4.4 Article

Perceived competence in computer use as a moderator of musculoskeletal strain in VDU work: An ergonomics intervention case

期刊

ERGONOMICS
卷 51, 期 2, 页码 125-139

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/00140130701561850

关键词

psychosocial factors; musculoskeletal symptoms; VDU work; ergonomics intervention; perceived competence; moderation effect

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Musculoskeletal strain and other symptoms are common in visual display unit (VDU) work. Psychosocial factors are closely related to the outcome and experience of musculoskeletal strain. The user-computer relationship from the viewpoint of the quality of perceived competence in computer use was assessed as a psychosocial stress indicator. It was assumed that the perceived competence in computer use moderates the experience of musculoskeletal strain and the success of the ergonomics intervention. The participants (n = 124, female 58%, male 42%) worked with VDU for more than 4 h per week. They took part in an ergonomics intervention and were allocated into three groups: intensive; education; and reference group. Musculoskeletal strain, the level of ergonomics of the workstation assessed by the experts in ergonomics and amount of VDU work were estimated at the baseline and at the 10-month follow-up. Age, gender and the perceived competence in computer use were assessed at the baseline. The perceived competence in computer use predicted strain in the upper and the lower part of the body at the follow-up. The interaction effect shows that the intensive ergonomics intervention procedure was the most effective among participants with high perceived competence. The interpretation of the results was that an anxiety-provoking and stressful user-computer relationship prevented the participants from being motivated and from learning in the ergonomics intervention. In the intervention it is important to increase the computer competence along with the improvements of physical workstation and work organization.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据