Rapid Upper Limb Assessment (RULA): Difference between revisions
mNo edit summary |
Amrita Patro (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
</div> | </div> | ||
== Objective | == Objective == | ||
Developed by Mc Atamney in 2005 as a survey method for use in ergonomics investigations of workplaces where work related upper limb disorders are reported. | Developed by Mc Atamney in 2005 as a survey method for use in ergonomics investigations of workplaces where work related upper limb disorders are reported. | ||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
== Intended Population | == Intended Population == | ||
Survey of workplaces where work related upper limb disorders are reported. | Survey of workplaces where work related upper limb disorders are reported. | ||
| Line 26: | Line 26: | ||
[[Image:RULA.png|center]] | [[Image:RULA.png|center]] | ||
== Reference | == Reference == | ||
=== Reliability === | === Reliability === | ||
| Line 43: | Line 43: | ||
<references /> | <references /> | ||
[[Category:Occupational Health]] | |||
[[Category:Assessment]] | |||
[[Category:Upper Limb Assessment]] | |||
Revision as of 21:24, 2 October 2018
Original Editor - Ajay Upadhyay
Top Contributors - Kim Jackson, Ajay Upadhyay, WikiSysop and Amrita Patro
Objective[edit | edit source]
Developed by Mc Atamney in 2005 as a survey method for use in ergonomics investigations of workplaces where work related upper limb disorders are reported.
It is aimed to make a rapid assessment on neck and upper limb loading in mainly sedentary tasks.
Intended Population[edit | edit source]
Survey of workplaces where work related upper limb disorders are reported.
Method of Use[edit | edit source]
Positions of individual body segments will be observed and the more there is deviation from the neutral posture the higher will be the score of each body part.
The risk is calculated into a score of 1 (low) to 7 (high).
Categorization of body postures and force, with action levels for assessment
Reference[edit | edit source]
Reliability[edit | edit source]
RULA demonstrated higher intra-rater reliability than inter-rater reliability although both were moderate to good. RULA was more reliable when used for assessing the older children (8-12 years) than with the younger children (4-7 years). RULA may prove useful as part of an ergonomic assessment, but its level of reliability warrants caution for its sole use when assessing children, and in particular, younger children.
Recent Related Research (from Pubmed)[edit | edit source]
Failed to load RSS feed from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/eutils/erss.cgi?rss_guid=1FuuOtUS4LZW89VZomcWZuP_42r1yN39PuQNBUKLES98VAw9CM: Error parsing XML for RSS
References[edit | edit source]
References will automatically be added here, see adding references tutorial.
