International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 31 (2003) 387396

Empirical evaluation of training and a work analysis tool for

participatory ergonomics
Jason J. Saleem*, Brian M. Kleiner, Maury A. Nussbaum
Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 250 Durham Hall (0118),
Blacksburg, VA, 24061, USA

Received 8 May 2002; received in revised form 31 July 2002; accepted 22 January 2003

Abstract

A controlled laboratory experiment was performed to test the effects of ergonomics training and the NIOSH lifting
equation on the participatory redesign of a simulated manual material handling job. Before performing the job, 16
subjects were given ergonomics training and 16 were instructed on how to use the NIOSH lifting equation for manual
lifting tasks. Compared to a control group, subjects who received the ergonomics instruction identied and eliminated
more risk factors in the simulated job. While subjects who used the NIOSH lifting equation also identied more risk
factors, they did not eliminate any more risk factors than the control group. No additive benet was found using both
the training and the lifting equation over either method alone. Ergonomics training led to better improvements than use
of the lifting equation in terms of risk factors identied and eliminated. Implications for use of training and tools in
participatory ergonomics approaches are discussed.
Relevance to industry
This study supports that ergonomics training should be a requisite for any participatory ergonomics approach. Given
a fundamental level of ergonomics training, subjects demonstrated that they were better capable of identifying and
eliminating risk factors in the job.
r 2003 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Participatory ergonomics; Ergonomics training; Manual material handling

