Enter your email address
Submit
Write your message
Volume 5, Issue 3 (Journal of Ergonomics-Fall 2017)
Iran J Ergon 2017, 5(3): 36-40 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Heidarimoghadam R, Babamiri M, Motamedzade M, Nouri N. Assessment of local discomfort in common pencils and ergonomic pencil designed with local discomfort scale in elementary school students. Iran J Ergon 2017; 5 (3) :36-40
URL: http://journal.iehfs.ir/article-1-465-en.html
URL: http://journal.iehfs.ir/article-1-465-en.html
1- Research Center for Health Sciences, Department of Ergonomics, School of Public Health, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences, Hamadan, Iran
2- ,nasrin.nouri1369@yahoo.com
2- ,
Abstract: (14418 Views)
Background: The design of tools may play an important role in development of the problems related to hands and arms. The health and satisfaction of those who use these tools can be affected by the improvement of ergonomic tools. This research aims to assess the local discomfort caused by the usage of common pencils comparing to the ergonomic ones.
Methods: 50 right-handed students (girls only) participated in this study. They wrote one paragraph using all the writing tools that were being studied in this research. At the end the comments were collected using the LPD questionnaire and were analyzed by t-test and Mann-Whitney test and SPSS version 23.
Results: The results of the CHQ questionnaire showed that this questionnaire could be a useful tool for assessing the comfort of using writing tools among students in the school environment. Also, the results from the LPD scale showed that this scale could be very helpful for assessing local perceived discomfort among school students. In the second part, the results of the comparison of the mean of data from the CHQ questionnaire and the LPD scale showed that there is a significant difference between the common pencils and the designed pencil for comfort and local perceived discomfort.
Conclusion: It was found that common pencils cause pain, pressure, inflammation and numbness in the hands and forearm and shoulder. And the use of designed ergonomic pencil will reduce the pressure and pain on the hands and shoulders.
Methods: 50 right-handed students (girls only) participated in this study. They wrote one paragraph using all the writing tools that were being studied in this research. At the end the comments were collected using the LPD questionnaire and were analyzed by t-test and Mann-Whitney test and SPSS version 23.
Results: The results of the CHQ questionnaire showed that this questionnaire could be a useful tool for assessing the comfort of using writing tools among students in the school environment. Also, the results from the LPD scale showed that this scale could be very helpful for assessing local perceived discomfort among school students. In the second part, the results of the comparison of the mean of data from the CHQ questionnaire and the LPD scale showed that there is a significant difference between the common pencils and the designed pencil for comfort and local perceived discomfort.
Conclusion: It was found that common pencils cause pain, pressure, inflammation and numbness in the hands and forearm and shoulder. And the use of designed ergonomic pencil will reduce the pressure and pain on the hands and shoulders.
Type of Study: Research |
Subject:
Other Cases
Received: 2017/12/6 | Accepted: 2018/03/1 | ePublished: 2018/03/14
Received: 2017/12/6 | Accepted: 2018/03/1 | ePublished: 2018/03/14
References
1. Vink P. Comfort and design: principles and good practice. CRC press; 2004. [DOI:]
2. Sharifi Z, Osqueizadeh R, Tabatabai Ghomshe SF. Ergonomic Redesign of Industrial Chair. J Ergon. 2015;3(1):1–9.
3. Cox T, Griffiths A. The nature and measurement of work-related stress: theory and practice. 2005. [DOI:]
4. Bridger R. Introduction to ergonomics. Crc Press; 2008.
5. Matern U, Koneczny S. Safety, hazards and ergonomics in the operating room. Surg Endosc. 2007 Nov;21(11):1965–9.
6. Buckle P. Ergonomics and musculoskeletal disorders: overview. Occup Med (Lond). 2005 May;55(3):164–7.
7. Salvendy G, Karwowski W. Advances in occupational, social, andorganizational ergonomics. CRC Press; 2010. [DOI:]
8. Zhang L, Helander MG, Drury CG. Identifying factors of comfort and discomfort in sitting. Hum Factors. 1996;38(3):377–89.
9. Cheng HY, Lien YJ, Yu YC, Ju YY, Pei YC, Cheng CH, et al. The effect of lower body stabilization and different writing tools on writing biomechanics in children with cerebral palsy. Res Dev Disabil. 2013; 34(4):1152-9. [DOI:]
10. Mououdi M. Comfort Evaluation of Penagain Ergonomic Pen with Traditional Pen (non-ergonomic). sjimu. 2012; 20 (3) :46-54
11. Hasani S A, Mobaraki H, Moghadami Fard Z. The importance of ergonomics in increasing productivity and improving the performance of the staff of the Ministry of Health, Therapy and Medical Education. tkj. 2013; 4 (4) :92-101
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
Copyright Policy
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
