Applied Ergonomics 1982, 13.

3, 195-202

A methodology for chair evaluation

C.G. Drury and B.G. Coury

Department of Industrial Engineering,State University of New York at Buffalo, USA.

A methodology for evaluating a single chair, rather than making a comparison among
chairs, was developed from previous chair studies. The methodology was found to be
rapid and effective when applied to a prototype chair, giving information to the
manufacturer on overall comfort and good and bad points in the design. Testing took
place on three tasks and showed that chair comfort is influenced by the task as well
as the chair.

Keywords: Chairs, evaluation, methodology

Introduction
Is it possible to do a rapid but comprehensive ergonomic
evaluation of a single chair? This question arose when the
authors were asked to evaluate a prototype chair for the
manufacturers. The aim was not to compare it directly with
other chairs but to judge its adequacy as a sitting machine
and to discover its strengths and weaknesses.
Most chair evaluations compare different chairs directly,
but in the current study an absolute evaluation rather than
a relative evaluation was required. This meant that published
standards had to be available for the evaluation methodology
chosen.
Any evaluation procedure must be both valid and reliable.
For chair evaluation, the use to which the chair is put is the
overriding criterion in choosing a method for chair evaluation.
Chair evaluations reported in the literature have assessed chairs
used for auditoria 0Votzka, et al, 1969), reading typing and
eating (Shackel, et al, 1969), school work (Oxford, 1969),
easy chairs (LeCarpentier, 1969) and 'just sitting' (Grandjean,
et al, 1973).
There are three basic methods of evaluating chairs, apart
from 'expert judgement' which Shackel et al found to be
unreliable. These methods use measures which compare the
chair against anthropometric data and chair design principles
(eg, Oxford, 1969; British Standards 3044, 3079, 3893);
use fitting trials to adjust the chair to the operator (eg,
Jones, 1969; LeCarpentier, 1969) and f'mally to have users
evaluate the chairs experimentally, either in a laboratory
setting (Shvartz, et al, 1980, Grandjean, et al, 1973, Shackel,
et al, 1969) or at the real workplace (eg, McLeod, et al, 1980;
Wotzka, et al, 1969; Jones, 1969; Shackel, et al, 1969).
Many evaluations combine two or more of these techniques
(eg, Wotzka, et al, 1969; Oxford, 1969) and most
recommendations on seating design (such as Diffrient, et al,
1974; Panero and Zelnik, 1979) combine recommendations
derived from all three methods.
For this study, a three-stage evaluation procedure was
employed: (1) evaluate the prototype chair against published
dimensional recommendations; (2) use fitting trims to allow
subjects to fit the chair to their body and workplace; and
finally, (3) evaluate comfort directly at the workplace using
a known methodology so that comparison with previously
published data was possible. Evaluation at the workplace
can be accomplished by measuring postures adopted (eg,
Oxford, 1969, Grandjean, 1980), by comfort ratings OVotzka,
et al, 1969, Shackel, et al, 1969) or by measuring performance
(McLeod, et al, 1980).
Branton (1969) makes the point that seating is only a
means to an end rather than an end in itself. The motivation
for sitting is the task performed in the seat rather than the
seat itself so the best that can be hoped for in seating is to
achieve a 'state of non-awareness' of the seat. Despite this,
performance changes in the task as a function of seating are
notoriously difficult to detect. McLeod, et al, only found
a performance decrement when the seat was both maladjusted
and perceived as uncomfortable. Similarly, recording of
postures or movements on the seat (Rieck, 1969) have shown
no correlation with direct comfort measures. Hence the
practical alternative for workplace evaluation is a comfort
measure or measures.
Choice of evaluation measures
Comparison with anthropometric data and principles
Ever since Akerblom's 'Standing and Sitting Posture'
monograph in 1948, principles from anthropometry,
biomechanics and orthopaedic surgery have been applied
to seating design. The basic principles are that the seat should
allow a variety of natural postures to be adopted, with good
support for the spine, especially the lumbar spine. Branton
(1969) notes that up to 75% of the body weight is supported
on the area of the ischial tuberosities (the bones on the
bottom of the pelvic girdle), and on reasonably hard seats
this can mean support over only a few square inchesof area
(approximately 1130sq cm). He shows that biomechanically
the seated person is unstable, even with a backrest, thus
requiring some static muscular effort to achieve stability.
This static effort is fatiguing and must be relieved from time
to time by adopting what Dempster (1955) called 'temporary
closed chains' of body segments. These chains, such as