1. Introduction tional or process level or as small as the task or

Participatory ergonomics (PE) is a tool, method,
or strategy commonly used to improve operator
performance and well-being. Within this context,
PE promotes workers design or redesign of their
own work, which can take place at an organiza-
*Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-540-552-7149; fax: +1-
540-231-3322.
E-mail address: jsaleem@vt.edu (J.J. Saleem).
0169-8141/03/$ - see front matter r 2003 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/S0169-8141(03)00024-6
product level. PE has several formal operational
denitions. For example, Nagamachi (1995) inter-
preted PE as the workers active involvement in
implementing ergonomic knowledge and proce-
dures in their workplace. Wilson and Haines
(1997) dened PE in the context of ergonomics
management programs. Imada (1991) dened PE
as one perspective in macro-ergonomics in which
the end-users (the beneciaries of ergonomics) are
involved in developing and implementing the
388 J.J. Saleem et al. / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 31 (2003) 387396
technology. Consistent with previous denitions,
the operational denition of PE for this study is a
method for involving workers in analyzing and
redesigning their own job.
One source of motivation for the use of PE is the
belief that workers are more likely to accept
changes to their job if they participate in the
redesign (e.g., Cohen, 1994, 1996; Imada and
Robertson, 1987; Imada, 1991; Nagamachi, 1995;
Wilson, 1995; Wilson and Haines, 1997). Some
authors believe that failing to include the front-line
workers in an organizational change can lead to
the workers perceiving the change as a threat to
job security or other negative consequences (e.g.,
Cohen, 1994). In addition, participation in a PE
program is thought to legitimize the ideas and
experiences that workers have accumulated in
doing their jobs, allow for workers to feel owner-
ship for their work and thus greater commitment
for changes, and increase workers ability to solve
future problems (Imada, 1991). Many believe that
through the participatory process, workers moti-
vation, job satisfaction, and knowledge may be
enhanced as well (e.g., Cohen, 1996).
A participatory approach to redesign can come
in many forms. Many authors state or imply that
one of the requisites for any successful PE
approach is for the participants to receive proper
ergonomics training (e.g., Devereux et al., 1998;
Gjessing et al., 1994; Kuorinka, et al., 1994;
Nagamachi, 1995; St-Vincent et al., 1997; Wilson
and Haines, 1997). The belief is that participants
should have to learn the knowledge and methods
of ergonomics relevant to the process, task, or
product being redesigned. One case study reported
on a tool that had not been subjected to
ergonomics analysis during its participatory design
(Devereux et al., 1998). This tool was designed by
the workforce to reduce the physical strain caused
by the manual handling of gas cylinders. The tool
showed few benets and may have increased
physical strain. Devereux et al. (1998) concluded
that a participatory approach to design should use
expert ergonomics at all stages of the participation
process.
Regardless of the inclusion or exclusion of
ergonomics training, a tool or technique is needed
for the participants to use for the analysis and
redesign of the job, workstation, or product. There
are a great variety of tools and techniques that
have been used for PE, examples of which include
simple brainstorming techniques, posture analysis,
task analysis, link analysis, surveys and checklists,
interviews and questionnaires, and focus groups.
Wilson and Haines (1997) give a comprehensive
list of the many tools and techniques that have
been used in PE.
The current study explores the use of the
NIOSH lifting equation (Waters et al., 1993) as a
PE tool. The NIOSH lifting equation was designed
to identify manual lifting tasks that may increase a
workers risk for injury. There is no mention in
previous literature that describes a PE case study
in which the NIOSH lifting equation was used as a
PE tool for analysis and redesign of a job by non-
ergonomists (or non-experts). The lifting equa-
tion uses a series of multipliers, representing
several aspects of the lifting task, to calculate a
recommended weight limit for that task. The
NIOSH lifting equation is one of the few
ergonomic tools that have been quantitatively
evaluated (e.g., Marras et al., 1994), making it a
good candidate PE tool. Furthermore, since the
equation was designed for ease of use, it appears to
be a logical tool for workers to use in a PE setting
for manual material handling. Although the
NIOSH lifting equation was intended to be used
by ergonomists, not general workers, a software
program for this study performs all the computa-
tions involved with using the equation. Workers
need only use a tape measure and goniometer to
measure distances and angles, respectively, and
enter them into the software program. In addition
to using the NIOSH lifting equation to analyze a
lifting task, the equation can help the user redesign
the task as well by working backwards. Low
multipliers in the equation indicate that their work
parameters are poorly designed. Logically, these
design parameters should be the focus of a
redesign attempt.
Haines and Wilson (1998) indicated the main
gap in PE research seemed to be the lack of
empirical studies of PE programs. Previous studies
that concern PE programs have been case studies
in industry. Since these studies lacked a control or
comparison group, changes in the measures that
 J.J. Saleem et al. / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 31 (2003) 387396
were used to evaluate effectiveness cannot be
attributed to the PE program with any certainty
(e.g., van der Molen et al., 1993; Halpern and
Dawson, 1997; Moore and Garg, 1997). To obtain
more reliable evidence of the effects of PE, the
present study utilized a controlled laboratory
experiment. Furthermore, this study tested the
potential benets of providing the participants
with ergonomics training and allowing the parti-
cipants to learn and use the NIOSH lifting
equation as a tool for participatory redesign.
Provision of ergonomics instruction and use of
the NIOSH lifting equation were hypothesized to
give subjects an advantage over control subjects
for identifying risk factors in a simulated manual
material handling job and generating suitable
redesign recommendations. Also, participation
itself was hypothesized to be benecial as opposed
to redesign without workers participation.
2. Method
2.1. Subjects
Subjects consisted of 32 student volunteers, 16
males and 16 females, who were at least 18 years
old. Only non-engineering students without prior
formal ergonomics instruction or knowledge of the
NIOSH lifting equation were considered. Further-
more, the subjects were screened so that none had
worked for a company in which they performed
manual lifting tasks similar to those used in this
experiment. Each subject was required to be in the
10th to 90th percentile range of stature for US
population in order to avoid extreme cases where-
in the performance of the tasks might be funda-
