Is what you see what you get?: Standard inclinometry of set upper arm elevation angles
2015 (English)In: Applied Ergonomics, ISSN 0003-6870, E-ISSN 1872-9126, Vol. 47, 242-252 p.Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Previous research suggests inclinometers (INC) underestimate upper arm elevation. This study was designed to quantify possible bias in occupationally relevant postures, and test whether INC performance could be improved using calibration. Participants were meticulously positioned in set arm flexion and abduction angles between 0 degrees and 150 degrees. Different subject-specific and group-level regression models comprising linear and quadratic components describing the relationship between set and INC-registered elevation were developed using subsets of data, and validated using additional data. INC measured arm elevation showed a downward bias, particularly above 600. INC data adjusted using the regression models were superior to unadjusted data; a subject-specific, two-point calibration based on measurements at 0 and 900 gave results closest to the 'true' set angles. Thus, inclinometer measured arm elevation data required calibration to arrive at 'true' elevation angles. Calibration to a common measurement scale should be considered when comparing arm elevation data collected using different methods.
Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2015. Vol. 47, 242-252 p.
Measurement error, Observation, Working postures
Environmental Health and Occupational Health
IdentifiersURN: urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-245337DOI: 10.1016/j.apergo.2014.08.014ISI: 000347663600028PubMedID: 25479994OAI: oai:DiVA.org:uu-245337DiVA: diva2:792239