 14, 19, and 20, it is apparent
that the vertical touch screen and keyboard input devices are less than optimal with regard to
kinematics and were inadequate compared to the angled and horizontal touch screen input
devices. In general, there was virtually no difference between the horizontal and angled touch
screens for the joint angles, angular velocities, and angular accelerations.
Another factor that influenced the joint kinematics was the surface height or more
specifically the combination of sitting or standing and the height of the work surface. One of the
53
most obvious results of the study was how surface work height impacted the posture for the hips
and knees. As one would expect, the knees and hips were straighter during the standing
conditions. While this is totally expected, the results do provide an indication that changing the
work height to a sitting and standing height can change the muscles groups during these tasks.
Since data entry in call centers often requires long hours with infrequent breaks, changes in the
work surface height can produce changes in the work postures, thus altering the lower extremity
posture load and exposure to static loads. Based on the results in Figure 4, the standing at the low
work surface height produced slightly more squatted leg postures than the standing at the high
work surface height. If the postures under the low surface height conditions remained static, the
more squatted positions may become an issue, thus, the standing at a higher work surface height
would be better. The angular velocities and accelerations for the hips and knees (particularly the
right leg joints) were also found to be higher for the standing conditions than the sitting
conditions. Again, this potentially indicates very distinct muscle recruitment patterns in the leg
and hip muscles between these lower extremity postures (e.g. sitting vs. standing).
The height of the surface was also found to impact the neck posture where the greatest
neck flexion was found for the low surface, either standing or sitting. Less neck flexion was
found for the standing while working at the high work surface. However, the worst neck flexion
occurred when the keyboard was utilized under the sitting or standing at the low work surface
height or when the vertical touch screen while standing at low work surface height. Thus, the low
work surface had the most impact when utilizing the vertical touch screen or keyboard input
devices. Also, as expected, the standing at the low height work surface resulted in the most
extended elbow (right and left) angles along with increased shoulder flexion. As seen in Figure
5, the sitting at low work surface height produced the most neutral elbow angles but elevated
54
shoulder flexion as compared to the standing at high work surface height. The right elbow
angular velocity was also greater in the sitting a standing at low work surface height in
comparison to the standing at the high work surface height. The overall trends support the
working postures of either sitting at the low work surface height or standing at the high work
surface height.
While there were several significant interactions between gender and either work surface
height or type of input device, the impact of gender was nominal. Oftentimes, the difference in
kinematic responses between males and females were minimal and probably relate more to
differences in anthropometry rather than factors inherent to a specific gender. A very telling
figure about a potential anthropometric effect is in Figure 11 where no differences were seen
between males and females for the standing at the high surface height while differences existed
during the standing at low work surface and sitting at low surface. The former condition was
adjusted to the height of the participant while the latter conditions were fixed height and
independent of participant. Overall, gender had few interactions that were significant and the
ones that were significant had a relatively limited impact. Thus, the results are robust and not
gender dependent.
The body discomfort responses support the postural load responses. For many of the body
regions, the body discomfort was highest for the vertical touch screen conditions and the
standing at the low surface height. The worst condition was the vertical touch screen when
standing at the low work surface for all body regions, indicating increased whole body
discomfort. For the back, shoulder, and neck regions, the angled touch screen resulted in a lower
discomfort at the various work surface heights than the other input devices. The only work
surface height condition that was favorable for vertical touch screen was the sitting at the low
55
work surface. In all, the body discomfort results indicate more favorable conditions when sitting
at the low surface and standing at the high work surface and utilizing the angle touch screen.
The error rates indicate the horizontal touch screen was the best for the sitting at the low
surface height and standing at the high surface height. In all three surface height conditions, the
vertical touch screen produced the highest error rates. This may have been due to the fact that the
subjects line of vision was some what obstructed, especially in the standing at the low height
work surface (which had the highest error rate). The keyboard and angled touch screen had
slightly more errors than the horizontal touch screen.
Finally, the usability of the devices as rated by the participants indicated that the vertical
touch screen was the lowest while angled and horizontal touch screen input devices were the
highest. The ratings were only slightly impacted by the height of the work surface and whether
the condition was sitting or standing. The device type appeared to be the more dominant factor
for usability. The other perceptual rating of the conditions was the rankings of the 12 different
conditions where the participants ranked the angled touch screen input devices as the preferred
devices, especially for the sitting low work surface and the standing high work surface. The
worse condition was the vertical touch screen when standing at the low work surface.
With so many results, it is necessary to determine the trade-offs between the different
input devices and surface height conditions. To help understand the key findings two tables were
developed that compare each of the 12 conditions (combination of input device and work surface
height) to a standard condition which was the keyboard while sitting at the low work surface
(CKL) as the reference condition. This condition was chosen since it is the position most
commonly used in call centers and other data entry environments. All of the kinematic variables
(each joint angle, velocity, and acceleration) data is in Table 9 while the usability, body
56
Table 9 : Summary of Kinematics