0003-6870/82/03 0195-08 $03.00 © 1982 Butterworth & Co (Publishers) Ltd Applied Ergonomics September 1982 195
leaning on a desk, create temporarily stable structures to
relieve the static tension.
These principles have been turned into design criteria by
many authorities. Grandjean (1980) gave a succinct but
comprehensive set of criteria:
1. every work seat should be adjustable for height
(between 38 and 53 cm if it is for office workers);
2. the seat should be safe against tipping or slipping. It
should have five feet, set in a circle at least as big as
the seat itself (40-45 cm diameter);
3. the seat should allow the occupant sufficient freedom
of movement. If the occupant needs to get up often,
or to move the seat sideways, then the five feet should
have casters;
4. hollow spaces under the desk top help to reduce aches
in the legs, because these can be moved about;
5. the seat surface should be 4 0 - 4 5 cm across and
3 8 - 4 2 cm from back to front. A slight hollow in the
seat, with the front edge turned upwards about 4 ° - 6 °
will prevent the buttocks from sliding forwards. Of
course the front edge should be rounded off;
6. a light padding with 2 cm of latex, covered with non-
slip permeable material (wool or Dralon) is a great
aid to comfort;
7. a work seat that is either fixed or tilting, but with a
high, non-adjustable backrest, gives good opportunities
to relax the back muscles occasionally. Such a backrest
should extend 4 8 - 5 0 cm vertically above the seat
surface and have a breadth of 3 2 - 3 6 cm. The backrest
should have a lumbar pad, which should give good
support to the spine and the sacrum at a point
10-20 cm above the lowest point of the seat surface.
The upper part of the backrest should be concave
forwards. The backrest may, with advantage, be
concave in all horizontal planes, with a radius of
4 0 - 5 0 cm;
8. a workseat with adjustable backrest should give as
much support as possible to the lumbar vertebrae.
The backrest should be 30 cm high and 38 cm broad,
and be adjustable in both horizontal and vertical
planes;
9. foot rests are important so that small people can
avoid sitting badly, or to meet similar problems in
people of other sizes. They should be an integral part
of each work table;
10. a work seat should be designed in conjunction with
the work place at which it is to be used. The most
important consideration is the distance from seat
height to work height. Assuming that the elbows are
held downwards and the arms bent at 90 ° , this distance
should be between 27 and 30 cm.
Perhaps the only arguable recommendation in this list is
number 7, the high backrest, which comes from Grandjean's
own work and is not seen in other recommendations.
There is a feeling by other authors that a high backrest
is undesirable. For example, Floyd and Roberts, writing
in British Standard 3044, state that
'The backrest must not restrict the movement of the
spinal column or of the arms; thus complete support
for the whole of the back is excluded'.
196 AppliedErgonomics September 1982
They quote Akerblom (1948) and Darcus and Weddell (1947)
that upper back support is unnecessary if a correct lumbar
support is provided.
All authors are in agreement that padding should be thin,
with Diffrient, et al, recommending a maximum compression
with a 78 kg occupant of 3-8 cm and Grandjean recommending
2"0 cm. The seat, backrest and armrest material should be
slip resistant and able to 'breathe' to remove body-generated
moisture. There is also general agreement that the front edge
of the seat should curve downwards to prevent pinching Of
the underside of the thighs between the seat edge and the
femur.
For this evaluation, detailed dimensional recommendations
were gathered from a variety of sources and are compared
with the prototype chair in Table 1. It should be noted that
most of these are based on the same studies and thus are
closely comparable. An example is Panero and Zelnik's list
which is derived from a comparison of five earlier sets of
recommendations (page 127).
It is important to note, with Shackel, et al, that there is
no guarantee that a dimensionally correct chair will be
perceived as comfortable.
Fitting trials
The technique of fitting trials has been found to produce
results comparable to anthropometric recommendations
for automobile seats (Jones, 1969; Drury and Searle, 1965).
The method allows the subject to adjust the dimensions of
the work place until subjective comfort is maximised. These
'comfort settings' are either taken as the design data (eg,
LeCarpentier, 1969) or used as reference points about
which to vary each dimension so that a tolerable range is
found for each dimension (Drury and Searle, 1965). In a
study of easy chair seating, LeCarpentier found that the
mean differences between comfort positions chosen by the
same subject on different days were:
Seat height 2-8 cm
Seat length 2.0 cm
Seat angle 1.7 °
Backrest angle 2.1 o
Seat-to-backrest angle 2.5 °
These values show a lower bound on the accuracy with which
dimensions and angles should be specified: any tighter
specifications will be largely imperceptible to users of chairs.
Fitting trials were used in this study only as a means of
structuring the user's first interaction with the prototype
chair. Subjects were allowed 5 min to experiment with the
three adjustments available (seat height, seat length and
backrest height). Chosen values were measured at the end of
this period. Five minutes is considered long enough for a
user to become familiar with a chair (Grandjean, et al, 1973;
Shackel, et al, 1969).
User comfort evaluation
Oxford's comment that the criterion for a good chair is
that the occupant can 'sit for long periods without becoming
aware of the chair' agrees closely with Branton's comment
quoted earlier. Branton (1969) reviews the literature on
seat comfort assessment and concludes that
1. Avoidance of discomfort should be the criterion
2. Simple relatively unstructured scales should be used
3. Subjects should indicate discomfort by body part
 Table 1: Comparison of dimensions of prototype chair with published recommendations