mentally altered.
2.2. Experimental design
The experiment used a two-factor, between-
subjects design. Instruction and Tool were the
independent variables, and each was either given
or not given. Instruction consisted of training in
fundamental ergonomics concepts relevant to the
experimental tasks (described in the next section).
For the Tool condition, subjects learned and used
389
the NIOSH lifting equation as a tool to redesign
the job. The Instruction and Tool conditions were
given to subjects prior to performing the tasks.
Those subjects who received neither Instruction
nor Tool represented a control group. Eight
subjects were randomly assigned to each of the
four treatment combinations.
2.3. Procedure
Subjects performed a simulated manual material
handling job consisting of several lifting tasks.
After performing the job, subjects analyzed the job
for potential risk factors and then redesigned the
job to eliminate the risk factors they had identied.
Subjects who received the Instruction condition
were trained in ergonomic workplace design
principles and the basic mechanics of manual
lifting using a slide presentation before analyzing
and redesigning the job. A detailed description of
the ergonomics instruction content is available in
Saleem (1999). A test of knowledge, in the form of
a true/false questionnaire, was given afterward to
ensure the subjects had demonstrated sufcient
acquisition of the ergonomics instruction given in
the presentation. A test score of at least 90% was
considered sufcient acquisition of the ergonomics
instruction. Subjects who received the Tool con-
dition were given the NIOSH lifting equation and
were advised on how to use it before they analyzed
and redesigned the job. Subjects used the equation
through an online computer program (Russel,
1998) that prompted the subjects for necessary
information about the lifting tasks. Subjects were
instructed to use the output from the equation to
assist them in redesigning the job. After the
subjects had been advised on how to use the
NIOSH lifting equation, a test was given that
required subjects to use the NIOSH lifting
equation to calculate the lift index of a sample
lifting task. Each subject was required to have
demonstrated prociency on the use of the
equation; the ability to use the NIOSH lifting
equation to correctly calculate the lift index of a
sample lifting task constituted prociency. Assign-
ments of the Instruction and Tool conditions were
designed for equal durations of time. That is,
giving a subject the ergonomics instruction took
390 J.J. Saleem et al. / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 31 (2003) 387396
approximately the same amount of time as
training a subject to use the NIOSH lifting
equation. Furthermore, the subjects who were
assigned to the Tool condition had the same
amount of preparation time as the subjects who
were assigned to the Instruction condition so that
any differences in performance could be more
easily attributed to the Tool vs. the Instruction.
The simulated manual material handling job
consisted of loading boxes onto a dolly, transport-
ing them into a room designed to represent a
storage room, and then lifting the boxes onto
shelves. This task was repeated twice, for a total of
three shipments of six boxes each. The lifting task
was designed to force the subjects to use poor
posture; subjects had to use torso bending and
twisting motions to place the boxes onto the
shelves. Subjects were told to assume that each box
weighed 10 kg. All boxes were actually, however,
empty to protect the subjects from potential injury
since the lifting tasks were considered risky (the
lifting tasks in the original simulated job had a lift
index >3, which suggests the worker is likely to
have increased risk for injury). After moving all
boxes into the storage room and then lifting them
onto the shelves, subjects lled out an inventory at
a computer workstation. Table 1 gives the details
of the lifting task and its associated lift index
calculation.
Subjects were instructed to identify all risk
factors that they believed were associated with
the job they had just performed. The experimental
job was designed with 16 risk factors, not just
conned to the lifting task (Table 2). Subjects
recorded these risk factors on a sheet of paper.
From this list, the number of risk factors identied
by each subject was determined.
Subjects redesigned the simulated job in order to
eliminate the risk factors they had identied.
Subjects who received the ergonomics instruction
applied the knowledge that they had learned
during the redesign phase. Subjects who learned
the NIOSH lifting equation used it to help analyze
and redesign the lifting task. All subjects imple-
mented their redesign ideas by repositioning
shelves and/or objects. For any redesign ideas that
could not be physically implemented, subjects
listed these on paper, which were examined when
determining risk factors eliminated. Subjects were
told that the only constraint for their redesigns was
that the three shipments of six boxes must still be
loaded into the storage room. After the subjects
had redesigned the job, they performed the job in
the redesigned conguration that they had im-
plemented. Upon completion of performing the
redesigned job, subjects gave satisfaction ratings
through a post-test questionnaire.
2.4. Dependent measures
Dependent measures collected during the ex-
periment were number of risk factors identied,
number of risk factors eliminated, lift index (from
the lifting equation), time required to redesign the
job, and satisfaction. In the case of musculoske-
letal disorders, it may take years for a reduction of
them to be observed. Alternatively, some authors
agree that a reduction of risk factors or levels of
exposure to them can be used as a surrogate
measure of the effectiveness of a PE approach
(Buckle and Li, 1996; Cohen, 1994). These
measures helped gauge to what extent the Instruc-
tion and Tool allowed subjects to identify and/or
eliminate risk factors. Risk factors eliminated
means the number of risk factors listed in Table 2
that were removed or minimized by subjects in a
redesign, either intentionally or unintentionally,
such that they no longer represent an occupational
work hazard.
The lift index for each subjects redesign was
computed. The lift index was used as an indicator
of the quality of the lifting task redesign relative to
the original design. A lower lift index is assumed to
indicate a safer task (Waters et al., 1993). For a
lifting task, the lift index is a ratio of the actual
load used over the recommended weight limit. The
recommended weight limit for the lifting task is
computed by using the NIOSH lifting equation.
Independent of subjects using the NIOSH lifting
equation as a tool for redesign, one of the authors
(JJS) used the NIOSH lifting equation to compute
the lift index for each subjects redesign. Rota-
tional angle and distance measurements for the
lifting equation were recorded with a goniomenter
and tape measure, respectively. Horizontal dis-
tance measurements were taken from the position
 J.J. Saleem et al. / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 31 (2003) 387396 391

