E

22 PROFESSIONAL SAFETY JULY 2005 www.asse.org

Program DevelopmentProgram Development

Office ErgonomicsTraining

An instructional systems modelfor developing an effective program

By Michelle M. Robertson and Wayne S. Maynard

ERGONOMICS TRAINING is a critical element ineffective ergonomics, safety and health programs.When ergonomics training is part of a comprehensive,systematic approach to integrating ergonomics into anorganization, it can help an organization to link cor-porate goals with ergonomics practices, enhance orga-nizational effectiveness and facilitate the changeprocess. High-quality ergonomics training incorpo-rates a participatory approach involving end users,managers, designers and health professionals. Such anapproach ensures that each employee develops the

knowledge, skills and motiva-tion to make constructive sug-gestions for improvements.This participatory aspect, alongwith the ergonomics trainingand work system design, formthe basis for creating an im-proved work environment anda positive continual change inthe company.

Two telecommunicationsfirms designed, developed, im-plemented and evaluated anoffice ergonomics training pro-gram in order to 1) reduceadverse health effects fromvideo display terminal (VDT)work; and 2) impart knowledgeabout how to effectively useergonomically designed VDTworkstations. Company A wasa telecommunications compa-ny where call center representa-tives and supervisors weretrained (n=4,050). Company Binvolved system engineers whoused computers extensivelyfor their design work at atelecommunications develop-ment company (n=45).

This article focuses on how to optimally design,implement and evaluate an office ergonomics trainingprogram with the goal of reducing WMSDs and otherhealth disorders. Key elements of an effective trainingprogram are described within an instructional sys-tems model. Case studies provide relevant examplesof how to successfully apply these training principles.

The Role of Training Training alone does not constitute an office

ergonomics program and it is not a panacea forreducing WMSDs that arise from exposures to haz-ardous conditions and other health disorders (e.g.,visual discomfort, stress) (Verbeek). Typically, officeergonomics training programs are designed toaddress these disorders as well as the contributingworkplace risk factors associated with intensivecomputer use. Training is a mechanism by whichworkers’ performance and well-being are enhancedto maximize an organization’s investment in peopleand technology.

Due to the multifaceted nature of these work-place risk factors, a work system design approachshould be taken to effectively address the associatedWMSDs and provide an injury-free office environ-ment (Arras, et al; Hendrick and Kleiner). A success-ful office ergonomics training program should beincorporated into the organization’s overall strategicplan for safety and health. Linking office ergonomicstraining program objectives with organizationalpolicies and health prevention goals establishes theimportance of—and commitment to—a comprehen-sive ergonomics program aimed at reducing nega-tive health effects such as WMSDs.

It is also important to establish an evaluation planto track the program’s effectiveness. Results of train-ing programs depend on several issues, such as thesocial and organizational culture; however, significantand positive effects of training programs have beendemonstrated by workers’ increased ergonomicknowledge, reduction in discomfort and increased

Michelle M. Robertson, Ph.D., CPE, is aresearch scientist at the Liberty Mutual Research

Institute for Safety in Hopkinton, MA. She hasconducted applied research projects in

ergonomics and management for more than17 years. Robertson also spent 12 years at the

University of Southern California where she wasa faculty member at the Institute of Safety and

Systems Management. She holds a Ph.D. inInstructional Technology, an M.S. in Systems

Management from University of SouthernCalifornia, Los Angeles, and a B.A. in Human

Factors from the University of California, SantaBarbara. Robertson is a Fellow of the Human

Factors and Ergonomics Society.

Wayne S. Maynard, CSP, CPE, ALCM, isdirector, ergonomics and tribology, LossPrevention Dept., at the Liberty Mutual

Research Institute for Safety. In this position,he is responsible for technical product

development of ergonomic consulting tools. Hehas a B.A. in Zoology from the University of

Maine at Orono. Maynard is a member of ANSISubcommittee B11 TR.1, Ergonomic Guidelines

for the Design, Installation and Use of MachineTools, and was a member of the ANSI Z356

Committee on Control of Cumulative TraumaDisorders. He is a professional member of

ASSE’s Greater Boston Chapter.

