Change search
ReferencesLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Bias and imprecision in posture percentile variables estimated from short exposure samples
Umeå University, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Public Health and Clinical Medicine, Occupational and Environmental Medicine.
2012 (English)In: BMC Medical Research Methodology, ISSN 1471-2288, Vol. 12, 36- p.Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

BACKGROUND: Upper arm postures are believed to be an important risk determinant for musculoskeletal disorder development in the neck and shoulders. The 10th and 90th percentiles of the angular elevation distribution have been reported in many studies as measures of neutral and extreme postural exposures, and variation has been quantified by the 10th-90th percentile range. Further, the 50th percentile is commonly reported as a measure of "average" exposure. These four variables have been estimated using samples of observed or directly measured postures, typically using sampling durations between 5 and 120 min.

METHODS: The present study examined the statistical properties of estimated full-shift values of the 10th, 50th and 90th percentile and the 10th-90th percentile range of right upper arm elevation obtained from samples of seven different durations, ranging from 5 to 240 min. The sampling strategies were realized by simulation, using a parent data set of 73 full-shift, continuous inclinometer recordings among hairdressers. For each shift, sampling duration and exposure variable, the mean, standard deviation and sample dispersion limits (2.5% and 97.5%) of all possible sample estimates obtained at one minute intervals were calculated and compared to the true full-shift exposure value.

RESULTS: Estimates of the 10th percentile proved to be upward biased with limited sampling, and those of the 90th percentile and the percentile range, downward biased. The 50th percentile was also slightly upwards biased. For all variables, bias was more severe with shorter sampling durations, and it correlated significantly with the true full-shift value for the 10th and 90th percentiles and the percentile range. As expected, shorter samples led to decreased precision of the estimate; sample standard deviations correlated strongly with true full-shift exposure values.

CONCLUSIONS: The documented risk of pronounced bias and low precision of percentile estimates obtained from short posture samples presents a concern in ergonomics research and practice, and suggests that alternative, unbiased exposure variables should be considered if data collection resources are restricted.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
BioMed Central, 2012. Vol. 12, 36- p.
National Category
Environmental Health and Occupational Health
URN: urn:nbn:se:umu:diva-55872DOI: 10.1186/1471-2288-12-36PubMedID: 22443348OAI: diva2:531381
Available from: 2012-06-07 Created: 2012-06-07 Last updated: 2012-08-09Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

fulltext(1427 kB)127 downloads
File information
File name FULLTEXT02.pdfFile size 1427 kBChecksum SHA-512
Type fulltextMimetype application/pdf

Other links

Publisher's full textPubMed

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Wahlström, Jens
By organisation
Occupational and Environmental Medicine
In the same journal
BMC Medical Research Methodology
Environmental Health and Occupational Health

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar
Total: 127 downloads
The number of downloads is the sum of all downloads of full texts. It may include eg previous versions that are now no longer available

Altmetric score

Total: 53 hits
ReferencesLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link