Angles
RKNEE
LKNEE
RHIP
LHIP
RSHLDR
LSHLDR
RELBOW
LELBOW
RWRIST
LWRIST
NECK
CKL
-----------------------
CAL
--
--
--------
CHL
----
------
CVL
----
SKH
--
----
SAH
----
SHH
----
SVH
--
SKL
--
-------
SAL
--
SHL
----
SVL
--
Accelerations
RKNEE
LKNEE
RHIP
LHIP
RSHLDR
LSHLDR
RELBOW
LELBOW
RWRIST
LWRIST
NECK
CKL
-----------------------
CAL
CHL
--
CVL
SKH
SAH SHH
Velocities
SVH
SKL
SAL
SHL
SVL
RKNEE
LKNEE
RHIP
LHIP
RSHLDR
LSHLDR
RELBOW
LELBOW
RWRIST
LWRIST
NECK
CKL
-----------------------
CAL
--
--
CHL
--
--
CVL
--
--
SKH
--
--
SAH
SVH
----
---
SKL
SAL
----
--
SHL
SVL
57
SHH
--
Table 10: Summary of Results

CVL SKH SAH SHH SVH
CKL
CAL
CHL
SKL
SAL
USABILITY
---
DISCOMFORT
---
ERROR RATE
---
RANKING
---
SHL SVL
region discomfort, error rate, and ranking data is in Table 10. The bold up arrows indicate that
a considerable increase was found, while the down arrows indicate that a decrease was found.
A line in the box indicates no significant difference, representing values having the same
relative magnitude.
The sitting conditions show lower results in nearly all comparisons, especially among
accelerations and velocities. The CAL condition (sitting with an angled screen and a low surface)
shows exceptionally good results, with majority of body joints with lower velocities and
accelerations, a higher preference ranking, lower error rate and discomfort, and a higher usability
score than the CKL (standard condition). Thus, the sitting with angled touch screen would be
considered one of the best options overall. The standing at high work surface condition had one
input deviceangled touch screen (SAH) with similar results to the CAL with better kinematic
variables, higher usability, lower discomfort, lower error rates and higher preference than CKL,
although the horizontal and keyboard conditions also had similar results during high height
condition. Based on all the results, the worse condition (by far) was the vertical touch screen
while standing at the low height work surface. The results as a whole indicated that angled touch
screen was the best option among the input devices tested for order entry tasks. These results are
58
also supported by the research by Schultz (1998) who reported that the optimal viewing angle of
a monitor is in an angled position.
4.1 Limitations:
There were a few limitations to the study that should be mentioned. First, the subjects
who participated in this study were not experience in data entry, especially with order entry in a
restaurant or call center. While some subjects did mention that they had previous experience
doing similar tasks, none of them had extensive experience (e.g. greater than 1 year). Although
the impact of experience could not be evaluated in the current study, it is important to understand
that the postures that adopted by the current subjects may not reflect individuals with more
experience, particularly when utilizing the keyboard input device. The subjects in the current
study were recruited from the university area that typically had knowledge of computers and
keyboards but very limited interaction and knowledge of touch screens.
The study represented a short term evaluation of the data entry conditions with only 6
total order entries for each of the conditions (combination of type of input device and work
surface height). Longer exposures that produce fatigue may alter the postures, discomfort and
preferences for the individual conditions. Thus, future work needs to investigate all day
interactions with each of the input devices and surface heights to truly understand the long-term
ramifications of these conditions.
There were also several intrinsic factors relating to the subjects that were not necessarily
controlled by the current study. For example, factors such as height, body part dimensions, and
body weight may have influenced the individual postures adopted by the participants. This was