Panero
BS 3 0 7 9 Diffrient and Z e l n i k Grandjean Prototype
Feature a n d BS 3 8 9 3 e t al 1 9 7 4 1979 1980 chair

Seat height (adjustable) 43-51 cm 35-52 36-51 38-53 43-52

(if fixed) 43 cm 43 - 45 -

Seat width 41 c m 41 43-48 40-45 47

Seat length 36-47 cm 33-41 39-41 38-42 41.5-43

Seat slope 0° - 5° 0° - 5° 0° - 5° 4° - 6° 1.5 °

Backrest top height 33 cm - - 48-50 -

Backrest bottom height 20 cm . . . .
or Backrest centre height - 23-25 19-25 30 18.5-21.5
Backrest height - 15-23 15-23 10-20 33
Backrest width 30-36 cm 33 25 32-36 38-5
Backrest horizontal radius 31-46 cm 31-46 - 40-50 42.5

Backrest vertical radius - 25 - 80 33

Backrest / seat angle 95 ° - 105 ° 95 ° - 100 ° 95 ° - 105 ° - *

Feet, number and base diameter 'safe' - - 5.40-45 cm 5.61 c m

Armrest length 22 cm 15-21 - - 27.5

Armrest width 4 cm 6-9 - - 7.5
Armrest height 16-23 cm 18-25 20-25 - 24
Width between armrests 47-56 cm 48-56 46-51 - 49-5

* not accurately measurable

. Check lists should be used to have subjects evaluate Body part discomfort scales used in the past have included
specific features of the chair. a ranking of '3 most comfortable' and '3 least comfortable'
areas (Shackel, etal, 1969), through three point scales used by
He notes that it is seat comfort we want to assess, not user
comfort, and the user is only a channel of information from
the seat to the evaluator. Scales are thus needed of overall General c o m f o r t rating
comfort, body part comfort and specific chair features. Please rate the chair on your feelings now
General comfort scales have ranged from two point
using adjective pairs (eg, comfortable/uncomfortable) by feel completely relaxed
McLeod, et al, 1980, through three point scales
(uncomfortable, medium, comfortable) used by Grandjean's feel perfectly comfortable
team (Grandjean, et al, 1973; Wotzka, et al, 1969), and the
seven point scale used by Shvartz, et al, 1980 (1 = extreme feel quite comfortable
discomfort to 7 = extreme comfort) to the eleven point
scale used by Shackel, et al, (1969). feel barely comfortable
This latter scale, reproduced in Fig. 1, was constructed
feel uncomfortable
by having chair users rank order 20 statements about comfort
and choose 11 responses which gave the most consistent
equal interval scale. The authors used this to compare feel restless and fidgety
ten general purpose chairs, either for reading in a laboratory,
for typing at the work place or in a cafeteria for eating. This feel cramped
scale was chosen for the current study as it is fine enough
to evaluate even very comfortable seating. It is approximately feel s t i f f
an equal interval scale and the results of the current study
can be compared directly with the data for ten chairs feel numb ( o r pins and needles)
published by Shackel, et al.
feel sore and tender
In this study, the scale was administered every half hour
after the initial 5 rain adjustment period, for a total of 2~ h. feel unbearable pain
Subjects marked a blank scale each time, with measurements
later being made in half-scale-step intervals. Fig. 1 General comfort scale