Robertson Maynard Feature July 2005.qxd 6/10/2005 4:02 PM Page 22

www.asse.org JULY 2005 PROFESSIONAL SAFETY 23

which they have some measure of control; this makesthem more cooperative and supportive of change(Luopajarvi). Such training ensures that supervisorslearn to respond effectively to employee suggestions.A participative safety culture is required with super-visor performance expectations clearly stated by sen-ior management (Imada; Nelhorn, et al; Israel, et al).

Support Active ParticipationActive involvement in the design of an office

ergonomics training program stimulates individualownership, inspires support of program goals andencourages a willingness to engage in the requiredcultural change process [Imada; Lawler(a), (b); Smith].Being a member of a team designing and implement-ing such a program is motivating, rewarding and ben-eficial to both the individual and the organization.

Workers should share the responsibility of design-ing and implementing the educational program(Luopajarvi). Active participation gives workers theknowledge and skills they need to solve their healthproblems (Luopajarvi; Nagamachi and Yamada;Smith). If worker participation is lacking, workers’motivation for and understanding of the material pre-sented will be low and their resistance to change willbe high [Luopajarvi; Lawler(a), (b); Smith].

Develop Active Learning ExperiencesFor adult learners, “inquiry” or “discovery”

learning is an effective instructional method. Itemphasizes learner involvement by having traineesparticipate in problem-solving activities and groupdiscussions (Gordon). The use of group exercisesand office-ergonomics-related case studies promotesan active and motivating learning environment,which increases retention (Gordon; Reed). In such aninteractive, motivating setting, adult learners domore than just passively receive the information—they actively apply and use the concepts and skills.

To enhance this approach, training sessions can becofacilitated by workers who are trained in officeergonomics and specific work processes. These facili-tators can encourage students to participate by bring-ing real-world experiences into the classroom andrelating them to the learning materials. Involvementof the adult learners’ expertise maximizes the learningprocess. Also, if the class consists of individuals fromvarious functions in the organization, active and inter-active discussions can provide an ideal opportunity tocommunicate intraorganizationally.

Ensure Ongoing Learning & ImprovementA work system changes over time. In the systems

approach, office ergonomics training and practicesmust be viewed as part of the overall safety, healthand ergonomics program. Therefore, the programmust be adapted to changes that occur elsewhere inthe system, as well as to changes in safety and healthpractices and technology. The concept of continuouschange and adaptation is fundamental to makingany system responsive to worker needs. Financialand organizational resources must be committed toactively support the safety culture change process.

healthy work practices (e.g., Bayeh and Smith;Brisson, et al).

Training is an integral part of a larger work sys-tem in which the individual or end user is central. Itis important that the entire system (including jobdesign factors, work organization, environmentaldesign, technology and organizational structure) beconsidered in order to effectively minimize the neg-ative health effects arising from poorly designedwork systems.

Why Train?There is an established need for office ergonomics

training (e.g., Green and Briggs). While engineeringcontrols such as workstation redesign or the use ofadjustable furniture are often suggested (Verbeek),administrative controls such as training mustaccompany them so that employees and manage-ment understand the need for change when usingVDTs and related office technologies. Training canbuild managerial and employee support during theintroduction and implementation of an office ergo-nomics program, and it is needed to help employeesunderstand workstation setup and the use of properpostures to avoid discomfort and WMSDs (Grossand Fuchs; Brisson, et al). Without these trainingconcepts, the presence of other administrative andengineering controls will have limited success(Kukkonen, et al; Verbeek).

Key Elements for an EffectiveOffice Ergonomics Training Program

Several elements are key to implementing andsustaining a successful training program.

Organizational Readiness:Senior Management Commitment

The foundation of any successful safety andhealth program is senior management support(Imada; Brown). Senior managers must have thevision and commitment to reduce adverse healtheffects and improve employees’ quality of life andperformance through the use of ergonomics. Whentop decision makers clearly support the mission andpurpose of an office ergonomics program, organiza-tional culture and safety climate changes. Seniormanagers should introduce the program by address-ing employees and stating their support of the ini-tiative. Without strong management support andcommitment, the initiative will not produce thedesired outcomes (Imada).