particularly the case for the low working surface height which was standardized (consistent for
all subjects). Other subject-dependent variables that were not controlled for include the quality of
59
vision, physical and mental capability, familiarity with a computer or touch screen, and previous
experience using devices. While all these factors could contribute to the results, the within
subjects design allows comparisons between the work height and input device type was more
robust and would minimize the effects of these factors.
The results could also be a function of the input device selected, in that, a specific model
of touch screen, the layout of items on screen, the model of keyboard, and the layout of keys on
keyboard could influence the postures and kinematics adopted during data entry and the
discomfort felt. The study was designed to simulate real world order entry conditions typically
found in food order processing call centers utilizing existing programs and devices specifically
designed for this activity. The keyboard was a standard keyboard that had hot keys that
corresponded to the same entry buttons that were displayed on the touch screen. Thus, all steps
were taken to ensure that the task was realistic and the same in all conditions.
Post-hoc analyses of the distance between the participant and the input device revealed a
constant distance. The distance was captured by a reflective marker on the left hip and a marker
placed on the keyboard or touch screen monitor. In addition, the chair and table height were
allowed to be adjusted between the different conditions but based on observation and digitizing
of markers, the chair height in the seated conditions and the high surface height in the standing
condition remained consistent for a given participant. Thus, the comparisons represent responses
to the different conditions and corresponding demands rather than a systematic change in the
conditions.
4.2. Future Work:
As more and more call centers around the world begin to update their systems and
consider installing touch screens, the next step in this research would be to follow up on the
60
impact of these data entry devices on the daily activities and response in actual real world
situations. The use of the different input devices and working at different work heights should be
investigated for a full work cycle rather than the short duration exposures in the similar study.
The long-term effects of these conditions may shed more light into the effectiveness of the
devices and alternative work surface heights in reducing musculoskeletal disorder exposures and
injuries. The assessment could also better delineate the impact of experience by looking at new
hirers as compared to seasoned workers who have extensively utilized the keyboard entry device.
Future work should also include more extensive analyses that would include fatigue and
joint loading. The current study evaluated outcomes that would be considered surrogates to the
actual joint loading (e.g. loading on joints related to posture and angular velocity).
Biomechanical modeling and electromyography would allow for the quantification of the loads
as well as the muscle response to the demands in the different conditions. Electromyography
would also allow for the documentation of fatigue in the different muscle groups, especially
when performing data entry under the different conditions for extended periods of time (e.g. 8
hour shift).
61
5.0 CONCLUSION
The results of the comprehensive study of the postural load, body discomfort, usability,
and error rates provided multiple insights into the utility of different input devices and work
conditions during data entry of restaurant orders. While there was not any input device that
completely reduced the risk to the multiple body joints to minimal levels, several of touch screen
devices were better than the traditional keyboard while sitting at the low desk height. When
