LBA ( Lower Back Analysis )

1. Sumber JACK TAT

Background
What is it?
The Lower Back Analysis tool helps you evaluate the spinal forces acting on a virtual human’s lower back, under
any posture and loading condition. With this tool, you can:
Determine whether newly defined or existing workplace tasks exceed NIOSH threshold limit values or expose
workers to an increased risk of low back injury
Evaluate jobs in real-time, flagging the exact moments when the compression forces on a worker’s low back
exceed NIOSH limits
Low back compression, anterio/posterior shear and Lateral shear forces are estimated with this tool.

What problems does it solve?

The Low Back Analysis tool is used to:
Layout workcells and design tasks that minimize the risk of low back injury
Evaluate existing tasks to determine low back injury risks and conformity to NIOSH guidelines
Prioritize manual tasks that need the most immediate attention for ergonomic modifications

Run ―what-if‖ scenarios to modify tasks by varying parameters that influence low back spinal forces -
posture and loading conditions

How do you use it?

The Low Back Analysis tool uses a complex biomechanical low back model based on anatomical and
physiological data from scientific literature. The tool calculates compression and shear forces at the L4/L5
vertebral joint and compares the compressive forces to the NIOSH recommended threshold limit values.
The following steps can be taken to use this tool:
Scale Jack to the desired stature and place the virtual human in a working posture.
Define any hand loads that Jack must exert using the Loads and Weights Module.
Open the Low back Analysis tool and click on Activate. You can evaluate the forces on Jack’s lower
back while he’s in a static posture or continuously throughout a task sequence.

What information does it generate?

The Low Back Compression Analysis tool provides information, in both report and graphical form. The
tool tells you:
Compression and shear forces acting on the L4/L5 vertebral joint, and how the compression forces
compare to NIOSH recommended and permissible force limits
Sagittal, lateral and axial spinal reaction moments (torques) at the L4/L5 disc, representing the effect of
upper body weight and hand forces
 Torso muscle activity levels required to balance the spinal moments, including the activity of the erector
spinae, latissimus dorsi, external and internal obliques and the rectus abdomini.

A ―watchdog‖ is also available that allows you to continuously evaluate the compression forces at the
L4/L5 disc of a virtual worker performing a real-time simulation of a lift. As the virtual worker moves
through the task, the watchdog automatically alerts you when compression forces at the L4/L5 joint
exceed permissible limits.

How do you interpret the results?

The results of a low back Compression analysis can be used to design or modify manual tasks to minimize the risk
of low back injuries and conform to NIOSH guidelines. The tool can also pinpoint the exact moments of a task
sequence when the forces on a worker’s low back exceed the prescribed limits.

What is the scientific basis for the tool?

The Low Back Compression Analysis tool is based on a complex biomechanical low back model which are
described in the following articles:
Raschke, U. (1994) Lumbar Muscle Activity Prediction During Dynamic Sagittal Plane Lifting Conditions:
Physiological and Biomechanical Modeling Considerations. PhD Dissertation (Bioengineering), The University of
Michigan.
Raschke, U., Martin, B.J and Chaffin, D.B. (1996) Distributed Moment Histogram: A neurophysiology based
method of agonist and antagonist trunk muscle activity prediction. J. Biomechanics Vol 29 (12) pp. 1587-1596

The additional graphs will be displayed in a separate window. These graphs show additional detailed information
about the loads on the spine. Notice that they also update as the posture of the human changes. The L4/L5 Moments
are the net joint moments acting at the L4/L5 joint. These moments represent the sum of the moments generated by
all the structures cross the spinal joint (muscle forces, ligamentous forces, bone on bone contact force).
DMH stands for Distributed Moment Histogram and represents the technique used to determine the distribution of the
net joint moments to the individual muscles