Create a Responsive Environment:Training Managers & Supervisors

Managers and supervisors must be trained inorder to create a responsive environment in whichemployees are encouraged to use their trainingthrough reinforcement and reward. Since supervi-sors have more influence on the daily performance ofindividual employees, their participation in the train-ing process is essential for the success of anyergonomics training program. Supervisors respondbest to training that emphasizes situations over

Abstract: Withincreasing incidenceof work-relatedmusculoskeletaldisorders amongoffice workers, onepreventive strategyis to provide a well-designed officeergonomics trainingprogram. This articlefocuses on how tooptimally design andimplement an officeergonomics trainingprogram. An instruc-tional systems modelis used to describethe key elements ofsuch a program. Twocase studies providerelevant examples ofhow to successfullyapply these trainingprinciples and theresults that canbe expected.

Robertson Maynard Feature July 2005.qxd 6/10/2005 4:02 PM Page 23

24 PROFESSIONAL SAFETY JULY 2005 www.asse.org

The InstructionalSystems Design Approach

An instructional systemsdesign approach encompassesseveral processes and activities:

1) Conduct a needs analysis.2) Design training materials.3) Develop training materials.4) Implement and deliver

the training.5) Evaluate and measure the

effectiveness of the training.Figure 1 presents an instruc-

tional system design modeland phase activities (Knirk andGustafson; Gordon).

Step 1: Needs AnalysisIn the needs analysis phase,

an organizational task (job) andindividual analysis is conduct-ed. Two questions must beanswered in order to derive thetraining objectives: 1) What isthe current performance of theorganization and the workers?2) What is the desired perform-ance for the organization andthe workers?

If the performance problemis identified as a lack of knowl-edge, skill or ability of the work-

force, then a training program should be designed asa necessary intervention strategy. However, if theneeds analysis determines that the performance prob-lem is because of a poorly designed work system (e.g.,workstation design, work demands), then redesignintervention efforts are needed as well—in otherwords, training may not be the only solution.

Criteria for evaluating and measuring trainingeffectiveness are also developed during this phase.These criteria are linked to the training objectives andare established at the trainee, departmental (strategicbusiness unit) and organizational performance levels.

Step 2: DesignDuring the design phase, results of the needs

analysis are used to define the instructional objectivesand to determine how those objectives will be met.This involves determining: 1) training prerequisites;2) trainee population; 3) desired learning outcomes(e.g., knowledge, skills and abilities in cognitive, affec-tive and psychomotor domains); 4) training mediaand techniques; 5) training environment; 6) learningconditions (e.g., individual differences); 7) instruction-al strategies; and 8) learning principles.

Contextual factors involving organizational,environmental and social issues—such as designingtraining for new workers versus experienced work-ers—are determined in this phase. Since trainingoccurs within an organizational culture, how a givenorganization values the training and its integrationand link to the corporate strategy must be consid-

This includes commitment of human resources suchas administrators, trainers and curriculum develop-ers, and media and computer application develop-ers. Long-term management commitment is neededto continuously modify and improve the program.

Observe & Reinforce TrainingPerforming individual VDT workstation ergo-

nomic assessments requires the trained ergonomicfacilitator and the employee to work together usingcollaborative problem-solving techniques. The train-ing agenda should include types of disorders,job-related occupational risk factors, ergonomic solu-tions, and how to deal with resistance and conflict.Employees will better appreciate ergonomic solu-tions when they understand how proposed changeswill help them. The ergonomic facilitator should beviewed as a coach, not as someone trying to enforcecompany policy. As a coach, the facilitator shouldadvise the employee on how to perform his/her ownworkstation adjustments.

Provide Continuous FeedbackPerformance improves more quickly when people

receive feedback concerning their successes (or lackthereof). Timely feedback must be given to all work-ers and managers about the results of ergonomicstraining. Feedback helps to accomplish two perform-ance improvement goals: 1) it reinforces the positiveoutcomes and benefits of using office ergonomicsskills in the workplace and 2) it improves the pro-gram and identifies necessary corrective actions.

