Intelligence,Work Performance,and Inspection Time

The additivity of strengths for teams of two and three untrained female subjects in eam-work was evaluated in static (isometric) and dynamic (isokinetic) terms. Eight healthy college students were tested under laboratory conditions. Four standard values were used to evaluate isometric strengths: arm, leg, stooped back, and composite measures. The isokinetic strength was tested by means of dynamic lift strength and dynamic back extension. Following individual measurement of the subjects, they were tested in two-member and three-member teams. Two-female teams w«re evaluated in terms of 28 combinations for each of the six measures; the three-female teams were tested in 56 combinations among the subjects. With the exception of isometric arm strength, the actual team strengths were significantly lower then the corresponding sums of the team-members' individual strengths. On average, the isometric back, leg and composite strengths were approximately 83·3% for the two-female teams, and 83·9% for the three-female teams. The isokinetic strengths for two-female and three-female teams accounted for about 68·0% and 68·4% of the sums, respectively. These results indicate that lifting strength of females in team-work is generally not additive and depends upon the muscle group in use, and suggests that lifting capacity in team-work will be reduced as the number of team members increases.     

Maximum acceptable weights and maximum voluntary isometric strengths for asymmetric lifting

A laboratory study was conducted to determine the effects of asymmetric lifting on psychophysically determined maximum acceptable weights and maximum voluntary isometric strengths. Thirteen male college students lifted three different boxes in the sagittal plane and at three different angles of asymmetry (30,60 and 90°) from floor to an 81-cm high table using a free-style lifting technique. For each lifting task, the maximum voluntary isometric strength was measured at the origin of lift.

The maximum acceptable weights and the static strengths for asymmetric lifting were significantly lower than those for symmetric lifting in the sagittal plane for three box sizes (P<0·01). The decrease in maximum acceptable weight and static strength from the sagittal plane values increased with an increase in the angle of asymmetry (P < 0·01). Box size had no significant effect (P≥ 0·05) on the percentage decrease in maximum acceptable weight or voluntary isometric strength from the sagittal plane values. Correction factors of 7,15 and 22% for maximum acceptable weights and 12, 21 and 31% for static strength at 30, 60 and 90% of asymmetric lifting are recommended. Lastly, in the absence of epidemiological data, a comparison of maximum acceptable weight and static strength in the sagittal plane with the NIOSH guidelines for action and maximum permissible limits indicates that the guidelines may be conservative.     

Ratings of acceptable load and maximal isometric lifting strengths: the effects of repetition

The effects of repetition on psychophysically acceptable loads and maximal isometric lifting strengths were studied in two groups of subjects. In both groups, subjects selected acceptable loads for dynamic lifting between table and floor and were tested for maximal and acceptable lifting strength isometrically at knee and waist levels.

In series I, 33 subjects (15 males, 18 females) were tested 4 times with a minimal interval of 5 days between tests. In series II, 12 subjects (8 males, 4 females) were tested daily from Monday to Friday on 2 consecutive weeks.

Differences in acceptable isometric lifting strength between the two groups appeared to arise from minor differences in the instructions given; but in neither series was there a significant change in acceptable lifting strength, either dynamic or isometric. In series I, no change was noted in maximal isometric lifting strength. But in series II there was a gain in maximal lifting strength at knee level of 25%. Also in series II, the acceptable isometric lifting strength at waist level was consistently found to be 60% of the acceptable dynamic lifting strength.     

Arm lift strength in work space

This study was conducted to determine arm strength values for isometric and isokinetic efforts around the human trunk. Thirty-eight normal young adults (20 male and 18 female) performed a total of 19 tasks. These consisted of one self-selected optimum posture with upright stance and elbows bent at 90 degrees , designated as standard posture for isometric test. In addition, isometric testing was done sagittally symmetrical 30 degrees and 60 degrees lateral planes at half-, three-quarters- and full-reach distances at knuckle height. The isokinetic tests were done between knuckle height and shoulder height in postures identical to isometric tests. The sequence of these tasks was randomised. The peak strength in standard posture was invariably lower than the peak strength at half-reach in isometric condition in all three planes for both sexes with the exception of one condition among females (60 degrees lateral plane, half-reach isometric). Peak and average arm lift strengths of males were significantly higher than those of females (p < 0.01) and ranged between 44% and 71%. For both sexes isometric strength was significantly higher than isokinetic strength (p < 0.01). The peak and average strengths in the sagittal plane were invariably higher than those of asymmetric postures, with one exception among females. With increasing reach distance the strength declined significantly for all conditions among both genders (p < 0.01). The ANOVA showed that the gender, mode of lifting, postural symmetry and reach of lifting, in addition to affecting the peak and average strength individually (p < 0.01), had significant 2-way and 3-way interactions (p < 0.01). All strength values were inter-correlated (p < 0.01). The regressions predicting peak and average strengths from anthropometric characteristics and sagittal plane strengths accounted for 63% to 89% of all variance and were highly significant (p < 0.01).     