SSP
1. Sumber JACK TAT
Background
What is it?
The Static Strength Prediction (SSP) tool helps you evaluate the percentage of a working population that has the
strength to perform a task based on posture, exertion requirements and anthropometry. The SSP tool:
Aids in analyzing physical tasks involving lifts, lowers, pushes and pulls requiring complex hand forces, torso
twists and bends
Predicts the percentage of men or women who have the strength to perform the prescribed task
Evaluates jobs in real-time, flagging postures where the requirements of a task exceed the strength capability
limits defined in the Watchdogs tab.
What problems does it solve?
The Static Strength Prediction tool is used to:

Analyze whether workers will have the strength to perform a prescribed job
Identify the tasks of a job where the strength requirements exceed the capabilities of a working
population
Run "what-if" scenarios for manual task design or redesign by varying parameters that influence
strength capability--posture and hand loads
Demonstrate to workers the proper postures for tasks
How do you use it?
SSP calculates the percentage of workers with the strength to perform a task. It also calculates joint
torques and angles using the Jack figure posture, anthropometry and hand loads. You simply need to:
Set Jack in the most strenuous posture of the task. Alternatively, you can run a real-time simulation of
Jack performing all or some portion of the task.
Specify the worker gender and anthropometry
Specify the force values and direction operating on each hand

What information does it generate?

The Static Strength Prediction tool provides information both in report and graph form. With the tool, you
can find out:
The percentage of workers expected to have the static strength to perform a specified task
The limb angles for the wrist, elbow, shoulder, humeral rotation, hip, knee, and ankle; and the trunk
angles for flexion, rotation, and lateral bending
The torque on the limbs and trunk, as well as the muscle effect (flexion, extension, abduction or
adduction), population strength means, and strength standard deviations

A "watchdog" is also available that allows you to continuously evaluate the strength capability of a virtual
worker performing a real-time simulation of a task. As the virtual worker moves through the task, the
watchdog automatically notifies you when it encounters conditions that do not meet user-specified
population strength requirements.
How do you interpret the results?
The results of a Static Strength analysis can be used to design or modify manual tasks that all workers are likely to
have the strength to perform. The tool can also identify the portion of a task when the strength requirements
exceed the capabilities of a working population.
SSP is most useful for analyzing tasks that involve slow movements, since the calculations assume that
the affects of acceleration and momentum are negligible.

What is the scientific basis for the tool?

The Static Strength Prediction tool is based on strength studies performed over the past 25 years at the
University of Michigan Center for Ergonomics (http://www.engin.umich.edu/dept/ioe/3DSSPP/) and
augmented with data from 250 strength-related papers. A collection of strength studies is described in
Occupational Biomechanics, 2nd Edition, Chaffin and Anderson, 1991

SSP was updated for Jack v7.0 to include Wrist Strength using strength equations developed at the University of
Michigan Center for Ergonomics. These equations are the same as used in the University’s 3DSSPP program and
were developed from an analysis of wrist and hand strength data reported in the academic literature.

Tutorials
Select the Analysis->Task Analysis Toolkit->Static Strength Prediction menu option

Select the human

Once the human is selected its gender, height and weight are displayed on the dialog.
Click on the Activate button

The bar graphs on the ANALYSIS page displays the percentage of the male (or female, if a female human was
selected) population with the muscle strength required to perform the task at each of a number of key joints. To
make these calculations the net joint moments required to perform the task is first calculated. Since supporting body
weight is one component of the net required moment, the moments calculated depend on the gender and size of the
specific human selected. Note that, these calculations are static. Inertial contributions due to movement are not
included. The required moments are then compared to predictions of strength based on the 3D static strength
prediction equations developed at the University of Michigan Center for Ergonomics, and described in Occupational
Biomechanics, 2nd Edition, Chaffin and Anderson, 1991. The strength predictions are based on experimental studies
of industrial workers and account for posture and gender effects.