Figure 1Figure 1

Instructional Systems Design Approach

Robertson Maynard Feature July 2005.qxd 6/10/2005 4:02 PM Page 24

www.asse.org JULY 2005 PROFESSIONAL SAFETY 25

evaluation is conducted after the training course hasbeen developed, implemented and delivered. It typ-ically determines the extent to which the trainingprogram has been successful in meeting its statedtraining, behavioral and organizational objectives. Italso determines the value of the training programand indicates what modifications are needed tomake the program more effective.

A summative evaluation should follow these gen-eral principles:

1) Conduct the evaluation in an environment that isas similar to the ultimate job environment as possible.

2) Conduct the evaluation after a realistic periodof time (preferably two, six and 12 months followingtraining).

3) Conduct the evaluation based on the targetedjob tasks and conditions (Gordon). Table 1 presentsan evaluation assessment process and examples ofevaluation measures (Kirkpatrick; Gordon).

A systematic, multiple measure, five-level train-ing evaluation model can be used for evaluatingtraining effectiveness (Kirkpatrick). This five-levelmodel and examples of measurements that could betaken at each of these training evaluation levels are:

•Level I: Pre-training assessment and baseline.Examples include pre-training knowledge, attitudes,behaviors and organizational safety indexes.

•Level II: Reaction to the training program.Examples include post-training questionnaire ask-ing the trainee to evaluate the relevancy and useful-ness of the training.

•Level III: Learning of principles, facts, tech-niques and attitudes. Examples include pre-postquestionnaires/tests assessing how well the traineelearned the information taught as well as observa-tions/interviews with the trainee. Figures 2 and 3present a VDT individual workstation assessmenttool that could be used for observations.

•Level IV: Behavior relevant to job performance.Examples include assessment of the trainees’ behav-ior on the job—how well was the trainee able totransfer the knowledge and skills to the job. This maybe completed by observations and/or interviews.

•Level V: Results of the training program relatedto organizational objectives. Examples includereported WMSDs, time off work, workers’ compen-sation rates, and health- and stress-related costs.Leading and lagging safety and health performancemeasurements should be analyzed and tracked overtime (Table 1). Tracking these pre- and post-meas-ures, as well as other training costs, determines thebasic variables for calculating a return on investmentof the training program.

Case Studies:Development of Workshops

The content of the two programs included a defi-nition of ergonomics; basic physiology of the upperextremities; causes of discomfort and injuries;ergonomics principles regarding workstation layout;techniques on how to adjust and use a workstationproperly; recommendations for analyzing a worksta-

ered as well. Information derived from the needsanalysis phase is used to identify these factors.

Specific instructional strategies and an outline ofhow the instructional activities relate to accomplish-ment of training objectives and goals must be deter-mined before the materials are developed. A seriesof nine instructional events must occur for learningto occur:

1) Gain trainees’ attention.2) Inform trainees of the training objectives.3) Use recall or transfer from trainees’ existing

experience.4) Present training material to be learned.5) Provide learning guidance.6) Elicit desired performance.7) Provide feedback.8) Assess performance. 9) Enhance retention and facilitate transfer of

training to actual task performance (Gagne, et al).The training delivery system is selected by match-

ing the training media strengths with the trainingobjectives as determined in each instructional event.Instructional media have different characteristics forproviding the various events of instruction. In devel-oping a strategy for instruction, the delivery systemcan be selected event-by-event, objective-by-objec-tive in order to best achieve training goals.

Step 3: DevelopmentDeveloping and testing training materials is the

next phase in the instructional system design process.One should note that it is the instructional designprocess—not the training media and technology—that determines the effectiveness of a training pro-gram. The development phase involves piloting andwalkthroughs of all training materials. During thisphase, instructional strategies are applied sequentiallyto each training activity and the most effective mediadelivery techniques are selected. The format of deliv-ery is also determined (e.g., facilitator-controlled,trainee self-paced or e-learning).

Step 4: ImplementationImplementing training consists of scheduling

how and when it will be delivered. Also, train-the-trainer or facilitation skills must be taught and prac-ticed before the trainers and/or facilitators deliverthe training. In particular, the facilitator should learnhow to lead and control active and interactive dis-cussions among trainees.