Table 1
Data and lift index calculation for the experimental job

Weight of boxes: 10 kg each

Horizontal hand location at origin (H0 ): 63.5 cm
Horizontal hand location at destination (HD ): 63.5 cm
Vertical hand location at origin (V0 ): 0 cm
Vertical hand location at destination (VD ): 188 cm
Vertical travel distance (D): 188 cm
Asymmetric angle at origin (A0 ): 90

Asymmetric angle at destination (AD ): 90

Frequency rate (lifts/min): 1
Duration: 8 h
Object coupling: Fair
Recommended weight limit (RWL)=LC  HM  VM  DM  AM  FM  CM
Lift index (LI)=(actual load/RWL)

Origin Destination

LC=load constant=23 kg 23 kg 23 kg
HM=horizontal multiplier=(25/H) 0.4 0.4
VM=vertical multiplier=(1(0.003|V75|) 0.775 0.661
DM=distance multiplier=(0.82+(4.5/D)) 0.844 0.844
AM=asymmetric multiplier=(1(0.0032|A|)) 0.712 0.712
FM=frequency multiplier 0.75 0.75
CM=coupling multiplier 0.95 1.00

RWL 3.05 kg 2.74 kg

LI 3.3 3.6n

Note: See Waters et al. (1993) for detailed explanations of each of the equation variables and multipliers.
n
When determining the lift index for a lifting task, the lift index for the task is calculated for both the origin and the destination of
the lift. The higher of these two values (denoted by the asterisk) is considered the lift index for the entire lifting task.