2. Handbook of human factors and ergonomics 4th edition 2012 Page 372
5.2 Static Single Equivalent Muscle
Biomechanical Models
Biomechanically based spine models have been developed
to assess occupationally related manual materialshandling
tasks. These models assess the task based upon
both spine-loading criteria and a strength assessment
of task requirements. One of the early static assessment
models was developed by Don Chaffin at the
University of Michigan (Chaffin, 1969). The original
two-dimensional (2D) model has been expanded to a
three-dimensional (3D) static model (Chaffin et al, 2006;
Chaffin and Muzaffer, 1991). In this model, the moments
imposed upon the various joints of the body due to the
object lifted are evaluated assuming that a static posture
is representative of the instantaneous loading of
the body. These models compare the imposed moments
about each joint with the static strength capacity derived
from a working population. The static strength capacity
required of the major joint articulations used in this
model have been documented in a database of over 3000
workers. In this manner the proportion of the population
capable of performing a particular static exertion is
estimated. The joint that limits the capacity to perform
the task can be identified via this method. The model
assumes that a single equivalent muscle (internal force)
supports the external moment about each joint. By considering
the contribution of the externally applied load
and the internally generated single muscle equivalent,
spine compression at the lumbar discs is predicted. The
predicted compression can then be compared to the tolerance
limits for the vertebral end plate (Figure 10). Two
important assumptions of this model are that (1) no significant
motion occurs during the exertion since it is a
static model (postures must be considered as a freeze
frame in time) and (2) one “equivalent muscle” counter
balances the external loads imposed upon the body (thus,
coactivation of the muscle is not represented). Figure 30
shows the output screen for this computer model where
the lifting posture, lifting distances, strength predictions,
and spine compression are shown.

6.1 3DSSPP ( Page 827 )

The three-dimensional static strength prediction program
(3DSSPP) has been available for quite some
time. The logic associated with this approach was described
previously. The computer program considers the
load–tolerance relationship from both the spine compression
and joint strength aspects. Spine compression
is estimated with a linked segment–single equivalent
muscle model and compared to the NIOSH-established
compression tolerance limit of 3400 N.
Strength tolerance is assessed by estimating the joint
load imposed by a task on six joints and comparing these
loads to a population-based static strength database.
This strength relationship has been defined as a lifting
strength rating (LSR) and has been used to assess lowback
injuries in industrial environments (Chaffin and
Park, 1973). The LSR is defined as the weight of the
maximum load lifted on the job divided by the lifting
strength. The assessment concluded that “the incidence
rate of low back pain (was) correlated (monotonically)
with higher lifting strength requirements as determined
by assessment of both the location and magnitude of
the load lifted.” This was one of the first studies to
emphasize the importance of load moment exposure
(importance of load location relative to the body in
addition to load weight) when assessing risk. The study
also found that exposure to moderate lifting frequencies
appeared to be protective, whereas high or low lift rates
were associated with jobs linked to greater reports of
back injury.
One study used both the LSR and estimates of backcompression
forces to observe job risk over a three-year
period in five large industrial plants where 2934 material
handling tasks were evaluated (Herrin et al., 1986).
The findings indicated a positive association between
the lifting strength ratio and back pain incidence rates.
This study also found that musculoskeletal injuries were
twice as likely when spine compression forces exceeded
6800 N. However, this relationship did not hold for lowback-
specific incident reports. This study indicated that
injury risk prediction was best associated with the most
stressful tasks (as opposed to indices that represent risk
aggregation).
6.2 Job Demand Index

OWAS
1. Sumber JACK TAT
Background
What is it?
The OWAS tool provides you with a simple method for quickly checking the comfort of working postures and
determining the urgency of taking corrective measures. Based on the Ovako Working Posture Analysis System
(OWAS), the tool:
Evaluates the relative discomfort of a working posture based on positioning of the back, arms and legs, as well as
load requirements
Assigns the evaluated posture a score that indicates the urgency of taking corrective measures to reduce the
posture’s potential to expose workers to injury

What problems does it solve?

The OWAS tool is used to:
Quickly assess a working posture for its potential to expose workers to the risk of harm or injury
Design new manual tasks or guide the redesign of existing tasks for more comfortable workplaces and improved
production quality
Identify and prioritize the working postures that need the most urgent attention for ergonomic modifications

How do you use it?