Step 5: EvaluationEvaluating training effectiveness and providing

feedback to the organization and trainees is the lastphase in the instructional system design. Whentraining results match established goals and objec-tives, the program can be considered effective.

The two primary types of evaluation are forma-tive and summative (Knirk and Gustafson). Con-ducting a formative evaluation while trainingmaterials are in a draft form allows essential andmeaningful feedback to be collected from learnersand is part of user prototyping activities. Summative

Robertson Maynard Feature July 2005.qxd 6/10/2005 4:02 PM Page 25

26 PROFESSIONAL SAFETY JULY 2005 www.asse.org

trainees’ job responsibilities—including how theywere expected to respond when employees reportedergonomics problems. This promoted interactionand participation between employees and managersto support changes in the work environment.

A similar approach was taken at Company B,although a greater focus wasplaced on a high level of usercontrol as the ergonomic work-stations were designed withthe intent to allow for high flex-ibility and mobility (Robertsonand O’Neill). Managers in-volved in this training programwere faced with differentchange issues since employeeswere applying their ergonom-ics knowledge in a more sys-tematic manner by rearrangingworkstations and work envi-ronment components.

Case Studies: TrainingProgram Evaluation

To evaluate the two pro-grams, the following measure-ments were taken at each of theevaluation levels. Findings aregiven as well.

Level ILevel I measurements con-

sisted of baseline assessmentquestionnaires that provided ameasure of the trainees’ skills,knowledge and abilities beforetraining. A pre-training knowl-edge test was given to traineesat both companies. The percent-age of correct responses were 67percent and 69 percent forCompany A and B, respectively.

Level IILevel II measurements in-

cluded questions on thepost-training questionnaireregarding the usefulness andrelevancy of the training, andoverall course delivery. Morethan 94 percent of traineesfrom both companies rated thetraining highly favorable, use-ful, informative and relevant toworkstation design.

Level IIILevel III measurements con-

sisted of pre- and post-trainingdiscomfort surveys and pre-and post-training ergonomicsknowledge tests. The post-training ergonomics knowl-

tion; procedures for reporting discomfort; and relax-ation and exercise techniques to relieve VDT stress.

In Company A, a three-tiered training programwas designed for senior managers, supervisors andemployees (Robertson and Robinson). Each pro-gram included specific content areas relating to

Evaluation Assessment Process & Outline:Examples of Evaluation MeasuresEvaluationProcess Possible Measures

Table 1Table 1

FormativeEvaluation

SummativeEvaluation

Prototype testing: Usability and measures of attitude towardthe instructional strategy and approach

•Observation protocols•Questionnaires•Interview protocols•User verbal protocols

Final user testing: Measures of comprehension, retention andtransfer

•Pre- and post-training questionnaire•Interview protocols•Observation protocols•User retrospective verbal protocols

Pre-training assessment and baseline•Current task performance measures•Current attitudes, opinions•Current skills, knowledge, abilities

Post-training assessment•Trainee reaction; post-training questionnaire; interviews •Learning outcomes measured by pre- and post-training

questionnaires•Self-reported intentions—attitudes and behaviors

Follow-up questionnaires•Two-, six- and and 12-month follow-up training

questionnairesObservable behaviors

•Interview and observation protocols (two, six and 12months)

•Supervisor and ergonomics facilitator VDT assessmentOrganizational results and outcomes

•Leading indicators•Work unit performance and health (e.g., absenteeism;

wellness) data•Discomfort ratings; monitoring and tracking•Office environment risk factor analyses;

monitoring/tracking•Ergonomic evaluation requests; interviews and qualita-

tive data•Ergonomic observations of workstation redesign/

modification•Attitudinal and ergonomic/safety organizational prac-

tices; self-reported perceptions•Lagging indicators

•Workers’ compensation claims and OSHA log dataanalyses and tracking

Robertson Maynard Feature July 2005.qxd 6/10/2005 4:02 PM Page 26

www.asse.org JULY 2005 PROFESSIONAL SAFETY 27

(ROI) analysis for the officetraining program for CompanyA revealed that the programresulted in a positive healthpayback for trainees and thecompany. The analysis in-volved calculating the directand indirect costs of company-defined upper extremityWMSDs, costs of trainingdevelopment and implementa-tion, workstation redesign costsand ergonomics workstationevaluation costs as well as thenumber of reported WMSDsthat occurred after the trainingprogram was implemented.

