title: Comparison of risk assessment procedures used in OCRA and ULRA methods.
abstract: The aim of this study was to analyse the convergence of two methods by comparing exposure and the assessed risk of developing musculoskeletal disorders at 18 repetitive task workstations. The already established occupational repetitive actions (OCRA) and the recently developed upper limb risk assessment (ULRA) produce correlated results (R = 0.84, p = 0.0001). A discussion of the factors that influence the values of the OCRA index and ULRA's repetitive task indicator shows that both similarities and differences in the results produced by the two methods can arise from the concepts that underlie them. The assessment procedure and mathematical calculations that the basic parameters are subjected to are crucial to the results of risk assessment. The way the basic parameters are defined influences the assessment of exposure and risk assessment to a lesser degree. The analysis also proved that not always do great differences in load indicator values result in differences in risk zones.
  We focused on comparing methods that, even though based on different concepts, serve the same purpose. The results proved that different methods with different assumptions can produce similar assessment of upper limb load; sharp criteria in risk assessment are not the best solution.
authors.affiliation: a Laboratory of Biomechanics, Department of Ergonomics , Central Institute for Labour Protection - National Research Institute (CIOP-PIB) , ul. Czerniakowska 16, 00-701, Warsaw , Poland.
authors.forename: Danuta
authors.initials: D
authors.lastname: Roman-Liu
authors.forename: Anna
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Groborz
authors.forename: Tomasz
authors.initials: T
authors.lastname: Tokarski
mesh_terms: D001696:Biomechanical Phenomena; D012090:Cumulative Trauma Disorders / Q000209:etiology*; D006804:Ergonomics / Q000379:methods*; D006801:Humans; D009140:Musculoskeletal Diseases / Q000209:etiology*; D009784:Occupational Diseases / Q000209:etiology*; D011187:Posture; D018570:Risk Assessment / Q000379:methods; D013647:Task Performance and Analysis; D013997:Time Factors; D034941:Upper Extremity
references.citation: Appl Ergon. 2007 Jan;38(1):91-7
references.pmid: 16867298
references.citation: Appl Ergon. 1993 Apr;24(2):91-9
references.pmid: 15676903
references.citation: Occup Med (Lond). 2005 May;55(3):190-9
references.pmid: 15857898
references.citation: Int J Occup Saf Ergon. 2007;13(1):3-14
references.pmid: 17362654
references.citation: Ergonomics. 2007 Nov;50(11):1740-60
references.pmid: 17972200
references.citation: Appl Ergon. 2001 Aug;32(4):357-66
references.pmid: 11461037
references.citation: Int J Occup Saf Ergon. 2011;17(2):139-46
references.pmid: 21679665
references.citation: Appl Ergon. 2005 Mar;36(2):213-22
references.pmid: 15694076
references.citation: Ergonomics. 1999 Jan;42(1):40-60
references.pmid: 9973871
references.citation: Appl Ergon. 2010 May;41(3):454-60
references.pmid: 19875100
references.citation: Eur J Appl Physiol. 2008 Jun;103(3):253-64
references.pmid: 18293008
references.citation: Int J Occup Saf Ergon. 2010;16(1):105-11
references.pmid: 20331923
references.citation: Int J Occup Saf Ergon. 2005;11(1):93-102
references.pmid: 15794876
references.citation: Appl Ergon. 2001 Dec;32(6):609-16
references.pmid: 11703047
references.citation: Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2002 May;17(4):309-11
references.pmid: 12034125
references.citation: Occup Environ Med. 1998 May;55(5):291-9
references.pmid: 9764106
references.citation: Ergonomics. 2012;55(7):813-24
references.pmid: 22506613
references.citation: Am Ind Hyg Assoc J. 1997 Apr;58(4):278-85
references.pmid: 9115085
references.citation: Pain. 2007 Nov;132(1-2):142-53
references.pmid: 17768009
references.citation: Ergonomics. 1998 Sep;41(9):1290-311
references.pmid: 9754032
references.citation: Am Ind Hyg Assoc J. 1995 May;56(5):443-58
references.pmid: 7754975
references.citation: Ergonomics. 2007 Nov;50(11):1727-39
references.pmid: 17972199
references.citation: Ergonomics. 2001 Jan 15;44(1):17-47
references.pmid: 11214897
references.citation: Work. 2003;21(2):165-72
references.pmid: 14501094