The OWAS tool assigns a ―corrective action‖ rating for a specified posture and load requirement that you define in
Jack. You simply need to:
Set Jack in the most strenuous posture of the task. The tool evaluates for the posture based on the position of the
back, arms and legs
o Back positions are divided into four alternatives based on the degree of bending and twisting
o Arm positions are divided into three alternatives based on their relation to shoulder level
o Leg positions are divided into seven alternatives based on whether the human is sitting, standing, kneeling or
walking, and whether the legs are bent or straight
Either attach a load to the Jack human figure or specify the weight of the load in the tools input dialog box
o Strength requirements are divided into three categories based on weight load
What information does it generate?
For a specified posture, the OWAS tool assigns a score for the back, arm and leg position, and the load
requirements. These scores are presented in a dialog box, along with the ―corrective measure‖ rating identified for
the working posture. One of four ratings are proposed:
Level 1: Posture is normal; no corrective action required
Level 2: Posture may have some harmful effect; no immediate action is required, but may be necessary in the near
future
Level 3: Posture has a harmful effect; corrective measures must be taken as soon as possible
Level 4: Posture has a very harmful effect; corrective measures must be taken immediately

How do you interpret the results?

The results of an OWAS tool analysis can be used to design a manual task for minimal risk of postural discomfort.
In addition to assigning a ―corrective action‖ rating to a posture, the tool breaks down the scores attributed to back,
arm and leg position, and load requirement. The magnitude of these individual scores can help identify the aspects of
a posture that are in the greatest need of modification.
What are the tool’s limitations?
The OWAS tool classifies postures based on a subjective evaluation of discomfort and the health effect of each
posture. In addition, the tool does not take into consideration the rhythm of the occurrence of different work
postures, nor the impact of maintaining work postures over time.
What is the scientific basis for the tool?
The OWAS tool is based on 20 years of research on the Ovako Working Posture Analysis System (OWAS). Some
relevant texts include:
Karhu, Kansi and Kuorina, ―Correcting working postures in industry: A practical method for analysis,‖ Applied
Ergonomics, 8 1977, 199-201
Louhevaara and Suurnakki, OWAS—A method for the evaluation of postural load during work, 1992

2. A Guide to Human Factor and Ergonomics

OBJECTIVE METHODS
Two objective measures of work posture, OWAS and RULA, are described below. Both
methods are described in full detail in Corlett (1995).
OWAS Method
The OWAS method was developed in Finland (Karhu et al., 1981). It is now available as
software and can be downloaded from <http://turva.me.tut.fi/owas/>. By using OWAS

one can code work postures using a three-digit code, to which three more numbers are
added to describe the amount of force and the work phase (see Figure 9.9). An
experimenter observes the worker, makes an assessment of the posture, and records the
result on the data sheet in Figure 9.9. The results from all work phases are then
assembled, and an assessment is made whether there is a need to take immediate action to
improve the design of the work station or the task. Such immediate action would be

RULA ( RAPID UPPER LIMB ASSESMENT

1. Sumber JACK TAT ( hal 47)
Background
What is it?
The Rapid Upper Limb Assessment (RULA) tool helps you evaluate the exposure of workers to the risk of upper
limb disorders. For a given manual task, RULA:
Assesses the risk of upper limb disorders based on posture, muscle use, the weight of loads, task duration and
frequency
Assigns the evaluated task a score that indicates the degree of intervention required to reduce the risk of an upper
limb injury

What problems does it solve?

RULA is used to:
Quickly assess a manual task for its potential to expose workers to the risk of upper limb disorders
Design new manual tasks or guide the redesign of existing tasks
Identify and prioritize the manual tasks that need the most urgent attention for ergonomic modifications

How do you use it?

RULA assigns risk factors for a specified manual task based on the body postures you define in Jack and the input
you provide on the weight of a load, the time the load is held and the task frequency. You simply need to:
Set Jack in the most strenuous posture of the task. RULA assigns a risk factor for the posture based on the joint
angles and twisting of the arms, wrist, neck, trunk and legs
Indicate whether the posture is held for longer than one minute or repeated more than four times a minute
Specify the weight of the load, and whether it is static or repeated

What information does it generate?