working in the sittinglow work surface height condition, the angled touch screen reduced
many of the joint angles (e.g. placed the joint in more neutral posture with greater biomechanical
advantage) and joint velocities and accelerations, reduced the error rates, reduced the discomfort
slightly, and increased the preference and usability ratings. For the standing at the high work
surface condition, there were three input devices that produced relatively the same results in
kinematics, discomfort, error, and ratings. These were the angled touch screen, horizontal touch
screen, and keyboard. Based on the results as a whole, the angled touch screen was the best input
device. Touch screens also have the advantage of taking up less space on the work surface, an
easier interface that provides information at the workers finger tips, and more options through
menus rather than reliance on hot keys. In general, the standing at the lower work surface was
not considered to be effective in reducing the joint postural stress and corresponding discomfort.
The lower work surface height produced extended reaches and squatted lower extremity
postures. In all, the worse condition was the vertical touch screen when standing at the lower
work surface height.
The documentation of kinematic responses between the sitting and standing at high work
surface indicated that there may be the potential to alternate the loading on the lower extremity
and other body joints if the work surface was adjusted throughout the day between these two
62
conditions. If such a change on work surface height occurred, the angled touch screen would be
the preferred input device since it was considered the best device in both conditions. An
adjustable touch screen monitor may also be beneficial under these circumstances.
The results of the current study may have some broader ramifications to the data entry
industry, especially for companies that enter food orders. As these facilities update into new
technologies, faster and more intuitive input devices will hit the market such as touch screens
that will increase the efficiency and accuracy of order recording. Touch screen technology has
expanded to be more versatile and comprehensive in providing information to the end user the
data entry operator. The change to these types of input devices could have resulted in ergonomic
consequences. However, the current study verified that the opposite was the case with angled
touch screens reducing many of the postural loads as well as the discomfort of multiple body
joints. Study results also indicate that there may be some biomechanical benefit to having
adjustable work surfaces in work environments that have continuous static sitting posture for
long durations. There were very distinct differences between the sitting at low height work
surface and standing at the high work surface, indicating adjusting the height throughout the day
would change the postures of the workers, potentially increasing the muscle oxygenation and
reducing the effects of static postures.
The take home message of the study is that the angled touch screen input device provided
the best option for food order entry, based on the multitude of outcome variables evaluated.
Future research is still need to further delineate the effectiveness of touch screen input devices in
real world situations, understand the role of experience, and identify the completed
biomechanical stress on the joints when interacting with these types of devices.
63
REFERENCES
1. Jensen, C., Finsen, L., Sogaard, K., Christensen, H., (1992), Musculoskeletal symptoms
and duration of computer and mouse use. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics,
30(4-5), 265-275.
2. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. Musculoskeletal disorders and
workplace factors: A critical review of epidemiological evidence for work-related
musculoskeletal disorders of the neck, upper extremity, and low back, Cincinnati, OH:
