Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Abstract The validity of observational methods in ergonomics is still challenging research. Criterion validity in terms of concurrent validity is the most commonly studied. However, studies comparing observational methods with biomechanical values are rare. Thus, the aim of this study is to compare the Ovako Working Posture Analysing System (OWAS) and the Rapid Entire Body Assessment (REBA) with in vivo load measurements at hip, spine, and knee during stoop and squat lifting of 14 participants. The results reveal that OWAS and REBA action levels (AL) can distinguish between different in vivo load measurements during manual lifting. However, the results also reveal that the same OWAS- and REBA-AL do not necessarily provide equal mean values of in vivo load measurements. For example, resultant contact force in the vertebral body replacement for squat lifting ranged from 57% body weight (%BW) in OWAS-AL1 to 138%BW in OWAS-AL3 compared to 46%BW in REBA-AL0 and 173%BW in REBA-AL3. Furthermore, the results suggest that the performed squat lifting techniques had a higher risk for work-related musculoskeletal disorders than the performed stoop lifting techniques.
Brandl et al. (Wed,) studied this question.