RULA uses a scoring system based on posture, muscle use and force to assign an action level to the evaluated task.
These scores are presented in a dialog box, along with the action level identified for the task. One of four action
levels can are proposed:
Level 1: Acceptable posture if not maintained or repeated for long periods
Level 2: Further investigation needed, may require changes
Level 3: Investigation, changes required soon
Level 4: Investigation, changes required immediately
How do you interpret the results?
The results of a RULA analysis can be used to design a manual task for minimal risk of postural fatigue, discomfort
or upper limb injuries. In addition to assigning an action level to a task, the RULA report breaks down the scores
attributed to muscle use, load weight and posture (including separate scores for the upper arm, lower arm, wrist,
neck, trunk and legs). The magnitude of these individual scores can help identify the aspects of a task that are in the
greatest need of modification.
It should be noted that RULA merely provides a guide to draw attention to activities with high risks of upper limb
disorders. It doesn't provide quantitative data on the extent of the injury risk or the strain on the upper limbs.
On what research is it based?
RULA is based on the following research:
"RULA: a survey method for the investigation of work-related upper limb disorders," Applied Ergonomics, 1993
1. A Guide to Human Factor and Ergonomics
Rapid upper limb assessment (RULA) is similar to OWAS (McAtamney and Corlett,
1993) (see Figure 9.10). Postures are evaluated using numbers; the greater the number,
the worse the posture. Values of force are then estimated.
Figure 9.10 shows the items for assessment when using the RULA method. Group A
measures the effect on the arms and hands, and Group B measures the effect on the neck
and the trunk. Average values of the postures for Group A and Group B are calculated
and the exerted force is added to form an overall score. Just as with the OWAS
evaluation, a grand score is calculated, and if the score is high immediate action is
required.
3. Handbook of Human factors and Ergonomics Methods 2005 HAL: 66
7.1 Background
Rapid upper-limb assessment (RULA) (McAtamney and Corlett, 1993) provides an easily calculated
rating of musculoskeletal loads in tasks where people have a risk of neck and upper-limb loading. The
tool provides a single score as a “snapshot” of the task, which is a rating of the posture, force, and
movement required. The risk is calculated into a score of 1 (low) to 7 (high). These scores are grouped
into four action levels that provide an indication of the time frame in which it is reasonable to expect
risk control to be initiated.
7.2 Applications
RULA is used to assess the posture, force, and movement associated with sedentary tasks. Such tasks
include screen-based or computer tasks, manufacturing, or retail tasks where the worker is seated or
standing without moving about.
The four main applications of RULA are to:
1. Measure musculoskeletal risk, usually as part of a broader ergonomic investigation
2. Compare the musculoskeletal loading of current and modified workstation designs
3. Evaluate outcomes such as productivity or suitability of equipment
4. Educate workers about musculoskeletal risk created by different working postures
In all applications, it is strongly recommended that users receive training in RULA prior to use,
although no previous ergonomic assessment skills are required.
7.2.1 Measuring Musculoskeletal Risk
RULA assesses a working posture and the associated level of risk in a short time frame and with no need
for equipment beyond pen and paper. RULA was not designed to provide detailed postural information,
such as the finger position, which might be relevant to the overall risk to the worker. It may be necessary
for RULA to be used with other assessment tools as part of a broader or more detailed ergonomic
investigation. When using RULA, the assessor can benefit from establishing the following information
when making recommendations for change (McAtamney and Corlett, 1992): a knowledge of the products,
processes, tasks, previous musculoskeletal injuries, training, workplace layout and dimensions, and relevant
environmental risks or constraints.
RULA can be used to assess a particular task or posture for a single user or group of users (Herbert
et al., 1996). It may be necessary to assess a number of different postures during a work cycle to establish
a profile of the musculoskeletal loading. In such cases, it is useful to videotape or photograph workers
from both sides and from the back while they are performing the tasks.
7.2.2 Compare Current and Modified Workstation Designs
RULA is useful in comparing existing and proposed workstation designs as part of a justification or
proposal for ergonomic changes. The RULA scores provide any nonergonomist or stakeholder with
evidence that proposed modifications can reduce musculoskeletal loading, which can facilitate funding
approval.
For example, RULA was used in the following studies:
• Gutierrez (1998), who evaluated assembly workers in an electronics factory and compared postures
when improvements were introduced.
• Hedge et al. (1995), who assessed different computer equipment.
• Cook and Kothiyal (1998), who assessed the influence of mouse position on muscular activity
using RULA and EMG (electromyography).
• Leuder (1996), who modified RULA (http://www.humanics-es.com/rulacite.htm) to include
broader risks associated with office-based tasks, for example glare on the computer screen (see
http://www.humanics-es.com/files/rula.pdf). While the modified tool has not been validated, it
provides useful information on workstation risks.
7.2.3 Evaluate Outcomes
As part of a detailed ergonomic investigation, RULA scores can be compared against other outcome
factors. In a manufacturing plant, Axellson (1997) found a correlation between high RULA scores and
a higher proportion of products that were discarded as defective when processed at a particular workstation.
As part of a macroergonomic management program, the company subsequently improved the
identified high-risk workstation, leading to a 39% drop in quality deficiencies and an annual cost savings
of $25,000.
7.2.4 Educate Workers
Many adults have developed habitual postural movement patterns that they find very difficult to change.
The use of photographs of trainees at work along with the RULA score anecdotally helps motivate trainees
to make the effort to change techniques.
7.3 Procedure
The procedure for using RULA is explained in three steps:
1. The posture or postures for assessment are selected.
2. The postures are scored using the scoring sheet, body-part diagrams, and tables.
3. These scores are converted to one of the four action level.
7.3.1 Observing and Selecting the Postures to Assess
A RULA assessment represents a moment in the work cycle, and it is important to observe the postures
adopted during the full work cycle or a significant working period prior to selecting the postures for
assessment. Depending upon the type of study, the selection could be the longest held posture or what
appears to be the worst postures adopted. It also can be useful to estimate the proportion of time spent
in the various postures being evaluated (McAtamney and Corlett, 1992).
7.3.2 Scoring and Recording the Posture
Decide whether the left, right, or both upper arms are at risk and need to be assessed. Then score the
posture of each body part using the free software found on-line at http://www.ergonomics.co.uk/Rula/
Ergo/index.html or the paper version (McAtamney and Corlett, 1993), which is on the Web at http://
ergo.human.cornell.edu/ahRULA.html.
Use the RULA assessment diagrams (Figure 7.1 shows the software version) to score the posture for
each body part, along with the forces/loads and the muscle use required for that particular posture.
Follow the score sheet to calculate the posture scores for Groups A and B if using the paper version (the
software version does this for you). Use the calculation button on the software or use Table C to calculate
the grand score.
7.3.3 Action Level
The grand score can be compared with the list of action levels. In most cases, to ensure that this guide
is used as an aid in efficient and effective control of any risks identified, the actions lead to a more detailed
investigation. The action levels are listed in Table 7.1.
7.4 Example
Ergonomics takes high priority in the design and development of pallets for Jaguar Cars Ltd., U.K., and
RULA has become one of the key criteria used by them and the suppliers.
7.4.1 RULA Used in Design and Development Process
Jaguar uses RULA in its standards documentation for pallet/box manufacture to enable the company and
its suppliers to assess and improve the ergonomics of their pallets before production commences, thereby
avoiding disruption and risk of injury during steady-state production. As part of the development process,
all suppliers complete a full RULA risk assessment on the use of each pallet prototype, and they make
any necessary changes to eliminate any risk to the operators. The engineers and physiotherapist at Jaguar
have found that this process minimizes bending, stretching, or twisting.
When materials for the X200 series were supplied, RULA was used to assess the unpacking task. The
initial unpacking task forced the operator to reach into the box, as seen in Figure 7.2. The musculoskeletal
risk increased as the box was emptied. The RULA scoring of the posture depicted in Figure 7.2 is presented
in Table 7.2 along with relevant comments on the scoring. It is useful to follow the score sheet and body
part diagrams (Figure 7.1) while reading Table 7.2.
It is clear from the RULA assessment of Figure 7.2 that ergonomic risks were present that required
modification. The body parts at risk were the back and neck postures, with overreaching causing risk to
the upper arms. Figure 7.3 illustrates the solution, a hydraulic tilter controlled by the operator to allow
the height and angle of the pallet to be adjusted. This device provided a RULA score of 1 to 4, depending
on the position of the item in the box.