NIOSH Technical Report No. 97-141, US Department of Health and Human Services,
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, 1997
3. McLean, L., Tingley, M., Scott, R.N., Rickards, J., (2001), Computer terminal work and
the benefit of microbreaks. Applied Ergonomics, 32, 225-237.
4. Schultz, K.L., Batten, D.M., Sluchak, T.J., (1998), Optimal viewing angle for touchscreen displays: Is there such a thing? International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 22,
343-350.
5. Liao, M.H., Drury, C.G., (2000), Posture, discomfort and performance in a VDT task.
Ergonomics, 43 (3), 345-359.
6. Balci, R., Aghazadeh, F., (2004), Effects of exercise breaks on performance, muscular
load, and perceived discomfort in data entry and cognitive tasks. Computers & Industrial
Engineering, 46, 399-411.
7. Scheirman, L., (2003), Peak Motus Motion Measurement System: 510(k) Summary. Peak
Performance Technologies, Inc., 3:1-3
8. Henning, R.A., Jacques, P., Kissel, G.V., Sullivan, A.B., Alteras-Webb, S.M., (1997).
Frequent short rest breaks from computer work: effects on productivity and well-being at
two field sites. Ergonomics 40 (1), 78-91.
9. Shneiderman, B., (1991). Touch screens now offer compelling uses. IEEE Software, 8 (2)
93-94,107
10. Fischetti, M., (2001). At your fingertips. Scientific American, 284 (4), 102
11. Colle, H.A., Hiszem, K.J., (2004), Standing at a kiosk: Effects of key size and spacing
on touch screen numeric keypad performance and user preference. Ergonomics, 47 (13),
1406-1423.
12. McDaniel Executive Recruiters 2004 North American Call Center Report, 9-23-2004
13. Alibaba Website; Call Centers: Catalysts for Corporate Change; May 21, 2007
http://resources.alibaba.com/topic/46104/Call_Centers_Catalysts_for_Corporate_Change
_.htm
14. Jackson, K.E., (2006). Overturn the high cost of employee turnover.
http://multichannelmerchant.com
15. Healy, A.F., Kole, J.A., Buck-Gengler, C.J., Bourne Jr., L.E., (2004), Effects of
prolonged work on data entry speed and accuracy. Journal of Experimental Psychology:
Applied, Vol.10 (3), 188-199.
16. Cail F, (2003), Biomechanical stresses in computer-aided design and in data entry.
International Journal Of Occupational Safety And Ergonomics, Vol. 9 (3), pp. 235-55
64
17. Brophy, M, Grant, C, (1996), Office ergonomics, pp. 387-401. Occupational Ergonomics:
Theory and Applications, Bhattacharya, A., McGlothlin, J.D.
18. Hammett, Wilma. "Ergonomics in the Office: A Guide for Improved Efficiency and
Well-Being of Workers." The Forum for Family and Consumer Issues 3.2 (1998): 22
pars. 9 July 1998 <http://www.ces.ncsu.edu/depts/fcs/pub/1998/ergonom.html>.
19. Konrad, K., Population Segment Accommodation for Keyboard Entry at Various
Workstations, The Knoll Group, 1992.
20. Henning, R.A., Sauter, S.L., Salvendy, G., King, E.F., (1989). Microbreak length,
performance and stress in a data entry tasks. Ergonomics 328:855-864.
21. Li, Z., Bowerman, S., Heber. D., (2005). Health ramifications of the obesity epidemic.
The Surgical Clinics of North America 85 (4): 681-701.
22. Schulte, PA, Wagner, GR, Ostry, A., Blanciforti, LA, Cutlip, RG, Krajnak, KM, Luster,
M., Munson, AE, OCallaghan, JP, Parks, CG, Simeonova, PP, Miller, DB (2007). Work,
obesity, and occupational safety and health. American Journal of Public Health. 97 (3):
428-36.
23. Granata, K.P., Marras, W.S., (1996), Biomechanical Models in Ergonomics, pp. 115136. Occupational Ergonomics: Theory and Applications, Bhattacharya, A., McGlothlin,
J.D.
24. Hignett, S., McAtamney, L., (2000), Rapid Entire Body Assessment (REBA). Applied
Ergonomics, 31, 201-205
25. McAtamney, L., Corlett, E.N., (1993). RULA: a survey method for the investigation of
work-related upper limb disorders. Applied Ergonomics, 24(2), p. 91-99
65
APPENDICES
Appendix 1.0 Current Symptom Survey (Body Discomfort)
Appendix 2.0 User Satisfaction Survey (IBM Usability Survey)
66
Appendix 1.0: Current Symptom Survey (Body Discomfort)