Company A experienced a15-percent decrease in reportedupper extremity WMSDs aswell as a 33-percent decrease inaverage lost workdays per WMSDs case in the yearfollowing the office ergonomics training program.Additionally, in years two through four after theintervention and workstation changes, thesedecreases continued.

In Company B, as employee knowledge of con-trol over their workstations increased, self-reportedstress decreased. Self-reported upper/lower backdiscomfort dropped 31 percent among workers whoreceived the training and a highly adjustable work-station. For this same group, self-reported upperlimb discomfort was reduced 56 percent.

Case Studies: Training EffectivenessOverall, the ergonomics VDT training produced

positive results for both companies. For Company A,all five levels of the evaluation model were appliedand clearly documented. Significant results wereaccomplished for all 2,500 individuals trained.Company B also demonstrated positive results for thefive evaluation levels with the results of the fifth levelshowing a significant decrease in self-reported mus-culoskeletal discomforts for the 20 individuals trained.

Other successful components were top manage-ment commitment to the ergonomics program itself,active employee involvement, positive response bymanagement to employee requests for VDT worksta-tion redesign or reconfiguration, and continuousmanagement support of applying ergonomics princi-ples to the work environment. Furthermore, anessential part of sustaining a successful ergonomicstraining program is heightening the awareness ofsupervisors to reinforce positive employee behav-iors. This was effectively completed in Company Aaspart of the overall strategic plan to address healthissues associated with VDT work. In Company B, acomprehensive ergonomics program is being de-signed and will be implemented in the near future.

ConclusionFor both companies, the office ergonomics training

programs produced positive results for each of the

edge test asked employees open-ended questionsabout how they planned to use the training whenthey returned to work. Levels II and III served as atype of formative evaluation of the instructionalmaterials indicating whether the training programwas well received; whether training materials wereclear and understandable; and whether trainingobjectives were met. Trainees for both companiesreported a significant change in their knowledge ofVDT ergonomics, with correct responses of 92 per-cent and 93 percent for Company A and B, respec-tively, compared with 67 percent and 69 percent onthe pre-training knowledge test.

Level IVLevel IV measurements consisted of pre- and post-

observational ergonomic analyses of posture andwork habits. Measures taken after the training pro-vided data on what the trainee did or did not changein the workplace as a result of the training. Significantself-reported and observed positive behavioralchanges were found among trainees at both compa-nies. More than 86 percent of Company A traineesreported that they had applied the ergonomicsknowledge to their jobs, which included placement ofthe VDT screen, position of their wrists at the work-station and sitting posture. Follow-up observationsand interviews by the corporate ergonomist con-firmed these self-reported behavioral changes.

All participants from Company B exhibited ahigh level of user control as they continually adjust-ed their workstations to meet various job demands.This involved arranging the workstation for sittingand standing postures. In addition, a significantdecrease in overall body discomfort was found inthis group as compared to a control group with notraining. Follow-up interviews and observations bythe ergonomist supported these results, as morethan 85 percent of the trainees said that they wereable to apply many of the principles taught in classto their workplace.

Of the workplace changes reported, most in-volved chair adjustments, monitor placement, work-station configuration and layout, and heightadjustments of the keyboard and working surfaces.For both companies, many participants reportedthat the awareness developed through training ledto changes in posture and an increase in the numberof breaks for exercise or movement.

Employees at Company A had the ability to changethe workstation configuration within defined con-straints that provided some means of user control atthe individual level. At Company B, workstationswere highly mobile and groups of workers were ableto change not only the configuration of an individualworkstation, but also the overall configuration of thegroup’s work area. One manager was very supportiveand encouraged members of his workgroup to changetheir workstation configurations within certainboundaries to support their varying job processes.