Table 2 of the hands to the midpoint of the ankles and

Risk factors designed into the experimental job vertical distance measurements were taken from
1 Load is at a far horizontal starting position the position of the hands to the oor. Positional
2 Load is at a far horizontal ending position data for each subjects redesign was recorded and
3 Load starts at ground level (low vertical starting saved and thus each redesign can be recreated.
position) Repeatability of the lift index calculations are
4 Load is at a high vertical ending position
5 Large amount of twist
limited to the accuracy of the measuring devices
6 Vertical travel distance is long used.
7 Duration is 8 h with no breaks Finally, the amount of time each subject used to
8 Natural curve of the back is not maintained redesign the job was measured. Of interest was the
9 Illumination in the room is low possibility that different experimental conditions
10 Entire task is done standingno change of posture
(standing and sitting) inuenced the amount of time subjects used to
11 Glare is present on the computer screen redesign the simulated job.
12 Glare in eyes while lifting Subjects satisfaction ratings were collected on a
13 Height of the computer monitor/angle of tilt post-test Likert rating scale where 1=strongly
14 Height of the keyboard agree, 2=agree, 3=undecided, 4=disagree, 5=
15 No handles on the boxes
16 Change in oor levelstep strongly disagree. Subjects were asked to rate,
I would have preferred just being told what to do
392 J.J. Saleem et al. / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 31 (2003) 387396
for the redesign rather than redesigning the job
myself. The questionnaire consisted of several
more questions (see Saleem, 1999) but they are not
relevant to the present focus and are not discussed
further.
Data recorded for the dependent measures are
assumed to have at least interval properties.
analysis of variance (ANOVA) was carried out
for each of the measures (a 0:05) except
satisfaction. The MannWhitney procedure (non-
parametric counterpart of the two-sample t-test)
was used to analyze the questionnaire ratings
(a 0:05).
2.5. Expert participation
Two graduate students with an industrial ergo-
nomics background performed the experiment as
experts. The experts data was meant to
represent the case where management has imple-
mented a redesign of the job without participation
from their own workers. This approach assumes
that the redesign implemented by management
would have been developed by their own ergono-
mists or by consultants with similar knowledge to
that of the graduate students who served as experts
for this study. The experts data was compared
against the data from the group of subjects that
performed most effectively as a result of receiving
one of the experimental conditions. By comparing
the quality of the redesign, time to redesign, and
satisfaction, the potential benets of the participa-
tion itself were addressed. For example, a high-
quality redesign (measured by a reduction of risk
factors) that was produced in a relatively short
amount of time, with high participant satisfaction,
Table 3
Means by group for risk factors identied, risk factors eliminated, lift index, and time to redesign
Group RF identied
Control 3 (1.51)
Tool 5 (2.20)
Instruction 6 (2.45)
Both 8 (2.25)
Note: The group listed as Both refers to those subjects who received both the ergonomics instruction (Instruction) and the NIOSH
lifting equation (Tool). Standard deviations appear in parentheses. For each group, n 8: Lift index for the original job=3.6.
would be ideal. If this design is of comparable
quality to a design produced by experts, than the
participation effort may be considered benecial.
3. Results
Subjects who received the Tool (NIOSH lifting
equation) identied more risk factors in the
original job than the control subjects (po0:05).
Subjects who received the Instruction (ergonomics
instruction) also identied more risk factors than
the control subjects (po0:05). Strength of associa-
tion calculations (Winer et al., 1991, p. 405)
revealed that 12% of the total variance was due
to the main effect of Tool and 29% due to the
main effect of Instruction. Only the subjects who
received Instruction were able to eliminate more
risk factors in the redesigned job than the control
subjects (po0:05). None of the comparison groups
were able to redesign the lifting task part of the job
with a signicantly lower lift index than the
control subjects. Time to redesign was not
different between groups (p > 0:05). However,
there was trend for subjects who received Tool to
use more time on average (see Table 3) for redesign
(p 0:062). There were no interaction effects for
any of the measures.
The question on preference, I would have
preferred just being told what to do for the
redesign rather than redesigning the job myself,
received the following average ratings: Control
group=3.3, Instruction group=4.4, Tool
group=4.0, Both group=4.5, and average rating
considering all groups combined was 4.1. Statis-
tical analysis revealed no signicant differences for
RF eliminated Lift index Time to redesign (min)
6 (1.83) 2.3 (0.48) 29 (11.53)
7 (4.72) 1.8 (1.36) 41 (26.42)
9 (4.19) 1.9 (0.85) 26 (4.83)
9 (2.19) 1.7 (0.42) 37 (16.66)
 J.J. Saleem et al. / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 31 (2003) 387396
subjects response to this question (p > 0:05). There
was, however, an apparent trend for the non-
control subjects to disagree (=4) with the state-
ment more than the control group.
4. Discussion
The objectives of this study were to test the
effects of providing subjects with ergonomics
training and/or the NIOSH lifting equation in a
PE approach to task redesign of a simulated
manual material handling job. Of the experimental
conditions, the ergonomics instruction seemed to
be the most effective. Instruction subjects identi-