A p p l i e d Ergonomics September 1982 197

Grandjean's team to five point scales (1 = no discomfort to
5 = very severe discomfort) used by Shvartz et al, 1980. None
of these has received general acceptance so the scale
developed by Corlett and Bishop (1976) was used in the
current study. This technique has been widely used in
industry as well as by Drury and Coury (in press) in evaluating
a manual materials handling t/tsk. A response from 1 (just
noticeable pain/discomfort) to 5 (intolerable pain/discomfort)
is made for each body part, although for relatively
comfortable tasks (such as seated typing) most body parts
will have a zero pain-discomfort rating. Corlett and Bishop
and the current authors have found that this scale is easy
to administer and requires almost no training.
In this study, the Body Part Discomfort scale was
administered each half hour at the same time as the General
Comfort Scale, again giving the subject a blank, form each
time.
For chair features, evaluators have typically resorted to
ad hoc questions about specific chair features of interest.
Thus Wotzka, et al, asked whether the backrest was used,
whether leg room was sufficient and questions about the
writing surface of their auditorium chair. Shackel, et al,
1969, provide a detailed Chair Feature Checklist. Using this
they were able to discriminate between groups of chairs on
the basis of seat height, seat depth (length) and backrest
curvature.
It was felt that this latter checklist was appropriate but
that some subjects may prefer to have finer discrimination
than the three-point scale provided. Thus the checklist
was modified to have continuous line between the extremes.
Lines were 9 cm long and the position of subjects' check
marks was measured from the left hand end of the scale.
The Chair Feature Checklist was administered at the end of
the 2½ h working session for each subject.
Results
Comparison with anthropometric data and principles
The dimensions listed in Table 1 were measured on the
prototype chair using the methodology for measurement
given in BS 3893. Measurements of lengths were to the
compressed seat with a 55 kg occupant. The compression on
both seat and backrest was between 2 and 3 cm, which is the
range usually recommended, eg, by Grandjean (1980).
It is apparent from Table 1 that the prototype chair fell
within the range recommended on every dimension. Seat
width, backrest width and armrest length exceeded the
recommended minima. The base diameter was also large,
making the chair very stable on its five feet. The backrest
was a compromise between the short, lumbar-support-only
design usually recommended and the longer thoratic-plus-
lumbar support design recommended by Grandjean.
All edges of seat and backrest were well padded and
rounded (especially the front edge of the seat) preventing
interference with blood flow to the legs.
Adjustment for seat height was particularly convenient,
being adjustable easily while the occupant is seated.
Adjustment of backrest height and horizontal position were
more difficult to accomplish, but these are more rarely
adjusted in practice.
It was not possible to measure accurately the angle
between seat and backrest, because the backrest was curved
vertically and there was no obvious tangential line.
198 AppliedErgonomics September 1982
The armrests were longer than recommended but there
is a note in BS 3893 not to measure any part of the armrest
behind the line of the backrest. When this procedure was
followed, the armrest length was within the limits given.
Fitting trials
Fitting trials were used as a mechanism for adjustment
of the chair and only produced results of interest to the
subjects themselves. However, it was noticeable from the
Chair Feature Checklist that those features which were
adjustable were judged almost perfect. There was obviously
enough adjustment in the chair to accommodate the
subjects used in this experiment.
User comfort evaluation
The comfort evaluation used two groups of subjects in