A comparison of isokinetic lifting strength with static strength and maximum acceptable weight with special reference to speed of lifting

A laboratory study was conducted to determine the effects of the speed of lifting and box size on isokinetic strength and to compare isokinetic lifting strengths with static lifting strengths and psychophysically determined maximum acceptable weights. Nine male college students lifted three different boxes (250, 380 and 510 mm wide) from the floor to a bench height of 0.8 m using a free-style lifting technique at a rate of 0.2 lifts min^?1. For each lifting task static strength was measured at the origin of lift. Isokinetic lifting strength was measured at 0.41,0.51 and 0.6 ms^?1 using a Biokinetic ergometer and attaching boxes to the load cell. Ratings of perceived exertion were recorded for the low back. There was a progressive decrease in mean and peak isokinetic lifting strengths both with an increase in lifting speed and with an increase in box width (p<0.01). The lifting speed had a much greater effect (29% and 27%) than the box width (18% and 15%) on mean and peak isokinetic lifting strengths. However, high speed lifting was perceived subjectively to be less stressful (RPE = 10.7) than slow speed lifting (RPE = 12.7). Static strength and maximum acceptable weight had higher correlations with mean isokinetic strengm (r = 0.65 and 0.82) than with peak isokinetic strength (r = 0.52 and 0.73). At 0.41 ms^?1, mean isokinetic strength was 6% greater than the mean static strength (p ≥0,05). Extrapolation of mean isokinetic strength data showed that at 0.73 ms^?1 the estimated mean isokinetic strengths were within 6% of maximum acceptable weights. It is concluded that isokinetic strength is highly dependent upon die speed of lifting. At a slow speed (0.41 ms^?1), mean isokinetic strength is equal to mean static strength; and, at a high speed (0.73 ms^?1), it appears to be equal to the maximum acceptable weight. It is recommended that both speed of lifting and box width should be controlled carefully to simulate job-specific isokinetic lifting strength.     

Effects of work experience and exertion height on static lifting strengths and lift strategies of experienced and novice female participants

In this study, 46 female experienced workers and inexperienced novices (23 each) were recruited to determine their maximum lifting strength at 15 exertion heights between 10 and 150 cm from the floor. The results revealed that the experienced workers' strengths at all 15 heights exhibited relatively little fluctuation, and were approximately 50–70 N lower than those of novices when heights were ≤50 cm. No differences in strengths were observed at 60–150 cm between the groups. The experienced workers tended to adopt a consistently deep squat at lower heights (≤50 cm) and a more erect posture with stiffened arms at higher heights (≥70 cm), resulting in lower L4/L5 disc compression forces and shoulder moments than in novices, respectively. In contrast to the lifting techniques adopted by experienced workers to effectively avoid overloading, the findings suggest that novice female workers who lack experience should be cautious and trained for performing lifting tasks.     

Isokinetic and isometric lifting capacity of Chinese in relation to the physical demand of job

The aim of the study was to formulate normative data for the lifting capacities of a normal Chinese population, in order to establish a basic foundation for further studies and to investigate the relationship between individual attributes including age, gender, height, weight, job physical demand and each type of lifting capacity. Isokinetic and isometric lifting strength at low, waist and shoulder assessment levels were measured using the LIDO Workset II based on a sample of 93 normal Chinese adults (63 men and 30 women) between the ages of 21-51. The 50th percentile score for adult Chinese female's lifting strength was 17.71% lower than the American female while the adult Chinese male's lifting strength was 14.94% lower than the American male. Lifting forces were higher in the 20-40 year age group. The isometric work mode had considerable impact on the lifting capacities, with shoulder level having the highest lifting capacities. The gender and body weight had a significant positive correlation to lifting capacity while job physical demand had a moderate correlation. Age and body heights were weakly correlated to lifting capacity.     

