PubMed · 14335474
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
H R LEUBA. 1964. QUANTIFICATION IN MAN--MACHINE SYSTEMS.. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872086400600602
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
Activity theory has been successfully applied in diverse schools of psychology with particularly extensive work in the fields of education, ergonomics, human factors and industrial-organizational psychology. However, existing efforts of translation and formulation in English suffer from certain limitations. These limitations include the blurring between Vygotsky's socio-cultural theory of the development of mind and activity theory, the restriction of activity theory in its entirety to the version offered by Leont'ev, errors in the interpretation of some basic concept and terminology, reliance on studies that use obsolete methods, and failure to consider the Russian work in activity theory in its entirety. This last problem results in the omission of the recent advances in engineering psychology and educational psychology in the former Soviet Union that facilitates the application of activity theory to practical problems. This paper is a description of the evolution of basic theory, concepts and terminology relevant to practitioners--particularly in the field of ergonomics.
The debate about work-relatedness of musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) reflects both confusion about epidemiologic principles and gaps in the scientific literature. The physical ergonomic features of work frequently cited as risk factors for MSDs include rapid work pace and repetitive motion, forceful exertions, non-neutral body postures, and vibration. However, some still dispute the importance of these factors, especially relative to non-occupational causes. This paper addresses the controversy with reference to a major report recently commissioned by the US Congress from the National Research Council (NRC) and Institute of Medicine (IOM) (2001). The available epidemiologic evidence is substantial, but will benefit from more longitudinal data to better evaluate gaps in knowledge concerning latency of effect, natural history, prognosis, and potential for selection bias in the form of the healthy worker effect. While objective measures may be especially useful in establishing a more secure diagnosis, subjective measures better capture patient impact. Examination techniques still do not exist that can serve as a "gold standard" for many of the symptoms that are commonly reported in workplace studies. Finally, exposure assessment has too often been limited to crude indicators, such as job title. Worker self-report, investigator observation, and direct measurement each add to understanding but the lack of standardized exposure metrics limits ability to compare findings among studies. Despite these challenges, the epidemiologic literature on work-related MSDs-in combination with extensive laboratory evidence of pathomechanisms related to work stressors-is convincing to most. The NRC/IOM report concluded, and other reviewers internationally have concurred, that the etiologic importance of occupational ergonomic stressors for the occurrence of MSDs of the low back and upper extremities has been demonstrated.
STUDY DESIGN: Office workers invited and agreeing to participate were assigned to one of three study groups: a group receiving a highly adjustable chair with office ergonomics training, a training-only group, and a control group receiving the training at the end of the study. OBJECTIVE: To examine the effect of office ergonomics intervention in reducing musculoskeletal symptom growth over the workday and, secondarily, pain levels throughout the day. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data collection occurred 2 months and 1 month before the intervention and 2, 6, and 12 months postintervention. During each round, a short daily symptom survey was completed at the beginning, middle, and end of the workday for 5 days during a workweek to measure total bodily pain growth over the workday. Multilevel statistical models were used to test hypotheses. RESULTS: The chair-with-training intervention lowered symptom growth over the workday (P = 0.012) after 12 months of follow-up. No evidence suggested that training alone lowered symptom growth over the workday (P = 0.461); however, average pain levels in both intervention groups were reduced over the workday. CONCLUSION: Workers who received a highly adjustable chair and office ergonomics training had reduced symptom growth over the workday. The lack of a training-only group effect supports implementing training in conjunction with highly adjustable office furniture and equipment to reduce symptom growth. The ability to reduce symptom growth has implications for understanding how to prevent musculoskeletal injuries in knowledge workers.