two rather different situations. The first group of six female
secretaries used the prototype chair in place of their usual
typing chair during a regular working period. Since office
duties require leaving the chair occasionally, subjects were
allowed to move about during the 2Y~h trial. The group's
vital statistics were:
Age 22-47 years
Height 6 2 - 66 in (157-167 cm)
Weight 112-145 lb (51-66 kg)
The second group consisted of three males and three
females using a Lear-Siegler computer terminal. All were
students who frequently spend long periods interacting
with one of these CRT terminals connected to the
University's computer. Subjects in this second group did
not leave the chair during the 2½ h trial so that their
comfort ratings can be compared with the Shackel, et al,
(1969) 'long term sitting' group rather than the 'typing'
group. Vital statistics of the second groups were:
Male Female
Age 22-29 years 21 years all
Height 67-74 in (170-188 cm) 60-65 in (152-165 cm)
Weight 128-165 lb (58-75 kg) 105-117 lb (48-53 kg)
Results of the General Comfort Rating are shown for the
two groups of Figs. 2 and 3. The mean value plus or minus
one standard deviation is shown at each half hour of use.
The typing group found the chair about half a unit more
comfortable than the terminal using group on average. All
mean comfort ratings are better than the best of the
Shackel, et al, (1969) group of ten chairs for the typing
group.
For the terminal using group, the mean values are in
the better third of the Shackel, et al, range for the first hour
and, as time progresses, are equal to the best of that group.
While the published results show increased discomfort with
time, the prototype chair shows a steady level which does
not change with working time.
For a formal comparison of the prototype chair with the
Shackel, et al, results, Table 2 shows the significance of
the differences between the General Comfort Rating means
and their results. Differences between the best, the mid-range
and the worst of the Shackel, et al, chairs were calculated
for each half hour using a t-test at the p = 0.005 level. It
is apparent that the typing group shows better results than
the terminal using group and that, even with the small
samples used in this evaluation, significant results could
be obtained.
 Chair feature checklist The total amounts of discomfort observed were small in
Too Too comparison with other tasks which have been measured.
Correct low However, most of the other tasks were chosen because
Seat height above the floor high (P i
pastural discomfort was expected rather than as a randomly
Too Too chosen cross section of industrial tasks.
long Correct short
Seat length [ I I ~) !
The Chair Feature Checklist results are shown in Figs. 4 and 5,
Too Too again with a mean value plus or minus one standard
narrow Correct wide
Seat width deviation. The first thing noticeable is that this range
Slopes too for Slopes too for covered the optimum or central point on the scale for
towards back Correct towards front each feature. The second major result has already been
Slope of seat I I o I
mentioned; Seat Height and Backrest Position, both of
Poor Adequate Good
which were adjusted by each subject, gave a narrower range
Seat shape It O , I of ratings around the optimum.
Too Too The prototype chair was formally compared with the
high Correct low
Position of backrest I-Ot-I Shackel, et al, results, again by using t-tests for differences
Poor Fits
between the means of each subject group and the lowest,
Moulded chair hack
fit
t
Adequate
I 0 I
well mid and highest points on the scale. These tests showed
that for all features, and for each group, the mean rating
Too Too was significantly different from each end of the scale and
Curvature of curved Correct flat
back support not significantly different from the mid-point. Hence the
Too Slightly chair was judged correct on most features and adequate
Clearance for feet little obstructed Adequate on those features with a uni-directional scale.
and calves under chair I I 0 II