Maximum acceptable repetitive lifting workload by Chinese subjects

This study used psychophysical methods to determine the acceptable mean maximum lifting workload for eight Chinese young male subjects, and examined the effects of lifting technique (including freestyle, stoop and squat), lifting frequency (including 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 lifts/min) and physical characteristics on the maximum acceptable workload. The results are described as follows: (1) The maximum acceptable weights selected by subjects varied from 11.34 to 18.33 kg with changes in lifting technique and frequency. These data were lower than those previously obtained; (2) The upper limit of physiological tolerance over an 8 h workday was also generally lower than previously suggested. However, this upper limit varied with changes in lifting technique and frequency, and in some circumstances it was the same as or even higher than previous limit; (3) Lifting efficiency was affected significantly by technique and frequency. The rank order of efficiency for three lifting techniques were freestyle, stoop and squat. Efficiency was greatest when lifting frequency was between 5 and 6 lifts/min; and (4) The correlations between the maximum acceptable workloads selected by subjects and anthropometric sizes were significant, but those between maximum acceptable workload and isometric strength were not.     

Review of:“Sex Differences in Human PerformanceEdited by M. A. BAKER (Chichester,England: John Wiley, 1987.) [Pp. xvi + 202.] £22·00. ISBN 0-471-91119-4.

An experiment was conducted to examine the role that maximal lifting power has in predicting maximum acceptable weight of lift (MAWL) for a frequency of one lift per 8 h. The secondary aim of the study was to compare the ability of power to predict MAWL to previously used measures of capacity including two measures of isometric strength, five measures of isokinetic strength, and isoinertial capacity on an incremental lifting test. Twenty-five male subjects volunteered to participate in the experiment. The isometric tests involved maximum voluntary contractions for composite lifting strength at vertical heights of 15 and 75 cm. Peak isokinetic strength was measured at velocities of 0.1, 0.2, 0.4, 0.6 and 0.8 m s^?1 using a modified CYBEX® II isokinetic dynamometer. Isoinertial lifting capactity was measured on the X-factor incremental lifting machine and peak power was measured on the incremental lifting machine by having subjects lift a 25 kg load as quickly as possible. The results indicate that peak isoinertial power is significantly correlated with MAWL, and this correlation was higher than any of the correlations between the other predictor variables and MAWL. The relationships between the isokinetic strength measures and MAWL were stronger than the relationships between the isometric measures and MAWL. Overall, the results suggest that tests used to predict MAWL should be dynamic rather than static.     

Maximum acceptable repetitive lifting workload by Chinese subjects

This study used psychophysical methods to determine the acceptable mean maximum lifting workload for eight Chinese young male subjects, and examined the effects of lifting technique (including freestyle, stoop and squat), lifting frequency (including 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 lifts/min) and physical characteristics on the maximum acceptable workload. The results are described as follows: (1) The maximum acceptable weights selected by subjects varied from 11-34 to 1833?kg with changes in lifting technique and frequency. These data were lower than those previously obtained; (2) The upper limit of physiological tolerance over an 8?h workday was also generally lower than previously suggested. However, this upper limit varied with changes in lifting technique and frequency, and in some circumstances it was the same as or even higher than previous limit; (3) Lifting efficiency was affected significantly by technique and frequency. The rank order of efficiency for three lifting techniques were freestyle, stoop and squat. Efficiency was greatest when lifting frequency was between 5 and 6 lifts/min; and (4) The correlations between the maximum acceptable workloads selected by subjects and anthropometric sizes were significant, but those between maximum acceptable workload and isometric strength were not.     

Development of predictive equations for lifting strengths

The purpose of the study was to determine relationship between lifting strengths of male and female subjects and body posture, type of lift (stoop or squat) and velocity of lift. Thirty normal young adults (18 males and 12 females) volunteered for the study. All subjects were required to perform a total of 56 tasks. Of these, 28 were stoop lifts and 28 were squat lifts. In each of the categories of stoop and squat lifts, the strengths were tested in standard posture, isokinetic (linear velocity of 500 mm/s), and isometric modes at half, three-quarters and full horizontal individual reach distances in sagittal, 30 degrees lateral and 60 degrees lateral planes. The strengths were measured using a static dynamic strength tester with a load cell and an IBM microcomputer with an A/D card. The peak and average strength values were extracted and statistically compared across conditions and gender (ANOVA). Finally a multiple regression analysis was carried out to predict strength as a function of reach, posture and velocity of lift. The ANOVA revealed a highly significant effect of gender, reach, plane and velocity (p < 0.01). All regression equations (108) were significant (p < 0.01), and more than 70% of variance in lifting strength was accounted for by the anthropometric variables and sagittal plane strength values. Such an established relationship allows one to predict the human lifting strength capabilities for industrial application based on simple anthropometric and strength characteristics.     