ed more risk factors in the original job and
eliminated more risk factors in the redesign than
the control group. The NIOSH lifting equation
(Tool) was not as effective. Like the Instruction
subjects, the Tool subjects did identify more risk
factors than the control subjects. However, the
Instruction subjects identied on average more
risk factors than the Tool subjects. For risk factors
identied, Instruction was the stronger of the two
signicant effects; more of the total variance was
estimated to be due to the main effect of
Instruction (29%) than the main effect of Tool
(12%). This suggests that the ergonomics instruc-
tion, more than the NIOSH lifting equation, was
responsible for improved performance. Unlike the
Instruction subjects, the Tool subjects were not
able to eliminate signicantly more risk factors in
the redesign than the control subjects. This further
supports the conclusion that Instruction was the
more effective condition. Interestingly, each of the
groups eliminated on average more risk factors in
their redesigns than they had identied in the
original job. Subjects were simply unaware of
some of the risk factors that were eliminated as
they redesigned the job. For example, if a subject
moved the position of a shelf lower with the
intention of reducing the vertical displacement of a
lift, an excessive amount of twist may also have
been eliminated (unintentionally) depending on
the new position the subject chose for the shelf.
Subjects who received the ergonomics instruc-
tion and used the NIOSH lifting equation did not
seem to have an advantage over the subjects who
393
received the ergonomics instruction alone. The
subjects who received the ergonomics instruction
and the NIOSH lifting equation (Both) identied
the most risk factors in the original job, were
comparable to the Instruction subjects for elim-
inating the most risk factors in the redesign, and
redesigned the lifting task with the lowest lift
index. However, these results are not signicantly
better than the corresponding results for the
subjects who received only the ergonomics instruc-
tion. Since there were no interaction effects for
these measures, the potential benets of having
both the Instruction and the Tool can be inferred
by adding the benets of the two independently.
The Tool by itself seemed to be ineffective since
subjects who received the Tool condition did not
eliminate signicantly more risk factors than
control subjects. It is therefore likely that the
favorable results from the instructiontool subjects
(Both subjects) were due mostly from the Instruc-
tion. The hypothesis that provision of the ergo-
nomics instruction and the NIOSH lifting
equation would give subjects an advantage over
the control subjects for redesigning the simulated
manual material handling job was partially sup-
ported; only subjects who received the ergonomics
instruction eliminated signicantly more risk
factors in the redesign than the control subjects.
4.1. Participation vs. non-participation
Participation itself was hypothesized to be
benecial as opposed to redesign without workers
participation. As previously indicated, two gradu-
ate students with an industrial ergonomics back-
ground performed the experiment as experts.
The experts data was meant to represent the case
where management has implemented a redesign of
the job without participation from their own
workers. This approach assumes that the redesign
implemented by management would have been
developed by their own ergonomists or by
consultants with similar knowledge to that of the
graduate students who served as experts for this
study. By comparing the experts data with data
from the group of subjects that was deemed to
be most effective, the potential benets of parti-
cipation itself were of interest. The Instruction
394 J.J. Saleem et al. / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 31 (2003) 387396
Table 4
Means from instruction group and experts for risk factors
identied, risk factors eliminated, lift index, and time to
redesign
Instruction subjects Experts
Risk factors identied 6 (2.45) 8 (2.83)
Risk factors eliminated 9 (4.19) 11 (2.83)
Lift index (LI) 1.9 (0.85) 0.9 (0.28)
Time to redesign (min) 26 (4.83) 51 (18.38)
Note: Standard deviations appear in parentheses. For Instruc-
tion group, n 8: For experts, n 2: Lift index for the original
job=3.6.
condition seemed to be a more effective condition
than the Tool condition. Also, subjects who
received the Both condition seemed to benet
more from the ergonomics instruction than the
NIOSH lifting equation. If the Instruction group,
therefore, is chosen as a representative group
(since Instruction seems to be the most favorable
condition), Table 4 provides a comparison be-
tween the Instruction group and the experts.
The quality of the Instruction subjects redesigns
appear comparable to the experts with respect to
risk factors identied and risk factors eliminated.
Though it is, admittedly, difcult to make such a
conclusion from just this data, the Instruction
group performed nearly as well as our experts in
terms of identifying and eliminating risk factors.
For the lift index, however, only the experts
redesigned the lifting task with a lift index o1,
which is usually considered adequate. The Instruc-
tion subjects were not able to design the lifting
task with a lift index o1. Indeed, none of the
experimental groups were able to do this. Accord-
ing to NIOSH, a lift index >1 for a lifting task
may put the worker at an increased risk for injury.
Interestingly, the Instruction subjects only took an
average of 26 min to redesign the job whereas the
two experts took an average of 51 min. The 51 min
may not necessarily be representative since there
were only two experts. The two experts, however,
were much more careful and thorough during the
redesign phase of the experiment than the Instruc-