Fig. 2 General c o m f o r t results f r o m t y p i n g group,

Table 2: Significance of differences between p r o t o t y p e chair
mean -+ one standard d e v i a t i o n
and best, m i d and w o r s t of t h e Shackel, eta/,
General C o m f o r t Rating data (NS represents
Chair feature checklist p > 0"05 and * represents p < 0"05)

Too Too T y p i n g group T e r m i n a l using group

high Correct low
Seat height above the floor I POH i
Time Best Mid Worst Best Mid Worst
Too Too
long Correct short
Seat length I # I I I 30min NS * * NS NS NS

Too Too 1 h * * * NS NS NS
narrow Correct wide
Seat width q> i 90 m i n NS * * NS NS *
Slopes too far Slopes too for 2 h NS * * NS NS *
towards hack Correct towards front
Slope of seat q)
150 min * * * NS * *

Poor Adequate Good

Seat shape i I0
Too Too
high Correct low Table 3: C o m p a r i s o n of percentages f i n d i n g d i s c o m f o r t for
Position of backrest I I 0
each g r o u p f o r each b o d y part
Poor Fits
fit Adequate well
Moulded choir back O I Terminal Paced
Typing using inspection
Too Too
Curvature of curved Correct riot B o d y part group group group
back support i I O I
Slightly Neck - 17% 32%
Too
Clearance for feel little obstructed Adequate
and calves under chair 0 IO I I Shoulder 3% - 16%
U p p e r arms - - -
Fig. 3 General c o m f o r t results f r o m terminal-using group,
L o w e r arms - 10% 3%
mean +- one standard d e v i a t i o n
Hands - - 23%
U p p e r back 7% - 7%
The overall results of the Corlett and Bishop body part
M i d back 3% - 10%
discomfort scale are shown in Table 3. What is shown is
the percentage of all possible occasions (6 subjects x 5 times L o w e r back 7% 33% 10%
= 30 occasions) where any discomfort was recorded. The Buttocks - - 8%
percentages are all low, with the typing group again feeling
Thighs - - -
less discomfort than the terminal using group. It is
interesting that there was no time trend to these results Legs - - -
either; as many people felt discomfort decrease as increase.

A p p l i e d Ergonomics September 1982 199

 Unbearable pain but armrests closer together are not practical if a 95th
Sore and tender percentile person is to be accommodated. Shorter armrests,
.~ Numb + IS.D.
Mean
almost elbow rests, may be a sensible compromise.
Stiff
-IS D The five-wheel base was considered a good safety
,p.o Cramped
oE Restless and fidgety feature and is available on many better quality chairs.
o However, it does interfere noticeably with under-chair foot
Uncomfortable
Barely comfortable -- ~ " -- TShockel et al space. The casters were remarkably free-running which
J,range for
Quite comfortable _ _}__ 1___}_ _ }__ -}_-,e.cho,rs caused comment - neither positive nor negative comment,
just comment. If such free-running chairs were mixed with
Perfectly comfortable
normal chairs in an office, a possible safety hazard could
Completely relaxed
~/2 I 1'/2 z z'/2 result from the unexpected behaviour of the chair. Another
Working time, hours problem, more in industrial than office use, is that the
reaction forces on the chair due to hand forces in the task
Fig. 4 Chair feature checklist results from typing group can move the chair inadvertently.
To evaluate the evaluation procedure, it is necessary to
Unbearable pain | consider its sensitivity, validity and reliability. The methods
Sore and tender J- used here produced significant results with few subjects
Numbl- + I S.D. in a short experiment so that sensitivity is not a problem.
"~ Stiff[- IMea n Validity is harder to judge from a single experiment and
Cramped~ J ' - I S.D. can only be judged in terms of the scales themselves. All
8E Restless and fidgety ~- have been used and validated previously and in the experiment
Uncomfortable [-- _ _ ~ ~ s ~ ~ ~hockel et al there was some evidence of cross-validation between the
~ Barely carnfortable~ ~------~------F T I 1~nn(lechOi
rrsf scales.
Quite comf°rtableL I ~---- "-~L-----T----T - - To judge reliability necessitates repeating the experiment.
--
While this experiment was not repeated directly, it was
Completely relaxed -- -- I I I I , possible to use the chair with the Corlett and Bishop scale
0 I/2 I I I/2 2 2 I/2
Working time, hours in a subsequent experiment. The chair was used by 12
subjects, six male and six female, in an experiment on
Fig. 5 Chair feature checklist results from terminal using paced visual inspection (Coury and Drury, 1982). In this
group each subject sat at a desk operating a push-button response
box while inspecting complex slides projected on to a screen
The unstructured comments of each subject have been
grouped and categorised in Table 4. Not shown in Table 4 Table 4: Analysis of subject's comments
is the fact that all subjects preferred this chair to their
own chair and many, especially the typing group, wanted Number in
to know if we planned to order such chairs. The main 'likes' Number in terminal-using
of the chair were t'he armrests, but it was felt by the Comment typing group group
typing group that they were far enough apart to interfere
with opening side drawers in desks. The wheels were liked Seat features
but many subjects were surprised at how freely the chair Padding is firm 2 1
rolled. The concensus on the backrest was that it needed
either springing or some rake adjustment. Not enough slope 1 -
Cloth covering good 1 1
Discussion and conclusions Very comfortable 1 -
Two questions need to be answered: was the prototype
Backrest features
a good chair and is it possible to perform a rapid but
Backrest needs springing 2 -
comprehensive evaluation of a single chair?
Backrest too close 3 2
On the basis of the tests conducted, a very positive
recommendation was made to the manufacturers. The chair Likes fixed backrest 1 -
showed every evidence of being designed according to
ergonomic principles and performed very well in actual use. Arms features
All three parts of the use evaluation pointed to the need Likes armrests 5 1
for changes in the backrest. It should be adjustable in rake Armrests hard 1 1
and have some springing for times when users lean back
Armrests t o o wide apart 5 1
suddenly. There was no seat and leg discomfort reported
although the padding was commented upon as 'rather firm'. Armrests well positioned - 1
The manufacturers were considered changing to a softer
padding, but this evaluation suggests that they should not Feet and pedestal features
do so. Likes wheels 1 -