Use of GMDH to predict human dynamic strengths

This paper presents further application of the Group Method of Data Handling (GMDH), a heuristic technique. It was applied to develop non-linear polynomials to predict dynamic strengths for the knuckle to shoulder and the floor to shoulder heights. Only three anthropometric variables are needed as inputs to these models. The input variables can be measured accurately and reliably very quickly. Using these polynomials, it is possible to predict the maximum dynamic lift (MDL) of a worker and, thereby, simply employee screening and placement procedures for jobs requiring lifting. As demonstrated earlier in cases of isometric strengths, the GMDH can also be successfully used to predict dynamic strengths from body size measurements which are weakly correlated with human strengths, isometric or dynamic.     

Spine loading and trunk kinematics during team lifting

Two-person or team lifting is a popular method for handling materials under awkward or heavy lifting conditions. While many guidelines and standards address safe lifting limits for individual lifting, there are no such limits for team lifting, and these lifts are poorly understood. The literature associated with team lifting offers some interesting paradoxes. Many studies have indicated that people lift less per individual under team conditions compared with one-person lifting. Yet, at least one study has reported an increase in team-lifting capacity when subjects were height-matched. The current study explored the spine loading characteristics of one- and two-person lifting teams when subjects lifted under several sagittally symmetric and asymmetric conditions. Spine compression was lower for two person lifts for a given weight, while lifting in sagittally symmetric conditions whereas lateral shear became much greater for two-person lifts under asymmetric lifting conditions. This study has linked these changes to differences in trunk kinematic patterns adopted during one- versus two-person lifting.     

Spine loading and trunk kinematics during team lifting

Two-person or team lifting is a popular method for handling materials under awkward or heavy lifting conditions. While many guidelines and standards address safe lifting limits for individual lifting, there are no such limits for team lifting, and these lifts are poorly understood. The literature associated with team lifting offers some interesting paradoxes. Many studies have indicated that people lift less per individual under team conditions compared with one-person lifting. Yet, at least one study has reported an increase in team-lifting capacity when subjects were height-matched. The current study explored the spine loading characteristics of one- and two-person lifting teams when subjects lifted under several sagittally symmetric and asymmetric conditions. Spine compression was lower for two person lifts for a given weight, while lifting in sagittally symmetric conditions whereas lateral shear became much greater for two-person lifts under asymmetric lifting conditions. This study has linked these changes to differences in trunk kinematic patterns adopted during one- versus two-person lifting.     

Differences in lifting strength profiles between experienced workers and novices at various exertion heights

This study compared lifting strength patterns between experienced workers and novices at various exertion heights. Twenty-one experienced workers and 21 novices were recruited to determine their static-lifting strength under various heights (10-150 cm in increments of 10 cm) using two exertion methods (vertically upward lifting, VUL, and toward body lifting, TBL). Testing posture was also recorded by a motion analysis system for comparing with the corresponding strength values.Results showed that strength during VUL were much higher than strength during TBL at 15 height positions (p < 0.001). Strength in all 30 task combinations showed no difference between the two groups except for the VUL at heights of 100-120 cm. On the average, strength exerted by novices during VUL was 4.57-7.61 kg lower than that of workers while lifting at 100-120 cm heights (all p < 0.05). The strength during TBL consistently decreased with increased heights of lifting. When workers performed VUL, the strength surprisingly remained nearly unchanged throughout the heights of interest. The postures adopted by workers during VUL were also highly differentiated from novices while performing near-floor positions, but the strength was equivalent to each other. This study demonstrated that the static-lifting strength of novices were significantly lower than those of experienced workers while upward lifting near the participant’s elbow height. It was concluded that workers tend to adopt a safer (i.e., more flexed knees) and more skillful technique than novices to generate forces, resulting in lower spinal loads during both methods of lifting.

Relevance to Industry

Many studies have established the human strength data based on student participants who do not have experience in manual materials handling. The present findings clearly suggest that lifting strength data collected on novices (e.g., on students) should be carefully applied in the task (re)design at the workplace as their strength profiles and the postures adopted during lifting differ from workers.     

