Ferramenta PLIBEL

PLIBEL 1(3)

www.ttl.fi/workloadexposuremethods June 2009

PLIBEL (Plan fr Identifiering avBelastningsfaktorer; A Method Assigned forIdentification of Ergonomics Hazards)

General description and development of the methodA simple chek-list screening tool intended to highlight musculoskeletal risks in connection withworkplace investigations. Time aspects, environmental factors, and organizational factors also have tobe considered as modifying factors.

The Swedish Work Environment Act stipulated that the employer should investigate occupationalinjuries, draw up action plans and organize and evaluate job modifications. Hence, it was also ofinterest for the Labor Inspectorate to study conditions and improvements at workplaces. PLIBELmethod was designed to serve as a rapid screening tool of major ergonomic risks which may haveinjurious effects on the musculo-skeletal system. It has been developed in Sweden and presented inliterature in 1995 (Kemmlert 1995, Kemmlert 1997, Kemmlert 2005, Kemmlert 2006).

Exposure descriptors

Exposure Description ofexposure

magnitude/amplitude duration frequency

posture x . x

movements . . x

(external) force 'yes/no' x . x

vibration use of vibratingtools 'yes/no'

. . .

contact forces . . .

17 risk factors in the question form of "yes / no". No numeric values given for the definition ofexistence of these generic risk factors.

Psychosocial factors: The possibility to take breaks and pauses, the possibility to choose order andtype of work tasks or pace of work, time demands and psychosocial stress, unusual or unexpectedsituations.

Environmental factors: Presence of cold, heat, draught, noise or troublesome visual conditions,presence of jerks, shakes or vibrations.

Resource demands and usability

Equipment needed

Checklist and its use explained in publications (Kemmlert 1995, Kemmlert 2005, Kemmlert 2006).Documentation with photographs recommended.

PLIBEL 2(3)


Process of coding and analysis

A workplace assessment using PLIBEL starts with a preliminary observation and an introductoryinterview with the employee. When an ergonomic hazard is observed, the numbered area on the formis ticked or a short note is made.

Output type/level (risk assessment)

In a concluding report, where the crude dichotomous registrations are arranged in order of importance,quotations from the list of ergonomic hazards may be used: In this summary, which is usually only 2-3sentences long, descriptions related to the same problem may be combined and specifications (eg ofdurations or quantities) given. For the concluding report, modifying factors (eg environmental andorganizational factors) should also be taken into consideration.

Criteria to help the evaluator to make decision

Existence of evaluated factors should each considered potential for changes.

Fields of the working life where the method has been usedPostmen, post assistants, cashiers, meat cutters, stone layers, trench diggers, machine superintendents,warehouse workers, millers and distributors, workers in wood industry. workers at a folding machinein a book binder, refuse collectors, laundry workers (Kemmlert 1995).

Validity

Face validity / Contents validity

Does the method seem to be valid for the aimed purpose?

yes

1. The contents of the method is such that a relevant assessment can beexpected

Comments: Does not consider duration of exposures

x

2. Items to be observed have a sound basis

Comments: Items based on reserach literature on risks

x

3. Sound operationalization of the items to be observed x

4. Sound process to collect data

Comments: Definitions given on common language but no concreteanchors are given to reduce the subjectivity

x

5. Sound process to get the output of the collected data

Comments: Subjective "concluding report"

x

6. Output can help in decision making x

PLIBEL 3(3)


Concurrent validity

How well does the method correspond with more valid method/s?

PLIBEL vs. AET (Kemmlert 1995)? Occurrence of 18 work characteristics at 25 workplace observations performed by one observer

using AET and one using PLIBEL.

? Only half the items have been validated with good agreement, but the low number of observationshampers the conclusions.

"Predictive validity"

How well has the risk-estimation of the method been shown to be associatedwith or predicting musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs)?

? No formal studies

Intra-observer repeatability (within observers)

? No formal studies

Inter-observer repeatability (between observers)

24 observers, four work situations from video (Kemmlert 1995) (Tables 6-7)? Moderate agreement between observers.

Conclusions

Strengths of the method

? General and simple screening tool. Broad scope of risks included

Limitations in the use of the method

? Does not quantify the risk. Validity not shown. Relative low repeatability due to the subjectivedecisions of "no" / "yes".

To whom can this method be recommended?

To occupational safety and health practioners for general screening.

ReferencesKemmlert K. A method assigned for the identification of ergonomic hazards - PLIBEL. Appl Ergon.1995;26(3):199-211.

Kemmlert K. On the identification and prevention of ergonomic risk factors with special regard toreported occupational injuries of the musculo-skeletal system. Arbete och hlsa 1997;2:49.

Kemmlert K. PLIBEL - The method assigned for identification of ergonomic hazards. In: Stanton N,Brookhuis K, Hedge A, Salas E, Hendrick HW, eds. Handbook of human factors and ergonomicsmethods. Boca Raton, Florida: CRC Press 2005: 3:1-7.

Kemmlert K. PLIBEL - A method assigned for identification of ergonomic hazards. In: Marras WS,Karwowski W, eds. Fundamentals and assessment tools for occupational ergonomics. Boca Raton,Florida: CRC Press 2006: 40:1 - 14.

PLIBEL (Plan fr Identifiering av Belastningsfaktorer; A Method Assigned for Identification of Ergonomics Hazards)General description and development of the methodExposure descriptorsExposure descriptorsExposure

Resource demands and usabilityEquipment neededProcess of coding and analysisOutput type/level (risk assessment)Criteria to help the evaluator to make decision

Fields of the working life where the method has been usedValidityFace validity / Contents validityConcurrent validity"Predictive validity"Intra-observer repeatability (within observers)Inter-observer repeatability (between observers)

ConclusionsStrengths of the methodLimitations in the use of the methodTo whom can this method be recommended?

References

Documents

Ferramenta PLIBEL