tion subjects. There seems to be, therefore, a
tradeoff between speed and quality. The Instruc-
tion subjects redesigned the job faster than the
experts but the quality of their redesigns was not
as good as the experts redesigns. This could be
considered an example of a speed-accuracy trade-
off between novice and expert designers. Novice
designers might be advised to take more time in
order to improve the quality of their results.
Participation is likely better than not participat-
ing at all, at least in the case of this particular
controlled laboratory simulation. The subjects
showed that they were capable of redesigning the
job well with respect to identifying and eliminating
risk factors. However, the subjects poor perfor-
mance in designing the lifting task with an
acceptable lift index (LI) suggests that an expert
is needed to ensure that any lifting tasks are safe
by NIOSH standards (LIo1). Lost work time due
to worker participation may not be a major factor
since the participants redesigned the job in less
time than the experts used. Furthermore, since
subjects disagreed with the idea of just being told
what to do for the redesign rather than redesigning
the job themselves (median of 4=disagree), the
subjects showed a preference for participating.
To achieve effective participation in a long-term
PE program, it is suggested that ergonomics
instruction be applied at regular intervals. In this
experiment, subjects assigned to the Instruction
condition received ergonomics instruction relevant
only to the task at hand in a single session. An
organization using a continuous PE program,
however, should consider a comprehensive ergo-
nomics training program administered repeatedly
over the course of the program.
4.2. Experimental limitations
There are limitations associated with this study
that should be considered. One limitation involves
the risk factors that were designed into the
experimental job. The experimental job was
designed with 16 risk factors, not just conned to
the lifting task (Table 2). Since the NIOSH lifting
equation was designed to identify risk factors
associated with lifting tasks and not more general
ergonomic risk factors, there are a few risk factors
present in the job that the NIOSH lifting equation
itself would not alert the user of (e.g., glare on the
computer screen). Had the experimental job been
 J.J. Saleem et al. / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 31 (2003) 387396
designed with risk factors all associated with
manual lifting, the results would have been biased
to favor the Tool condition. For this reason, the
work environment was designed to be as realistic
as possible, so as not to favor one of the
conditions.
Another shortcoming of this experiment was
that the subject pool consisted of university
students whose behaviors were assumed to reect
industrial workers. Since the subjects did not
perform the experimental tasks in real life or have
the work experience that actual industrial workers
have, the realism of the experiment may be
somewhat limited. The subject pool and worker
experience reect tradeoffs of a laboratory experi-
ment vs. a eld study. Most, if not all, of the PE
literature reports on eld research, not laboratory
research. The academically rigorous nature of a
laboratory experiment seems like a worthy trade-
off even given the limitations associated with
reproducing a PE approach in the laboratory.
4.3. Relevance of findings for a PE approach
As supported by this study, ergonomics instruc-
tion should be a requisite for a PE approach.
Subjects who received basic ergonomics training
on workplace design and manual lifting were able
to identify and eliminate signicantly more risk
factors than those who did not receive ergonomics
instruction. Devereux et al. (1998) documented a
case study in which ergonomics training was not
provided to the workers. The redesigned tool in
this case study showed few benets and was shown
to possibly increase physical strain. Likewise, in
the experiment conducted for this study, control
subjects redesigned the job with relatively fewer
benets than subjects who received a fundamental
level of ergonomics training. At a minimum, basic
ergonomics instruction relevant to the job or task
being redesigned is recommended.
The NIOSH lifting equation was not an effective
tool as compared to the ergonomics instruction for
the participants, who had no prior ergonomics
experience. That is not to say, however, that the
NIOSH lifting equation is not an effective tool in
general. The NIOSH lifting equation might there-
fore best be used by those with adequate ergo-
395
nomics experience since subjects did not
demonstrate the ability to redesign the lifting task
with a lift index o1 (which is assumed to be low
risk for injury). One approach has an expert
validate or check the feasibility of the redesign at
the end of the participatory process (e.g., Vink
et al., 1992) as opposed to having an expert
involved in all of the procedures. The results of the
present study suggest that an expert is needed
ensure the safety of any manual material handling.
Subjects who received the ergonomics training,
however, did demonstrate they were capable of
identifying and eliminating risk factors in the job.
Therefore, having the expert involved in all of the
procedures is not necessary. Rather, the expert is
needed at the beginning of the process to provide
the ergonomics training to the participants and at
the end of the process to validate the redesign.
Finally, any PE approach should be well dened
according to the dimensions of PE provided by
Wilson and Haines (Wilson and Haines, 1997;
Haines and Wilson; 1998). Although a unifying
model for PE does not exist because of its broad
practice, any PE approach can be dened by its
level, focus, purpose, timeline, involvement, cou-