Test-retest reliability of isometric and isoinertial testing in symmetric and asymmetric lifting

The aim of this study was to evaluate test-retest reliability of a dynamometer in measuring lifting strength or force parameters under several combinations of ergonomic factors. Thirteen healthy participants were tested on peak force (PF), related variables and isometric strength (IS) twice, at intervals of 3 months. Correlation coefficients for all parameters in the sagittal plane were 0.60–0.85. Coefficients of variations (CVs) of methodology error for PF in the sagittal plane were 6.2–6.9%. Correlation coefficients and CVs for IS at 90° to the lateral plane were 0.51– 0.54 and 16.6–17.9%, respectively. In paired t-tests of the parameters under all conditions, there was no significant difference between test and retest. In the test and retest, ratings of perceived exertions for the low back and the right arm in isometric lifting were significantly higher than those in dynamic lifting. It was concluded that the test-retest reliability of dynamic forces in the dynamometer was high. The peak force in the sagittal plane was considered reliable. In isometric lifting, isometric strength in the sagittal plane seemed reliable, while that at right angles to the lateral plane was considered to be less reliable.     

Some considerations in the use of isometric,isoinertial and isokinetic strength models for predicting lifting capability

In order to predict lifting capacity of individuals, various mathematical models have been developed. These models have been based on several strength measurements of individuals including isometric, isokinetic and isoinertial strengths. A study was conducted to review and compare prediction models based on their performance. The results indicate that models based on dynamic (isokinetic and isoinertial) strengths are superior to models based on static (isometric) strength. Furthermore, different types of equipment used in measurement of strengths are discussed, and the advantages and disadvantages of each are cited. Their safety, accuracy, price and mobility are compared.     

An exploratory study: a measure of workload associated with teamwork

Team workload, which is usually described as an index of the ratio of available team resources to task demands, is believed to be critical for optimal human–computer integration. Although research conceptualizing team workload suggests that the measurement of team workload should consider workload unique to the team, the sum/min/max of members’ workload associated with taskwork referring to individual task performance is often used as an indicator of team workload. In order to better assess workload in team performance in which more than two individuals cooperate and conduct a task, it is also necessary to assess members’ workload associated with teamwork that refers to interpersonal interactions among individuals. The present study aims to develop a measure of workload associated with teamwork and discuss its contribution to operationalizing team workload. Results of team experiments indicate that the Teamwork Workload Scale is able to assess workload associated with teamwork and that it is necessary to assess both workload associated with taskwork and teamwork in order to better assess workload in team performance and operationalize team workload. In order to operationalize and measure team workload, it is necessary to investigate workload in team performance using quantitative data.     

The measurement and prediction of isometric lifting strength in symmetrical and asymmetrical postures.

Static lifting strengths of nine men and nine women were measured at six heights from just above the floor to just above the head, at two horizontal reaches from the mid-ankles (equal to the elbow to grip and acromium to grip distances), in the sagittal plane and also at 45 degrees and 90 degrees to the right for two-handed exertions and at 45 degrees and 90 degrees to each side for one-handed exertions, making a total of 96 postures. A second and different group of 18 subjects (nine men and nine women) were studied in 20 two-handed and 40 one-handed postures intermediate to those of the first group. A third group of 16 subjects (eight men and eight women), with six drawn from the other groups, were used to determine maximum possible reach (at which lifting strength is zero) at the same heights and planes as those for the first group. When strength was expressed as a fraction of body weight and height and reach were expressed as fractions of stature, predictive equations of static lifting strength were obtained which were gender free. The predictive equations may be used to generate isodyne contours for an individual in any chosen planes. Individuals exist whose strengths are consistently greater or less than the prediction. The possibility of identifying such persons in a process of worker selection is discussed.     

Back muscle strength, lifting, and stooped working postures

When lifting loads and working in a forward stooped position, the muscles of the back rather than the ligaments and bony structures of the spine should overcome the gravitational forces. Formulae, based on measurements of back muscle strength, for prediction of maximal loads to be lifted, and for the ability to sustain work in a stooped position, have been worked out and tested in practical situations. From tests with 50 male and female subjects the simplest prediction formulae for maximum loads were: max. load = 1.10 x isometric back muscle strength for men; and max. load = 0.95 x isometric back muscle strength - 8 kg for women. Some standard values for maximum lifts and permissible single and repeated lifts have been calculated for men and women separately and are given in Table 1. From tests with 65 rehabilitees it was found that the maximum isometric strength of the back muscles measured at shoulder height should exceed 2/3 of the body weight, if fatigue and/or pain in the back muscles is to be avoided during work in a standing stooped position.