Level VLevel V measurements addressed organizational

performance objectives. A return on investment

A well-designedofficeergonomicsprogram,coupled witha properlydesigned workenvironment,provides thefoundationfor creatinga responsiveenvironmentfor allinvolved.

Robertson Maynard Feature July 2005.qxd 6/10/2005 4:02 PM Page 27

28 PROFESSIONAL SAFETY JULY 2005 www.asse.org

training can be demonstrated. A well-designed officeergonomics program, coupled with an ergonomicallydesigned work environment, provides the founda-tion for creating a responsive environment for allstakeholders. As these individuals interact with oneanother, applying and seeking ergonomic solutions, asense of participation is created.

The two case studies show that a systemsapproach can influence health and stress effects

training evaluation levels. This supports the conceptthat the combination of user control and training areimportant—since they can provide the worker with ahigh degree of environmental control through anincreased knowledge of office ergonomics and theability to effectively apply ergonomic principles totheir office work environment. With an increase inoffice ergonomics knowledge as well as implementa-tion of an evaluation process, the value of ergonomics

Figure 2Figure 2

Individual VDT Workstation Assessment: Part 1

Robertson Maynard Feature July 2005.qxd 6/10/2005 4:02 PM Page 28

www.asse.org JULY 2005 PROFESSIONAL SAFETY 29

Figure 3Figure 3

Individual VDT Workstation Assessment: Part 2

Robertson Maynard Feature July 2005.qxd 6/10/2005 4:02 PM Page 29

30 PROFESSIONAL SAFETY JULY 2005 www.asse.org

Gordon, S. Systematic Training Program Design:Maximizing Effectiveness and Minimizing Liability.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1994.

Green, R.A. and C.A. Briggs. “Effect of Over-use Injury and the Importance of Training on theUse of Adjustable Workstations by KeyboardOperators.” Journal of Occupational Medicine.31(1989): 557-562.

Gross, C.M. and A. Fuchs. “Reduce Musculo-skeletal Injuries with Corporate ErgonomicsProgram.” Occupational Health and Safety. Jan. 1990:29-33.

Hendrick, H. and B. Kleiner, eds. Macroergo-nomics. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,2002.

Imada, A.S. “A Macroergonomic Approach toReducing Work-Related Injuries.” In Macroergo-nomics, H.W. Hendrick and B.M. Kleiner, eds.London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2002.151-172.

Israel, B.A., et al. “Occupational Stress, Safetyand Health: Conceptual Framework and Princi-ples for Effective Prevention Interventions.”Journal of Occupational Health and Psychology.1(1996): 261-286.

Kirkpatrick, D. “Techniques for EvaluatingTraining Programs.” Training and DevelopmentJournal. 31(1979): 9-12.

Knirk, F.G. and K.L. Gustafson. InstructionalTechnology: A Systematic Approach to Education.New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1986.

Kukkonen, R., et al. “Prevention of FatigueAmongst Data Entry Operators.” In Ergonomics ofWorkstation Design, T.O. Kvalseth, ed. Boston:Butterworth Publishers, 1983.

Kuorinka, I. and L. Forcier. Work-RelatedMusculoskeletal Disorders: A Reference Book forPrevention. London: Taylor and Francis, 1995.

Lawler, E.E. III(a). High-InvolvementManagement. San Francisco: Jossey Bass, 1986.

Lawler, E.E. III(b). Managing EmployeeInvolvement. Los Angeles: University of SouthernCalifornia, 1991.

Luopajarvi, T. “Workers’ Education.” Ergo-nomics. 30(1987): 305-311.

Nagamachi, M. and Y. Yamada. “Designfor Manufacturing Through ParticipatoryErgonomics.” In Design for Manufacturing, M.Helander and N. Nagasaki, eds. London: Taylor

and Francis, 1992.Nelhorn, J.M., et al. “An Outcomes Study of an Occupational

Medicine Intervention Program for the Reduction of Musculoskel-etal Disorders and Cumulative Trauma Disorders in the Work-place.” Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine.41(1999): 833-844.