7.4.2 RULA Used in Early Intervention and Risk Assessment Related to

Musculoskeletal Strains and Sprains
As part of production operations, Jaguar has introduced RULA assessments as one of its procedures when:
1. There has been a work-related strain/sprain reported
2. The risk assessment identifies that an assessment is required
3. There has been a change to a process
4. There is an operator concern
Figure 7.4 provides an outline of the processes in place to find practical solutions to any of the above
criteria. If a change cannot be made in the short term, then containment measures are introduced, such
as increasing recovery time or increasing job rotation. RULA assessments are made accessible to the
personnel carrying out the task by keeping them in the immediate vicinity.
The process outlined in Figure 7.4 offers a participatory systematic approach to problem solving using
skills and knowledge from relevant personnel in the company. In this process, RULA provides an objective
measure around which changes can be suggested and investigated, with the ultimate goal of implementing
the best-practice solution.
7.5 Approximate Training and Application Times
RULA was developed to require minimal training. Dismukes (1996) reported that people untrained in
ergonomics could accurately assess upper-limb disorders using RULA. However, it is strongly recom-

mended that users have training so that they use the tool correctly. A common fault is unskilled users
trying to add posture scores when Tables A and B must be used.
It is suggested that new users practice using photographs and videotape of postures prior to using the
tool in an assessment. One difficulty with any observation tool is deciding the angle of joint range,
particularly if the angle of vision is not in line with the side and back of the body. Where the user is
unable to decide on the posture score, it is recommended that the higher of the two scores be taken. For
example, if it is difficult to establish whether the upper arm is in range 2 or 3, then 3 should be selected.
This approach ensures that all risks are included rather than excluded.
The user of the RULA software (http://www.ergonomics.co.uk/Rula/Ergo/index.html) need not be
concerned with using the tables. Users of the paper-based system follow the guide on the scoring sheet
to calculate the RULA grand score. Familiarization with the tables and method requires 1 to 2 hours of
time.
7.6 Reliability and Validity
The reliability and validity studies undertaken during the development of RULA are detailed in McAtamney
and Corlett (1993). The validity was assessed using a laboratory-based DSE workstation, where
the RULA scores and body-part discomfort were analyzed. Further validity and reliability studies were
conducted in both industrial and office-based settings by ergonomists and physiotherapists as part of
their postgraduate training.
7.7 Costs and Tools Needed
RULA is freely available on the Web. While the scoring form can be downloaded, the user must do the
scoring on-line. The paper-based system (McAtamney and Corlett, 1993) requires photocopying and a
pencil.
In using RULA, it is suggested that a camera may assist the user in recording the posture for later
scoring. Photographs need to be taken directly from the side and back to avoid parallax error. Likewise,
video recordings should be taken from back, side, and front if possible.
7.8 Related Methods
RULA is one of a number of observational posture-assessment tools that are useful in task analysis. RULA
is useful as an initial tool in ergonomic investigations, although additional task-specific investigation may
be required following a RULA assessment. REBA (rapid entire body assessment, see Chapter 8) should
be used instead of RULA when there are tasks involving manual handling, whole body movement, or
risk to the back and legs as well as the upper limbs and neck.
Acknowledgments
Our thanks to Mike Huthnance, Anita McDonald, and Janet King from Jaguar Cars for their assistance
and support in the preparation of this chapter. Thanks also to The Osmond Group for reproduction of
the Web-based RULA software.