Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2015 Feb;88(2):153-65.
doi: 10.1007/s00420-014-0946-5. Epub 2014 May 24.

Occupational kneeling and squatting: development and validation of an assessment method combining measurements and diaries

Affiliations

Occupational kneeling and squatting: development and validation of an assessment method combining measurements and diaries

Dirk M Ditchen et al. Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 2015 Feb.

Abstract

Objectives: As knee-straining postures such as kneeling and squatting are known to be risk factors for knee disorders, there is a need for effective exposure assessment at the workplace. Therefore, the aim of this study was to develop a method to capture knee-straining postures for entire work shifts by combining measurement techniques with the information obtained from diaries, and thus avoiding measuring entire work shifts. This approach was applied to various occupational tasks to obtain an overview of typical exposure values in current specific occupations.

Methods: The analyses were carried out in the field using an ambulatory measuring system (CUELA) to assess posture combined with one-day self-reported occupational diaries describing the durations of various work tasks. In total, 242 work shifts were measured, representing 81 typical tasks from 16 professions. Knee-straining postures were analysed as daily time intervals for five different postures. The accuracy of the method was examined by comparing the results to measurements of entire work shifts.

Results: Unsupported kneeling was the most widely used knee posture in our sample (median 11.4 % per work shift), followed by supported kneeling (3.0 %), sitting on heels (1.1 %), squatting (0.7 %), and crawling (0.0 %). The daily time spent in knee-straining postures varied considerably, both between the individual occupations, within an occupation (e.g. parquet layers: 0.0-88.9 %), and to some extent even within a single task (e.g. preparation work of floor layers (22.0 ± 23.0 %). The applied measuring method for obtaining daily exposure to the knee has been proven valid and efficient randomly compared with whole-shift measurements (p = 0.27).

Conclusions: The daily degree of postural exposure to the knee showed a huge variation within the analysed job categories and seemed to be dependent on the particular tasks performed. The results of this study may help to develop an exposure matrix with respect to occupational knee-straining postures. The tested combination of task-based measurement and diary information may be a promising option for providing a cost-effective assessment tool.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Knee-straining postures: a unsupported kneeling (roofer); b supported kneeling (tiler), c sitting on heels (installer), d squatting (reinforcement ironworker); and e crawling (floor layer). Subjects bd are equipped with the CUELA measuring system
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Screenshot of the analysis software depicting a measuring-based vector puppet (top left), the synchronised video sequence (top right), angular-time-graphs of the measured knee flexion (for both knees), and automatic identification codes for various postures (colour bars, bottom)
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Pilot study: comparison of measured (white) and “reconstructed” (black) exposure to the knee: time intervals spent in knee-straining postures during an entire work shift (n = 14) in three occupations (subject ID 1–8 service technicians, ID 9–12 ramp agents, ID 13–14 nursery nurses)
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Distribution of daily time intervals spent in five different knee-straining postures over all measurements (box-plots showing percentiles 5, 25, 50, 75, and 95; N = 242 work shifts)

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Baty D, Buckle PW, Stubbs DA (1986) Posture recording by direct observation questionnaire assessment and instrumentation: a comparison based on a recent field study. In: Corlett N, Wilson J, Manenica I (eds) The ergonomics of working postures: proceedings of the first international occupational ergonomics symposium. Taylor & Francis, London, pp 283–91. ISBN:0850663385
    1. Benke G, Sim M, Fritschi L, Aldred G. Beyond the job exposure matrix (JEM): the task exposure matrix (TEM) Ann Occup Hyg. 2000;44(6):475–482. doi: 10.1093/annhyg/44.6.475. - DOI - PubMed
    1. BMGS (Bundesministerium für Gesundheit und Soziale Sicherung) (2005) Bekanntmachung des BMGS vom 1. Oktober 2005, Ärztlicher Sachverständigenbeirat, Sektion “Berufskrankheiten”, Wissenschaftliche Begründung für die Berufskrankheit Gonarthrose, Bundesarbeitsblatt. [Scientific justification of the occupational disease “knee osteoarthritis“] 10:46–54
    1. Burdorf A, Laan J. Comparison of methods for the assessment of postural load on the back. Scand J Work Environ Health. 1991;17:425–429. doi: 10.5271/sjweh.1679. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Burdorf A, Windhorst J, van der Beek AJ, van der Molen H, Swuste PHJJ. The effects of mechanised equipment on physical load among road workers and floor layers in the construction industry. Int J Ind Ergonom. 2007;37:133–143. doi: 10.1016/j.ergon.2006.10.007. - DOI

Publication types

MeSH terms