Reed, S. Cognition: Theory and Applications. Pacific Grove, CA:Brooks/Cole Publishing Co., 1996.

Robertson, M.M. and M.J. O’Neill. “Effects of EnvironmentalControl on Performance, Group Effectiveness and Stress.” Proceed-ings of the 43rd Annual Meeting of the Human Factors and ErgonomicsSociety. Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and ErgonomicsSociety, 1999.

Robertson, M.M. and M. Robinson. “Office ErgonomicsTraining Programs: Results of Case Studies.” Proceedings of theInternational Ergonomics Assn. Congress and the 44th Annual HumanFactors and Ergonomics Society. Santa Monica, CA: Human Factorsand Ergonomics Society, 2000.

Sauter, S.L., et al. Promoting Health and Productivity in the Com-puterized Office. London: Taylor & Francis, 1990.

Smith, M.J. “Employee Participation and Preventing Occupa-tional Diseases Caused by New Technologies.” In Human Factorsin Organizational Design and Management, G.E. Bradley and H.W.Hendrick, eds. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science, 1994.

Verbeek, J. “The Use of Adjustable Furniture: Evaluation ofan Instruction Program for Office Workers.” Applied Ergonomics.22(1999): 179-184.

associated with office work environments. Officeergonomics training programs and environmentalcontrol can be successful interventions at both theindividual and organizational level. Both of thesestrategies help to reduce WMSDs and other relatedhealth issues. Both can also enhance organizationaleffectiveness. �

ReferencesAaras, A., et al. “Musculoskeletal, Visual and Psychosocial

Stress in VDU Operators Before and After MultidisciplinaryErgonomic Interventions: A Six-Year Prospective Study, Part II.”Applied Ergonomics. 32(2001): 559-572.

Bayeh, A.D. and M.J. Smith. “Effect of Physical Ergonomicson VDT Workers’ Health: A Longitudinal Intervention Field Studyin a Service Organization.” International Journal of Human-Com-puter Interaction. 11(1991): 109-135.

Brisson, C., et al. “Effects of an Ergonomic Training Programon Workers with Video Display Units.” Scandinavian Journal ofWork, Environment & Health. 25(1999): 255-263.

Brown, O. Jr. “Toward Participatory Ergonomics: A Redefini-tion of the Managerial Role in Organizational Change.” In Design-ing for Everyone, Y. Queinnec and F. Daniellou, eds. London:Taylor & Francis, 1991. 1679-1681.

Gagne, R., et al. Principles of Instructional Design. 3rd ed. NewYork: Holt Rinehart and Winston, 1988.

Tips for Effective OfficeErgonomics Training

•Set objectives to reflect what the company wants toachieve through the ergonomic training program. Don’t juststart training.

•Establish methods that will measure the program’s effec-tiveness in meeting those objectives.

•Make training relevant. Use actual examples from opera-tion to illustrate ergonomic principles.

•Involve and train line management, especially supervi-sors, in planning, carrying out and reinforcing the training.

•Don’t rely solely on a videotape or film to do the train-ing. Audiovisual materials serve to support training, not toreplace it.

•Follow-up, follow-up, follow-up. One-shot training israrely successful. Schedule frequent refresher courses.Employees can be helpful in designing effective refreshers,so solicit their input.

•Train the ergonomics facilitator in how to best conductan ergonomic evaluation and provide recommendations.(See Figures 2 and 3.)

•Reinforce the positive. Provide rewards or incentiveswhen supervisors and employees apply the training lessonsto their workplace and computing habits.

•Listen to relevant feedback from employees on existingrisk factors and on how to ergonomically improve theirworkplace. Make them part of the solution.

•Outside training consultants may be helpful to supple-ment expertise, but do not rely on them to run the program.Management retains the ultimate responsibility for safety ata given facility.

•Stress off-the-job as well as worksite ergonomics.Emphasize the importance of ergonomic layouts in homeoffices also.

•Remind employees that overall fitness, diet and nutri-tion, and other lifestyle considerations are also important.

Robertson Maynard Feature July 2005.qxd 6/10/2005 4:02 PM Page 30