Publication: Ergonomic risk assessment for work-related musculoskeletal disorders in office workers: a systematic review
24
0
Issued Date
2025-01-01
Resource Type
ISSN
1463922X
eISSN
1464536X
Scopus ID
2-s2.0-105017027231
Journal Title
Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science
Rights Holder(s)
SCOPUS
Bibliographic Citation
Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science (2025)
Suggested Citation
Yeampattanaporn O., Kluay-On P. Ergonomic risk assessment for work-related musculoskeletal disorders in office workers: a systematic review. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science (2025). doi:10.1080/1463922X.2025.2560916 Retrieved from: https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14740/50571
Author(s)
Author's Affiliation
Corresponding Author(s)
Other Contributor(s)
Abstract
Ergonomic risk assessment tools for office workers have been continuously developed for various objectives and research fields. To select appropriate tools, their measurement and psychometric properties must be evaluated. The objective of this study was to identify and evaluate the content and measurement properties of ergonomic assessment tools used to detect musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) among office workers. The literature search used the following keywords: office worker, checklist, work assessment tools, psychometric, and validation. This systematic review covered studies published between 2000 and 2024, retrieved from three electronic databases. Eligible articles were original full-text studies conducted with office workers that described the development, evaluation, or validation of the measurement properties of ergonomic assessment tools. The quality appraisal was performed using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) checklist. Twelve tools from 30 articles were included in this review. The results showed positive measurement quality for four tools (two questionnaires and two observational methods). However, some of the articles reviewed had inadequate methodological quality and small sample sizes. This does not mean the tools themselves have poor measurement properties; rather, it suggests that they require repeated evaluation.