pling, and requirements. The PE model used for
this experiment can be specied with respect to
these dimensions. The level of this PE study was
on the micro-level with the focus being on the
redesign of a manual material handling job with
several lifting tasks. The timeline was a discrete
one. Involvement was representative, with subjects
selected from a student population so as to reect
the likely users. The participative methods were
directly coupled; the participants redesigned the
job with no ltering of their recommendations.
The participation requirement was voluntary.
Also, since a manual material lifting task is usually
performed by one worker, subjects analyzed and
redesigned as individuals rather than in groups.
Dening a PE approach by this framework is
important because it can help inform appropriate
development of and use of participative techniques
(Wilson and Haines, 1997). Perhaps tool or
technique itself could be another dimension in
this framework. Any PE program needs a tool or
technique for workers to use in the PE approach.
The NIOSH lifting equation and ergonomics
396 J.J. Saleem et al. / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 31 (2003) 387396
instruction served as a PE tool and technique for
this study. The methodology by which the workers
will design or redesign a task should be specied
and evaluated in terms of efcacy and usability
prior to the implementation of the PE program.
References
Buckle, P., Li, G., 1996. User needs in exposure assessment for
musculoskeletal risk assessment. In: Straker, L., Pollock, C.
(Eds.), Virtual Proceedings of the CybErg, The First
International Cyberspace Conference on Ergonomics, 1996.
Cohen, A.L., 1994. Worker participation approached and
issues. In: Gjessing, C.C., Schoenborn, T.F., Cohen, A.
(Eds.), Participatory Ergonomics Interventions in Meat
Packing Plants. DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 94124,
Cincinnati, OH, pp. 946.
Cohen, A.L., 1996. Worker participation. In: Bhattacharya, A.,
McGlothin, J.D. (Eds.), Occupational Ergonomics. Marcel
Dekker, New York, pp. 235258.
Devereux, J., Buckle, P., Haisman, M., 1998. The evaluation of
a hand-handle interface tool (HHIT) for reducing muscu-
loskeletal discomfort associated with the manual handling
of gas cylinders. International Journal of Industrial
Ergonomics 21, 2334.
Gjessing, C.C., Schoenborn, T.F., Cohen, A., 1994. Participa-
tory Ergonomics Interventions in Meat Packing Plants.
DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 94124.
Haines, H.M., Wilson, J.R., 1998. Development of a Frame-
work for Participatory Ergonomics. Crown, London.
Halpern, C.A., Dawson, K.D., 1997. Design and implementa-
tion of a participatory ergonomics program for machine
sewing tasks. International Journal of Industrial Ergo-
nomics 20, 429440.
Imada, A.S., 1991. The rationale and tools of participatory
ergonomics. In: Noro, K., Imada, A.S. (Eds.), Participatory
Ergonomics. Taylor & Francis, London, pp. 3051.
Imada, A.S., Robertson, M.M., 1987. Cultural perspectives in
participatory ergonomics. In: Proceedings of the Human
Factors Society 31st Annual Meeting, Human Factors and
Ergonomics Society, Santa Monica, CA, pp. 10191022.
Kuorinka, I., Cote, M.M., Baril, R., Geoffrion, R., Giguere,
D., Dalzell, M.A., Larue, C., 1994. Participation in work-
place design with reference to low back pain: a case for the
improvement of the police patrol car. Ergonomics 37 (7),
11311136.
Marras, W.S., Fine, L.J., Ferguson, S.A., Waters, T.R., 1994.
The effectiveness of commonly used lifting assessment
methods to identify industrial jobs associated with
elevated risk of low-back disorders. Ergonomics 42 (1),
229245.
Moore, J.S., Garg, A., 1997. Participatory ergonomics in a red
meat packing plant, Part I: evidence of long-term effective-
ness. American Industrial Hygiene Association Journal 58,
127131.
Nagamachi, M., 1995. Requisites and practices of participatory
ergonomics. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics
15 (5), 371377.
Russel, G., 1998. Ergonomicsthe Revised NIOSH Lifting
Equation Online /http://www.industrialhygiene.com/calc/
lift.html.S
Saleem, J.J., 1999. Quantifying the participatory ergonomic
effects of training and a work analysis tool on operator
performance and well-being. Unpublished Masters Thesis,
Virginia Tech (VPI&SU), Blacksburg, VA. Available on
the www ohttp://scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/available/etd-
112999-210333/
St-Vincent, M., Kuorinka, I., Chicoine, D., Beaugrand, S.,
Fernandez, J., 1997. Assimilation and use of ergonomic
knowledge by nonergonomists to improve jobs in two
electrical product assembly plants. Human Factors and
Ergonomics in Manufacturing 7 (4), 337350.
van der Molen, H.F., Hoonakker, P.J.G., Schreurs, B.M.,
Brouwer, J.M, Binkhorst, R.A., 1993. A participatory
approach to diminish physical workload in the professions
of the Dutch building and construction industry: the rst
results. In: Marras, W.S., Karwowski, W., Smith, J.L.,
Pacholski, L. (Eds.), The Ergonomics of Manual Work.
Taylor & Francis, London, pp. 531534.
Vink, P., Lourijsen, E., Wortel, E., Dul, J., 1992. Exp-
eriences in participatory ergonomics: results of a roundtable
session during the 11th IEA congress. Ergonomics 35 (2),
123127.
Waters, T.R., Putz-Anderson, V., Garg, A., Fine, L.J., 1993.
Revised NIOSH equation for the design and evaluation of
manual lifting tasks. Ergonomics 36 (7), 749776.
Wilson, J.R., 1995. Ergonomics and participation. In: Wilson,
J.R., Corlett, E.N. (Eds.), Evaluation of Human Work.
Taylor & Francis, London, pp. 10711096.
Wilson, J.R., Haines, H.M., 1997. Participatory ergonomics.
In: Salvendy, G. (Ed.), Handbook of Human Factors, 2nd
Edition. Wiley, New York, pp. 490513.
Winer, B.J., Brown, D.R., Michels, K.M., 1991. Statistical
Principles in Experimental Design, 3rd Edition. McGraw-
Hill, New York.