CURRENT SYPTOM SURVEY
Subject ID_______________________________________
Date_____________________
This survey will assess your current pain in various body regions. Please circle the number under the scale
describing your current level of pain.
Example: Body Region
None
0
1
2
Mild
3
Moderate
6
Severe
9
10
1. Neck
None
0
Mild
3
Moderate
6
Severe
9
10
2. Shoulder
None
0
1
Mild
3
Moderate
6
Severe
9
10
3. Elbow
None
0
Mild
3
Moderate
6
Severe
9
10
4. Hand and Wrist

None
0
1
Mild
3
Moderate
6
Severe
9
10
5. Upper Back
None
0
1
Mild
3
Moderate
6
Severe
9
10
6. Low Back
None
0
1
Mild
3
Moderate
6
Severe
9
10
7. Hip
None
0
Mild
3
Moderate
6
Severe
9
10
8. Knee
None
0
Mild
3
Moderate
6
Severe
9
10
9. Lower Leg and Foot

None
0
1
2
Mild
3
Moderate
6
Severe
9
10
67
Appendix 2.0: User Satisfaction Survey

User Satisfaction Survey (IBM Usability Survey)
Please mark your responses to the following statements about the technical aspects of using the
current data entry device in this form.
strongly disagree
1.
strongly agree
Overall, I am satisfied with how easy it is to use

this entry device.
It was simple to use this data entry device.
N/A
N/A
3.
I can effectively complete my work using this data

entry device.
N/A
4.
I am able to complete my work quickly using this

entry device.
N/A
5.
N/A
6.
I am able to efficiently complete my work using

this entry device.
I feel comfortable using this data entry device.
N/A
7.
It was easy to learn to use this data entry device.
N/A
8.
I believe I became productive quickly using this

data entry device.
N/A
9. (INTENTIONALLY BLANK)
10. Whenever I make a mistake using this data entry
device, I recover easily and quickly.
11. The information (such as online help, on-screen
messages, and other documentation) provided
with this data entry device is clear.
12. It is easy to find the information I needed.
N/A
N/A
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
6
6
7
7
N/A
N/A
13. The information provided for the entry device is

easy to understand.
14. The information is effective in helping me
complete the tasks and scenarios.
15. The organization of the information on the data
entry device screen is clear.
16. The interface of this data entry device is pleasant.
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
17. I like using the interface of this entry device.

18. This data entry device has all the functions
and capabilities I expect it to have.
19. Overall, I am satisfied with this data entry
device.
N/A
N/A
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
6
6
7
7
N/A
2.
68

Hammer Matthew Justin

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Hammer Matthew Justin

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI

Date: August 13, 2007

Occupational Safety and Ergonomics

Ergonomic Comparison of Keyboard and Touch

This work and its defense approved by:

Ergonomic Comparison of Keyboard and Touch Screen Data Entry

A thesis submitted to the

Division of Research and Advanced Studies of the University of Cincinnati

In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

in the College of Medicine, Department of Environmental Health,

B.S., Western Kentucky University, 2005

LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES

Table 1: Demographic & Anthropometric Data

2.0 MATERIALS AND METHODS

2.1 Subject Selection:

Table 1: Demographic & Anthropometric Data

Shoulder Height (cm)

Upper Leg Length (cm)

Torso Length (cm)

Elbow Height (cm)

Lower Arm Length

Table 2: Description of Anthropometric & Workstation Measurements

Table 2: Description of Anthropometric & Workstation Measurements

Upper Arm Length

Lower Arm Length

Circumference of the individuals torso, measured at the abdomen section directly on

Upper Leg Length

2.2 Study Design:

2.5 Ergonomic Postural Load Quantification:

b.) Back View

c.) Side View

b.) Sitting with a keyboard

c.) Standing with a touch screen

d.) Standing with a keyboard

Table 3: Description of Joint Angles and Distances

2.6 Quantification of Body Discomfort:

Immediately after completing a specific

2.9 Statistical Analyses:

Standing, High Surface

Standing, Low Surface

Standing, Low Surface

Standing, High Surface

Data Entry Device

Data Entry Device

Standing Low Surface

Sta nding Low Surface

Maximum Angular Velocities:

Standing, High Surface

Standing, Low Surface

Maximum Angular Velocities:

RELBOW LELBOW RSHLDR

Maximum Angular Velocities: Gender / Data Entry Device

Maximum Angular Velocities: Gender / Data Entry Device

Maximum Angular Velocities: Gender / Data Entry Device

Standing, High Surface

Standing, Low Surface

Gender / Data Entry Device

Standing Low Surface

Standing Low Surface

3.3. Body Discomfort:

Body discomfort (scale 0 to 10)

SVL SKH SAH SHH SVH

Body discomfort (scale 0 to 10)

SVL SKH SAH SHH SVH