Work posture risk comparison of RULA and REBA based on measures of assessment-score variability: A case study of the metal coating industry in Thailand

Abstract

This study examines the work posture risk comparison of RULA and REBA based on measures of assessment-score variability. During the metal coating process, chemicals were frequently employed, necessitating a heightened level of caution among the employees. The Cornell Musculoskeletal Discomfort Questionnaires (CMDQ) revealed the manifestation of physical discomfort among employees. In this study, the rapid upper limb assessment (RULA) and the rapid entire body assessment (REBA) were used to identify ergonomic concerns related to the work of employees in the black oxide coating department of a metal coating firm. The sensitivity of risk assessment between the two methods was investigated, considering the mean and variability of the assessment scores. Consideration was given to the diverse and crucial work positions of employees at each station, focusing exclusively on the standing working posture. In the black oxide coating section, there were 12 steps that 20 workers had to complete. Under the same working postures, the overall average RULA score was determined to be at a high-risk level, whereas the overall average REBA score was at a moderate-risk level. As a result, the RULA method had a greater capacity for risk warning than the REBA method. Levene's test was also applied to determine whether the variances of the risk scores computed using the two techniques were equal. The results of the analysis showed that the variances in the scores using the two methods were not significantly different.