The armrests were appreciated but were considered too Rolls very quickly 3 2
hard and likely to interfere with drawer-opening in typing. Feet interfere with body 1 -
Padded armrests are to be introduced on production models,

200 Applied Ergonomics September 1982

about 2 m in front of the desk. After a four-hour training
session, each subject returned for three testing sessions. In
each session, lasting three to four hours, each subject was
given two pacing conditions separated by a 15 rain break.
The Corlett and Bishop body part discomfort scale was
given before, during and after each pacing condition.
Overall results showed a significant increase in discomfort
frequency over each session, as diagrammed in Fig. 6. These
results were significant at p < 0-001 in an Analysis of
Variance, giving F(5, 10) = 46"5. Also significant, with
F(2, 10) = 9-5, p < 0.01, was the effect of days with about
a 25% drop in mean discomfort frequency after the first
day. Body part severity did not change significantly with
either days or times within a session.
The actual body parts affected are shown, in comparison
with the typing and terminal using groups, in Table 3.
The body parts affected are similar even though the frequency
of reporting in the paced inspection group is considerably
higher. The only new pain]discomfort areas are the hand
(mainly the right hand which was used for responses) and
the buttocks which rank sixth out of 11 body parts. Hence
consistent results are obtained with this chair in a new task.
In the paced inspection study, the Corlett and Bishop scale
gave similar results (of increasing stress throughout a session)
to other scales such as Borg's RPE and the Critical Flicker
Fusion Frequency.
As a final note, the pattern of chair comfort results was
reasonably consistent between tasks but the overall levels
were very different. This re-emphasises the point Branton,
and others, have made about a chair being a means to an
end, hence chair comfort is task dependent.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to acknowledge the assistance given by
the Department of Industrial Engineering at SUNY at
Buffalo (Chairman, W. H. Thomas) in carrying out this
evaluation. The department provided facilities, office
furniture, equipment and copying services without which
this evaluation would have been impossible.
) Grandjean, E.
J 1980 Fitting the task to the man. New York: International
I m
2.o
I
I investigation of multipurpose chairs.
IResl
I Jones, J.C.
1.0
I seating research.
I
I 1969 Ergonomics, 12. 2,328-337. Easy chair dimensions
I for comfort - a subjective approach.
I
I
I _ I I
Start Mid End Start
First condition
Fig. 6 Changes in body part discomfort frequency over
each session for paced inspectiongroup
Bibliography
Akerblom, B.
1948 Standing and Sitting Posture. Stockholm: A.B. Nordiska
Bokhandeln.
Branton, P.
1969 Ergonomics, 12. 2,316-327, Behaviour, body mechanics
and discomfort.
British Standard 3044
1958 Anatomical, physiological and anthropometric
principles in the design of office chairs and tables,
London', British Standards Institution.
British Standard 3079
1959 Anthropometric recommendations for dimensions
of non-adjustable office chairs, desks and tables.
London: British Standards Institution.
British Standard 3893
1965 Specifications for office desks, tables and seating.
London: British Standards Institution.
Corlett, E.N., and Bishop, R.P.
1976 Ergonomics, 19, 175-182. A technique for assessing
pastural discomfort.
Coury, B.G., and Drury, C.G.
1982 Ergonomics, Optimal handle positions on boxes:
A multifactorial approach.
Dareus, H.D., and Weddell, A.G.
1947 British Medical Bulletin, 5, 31- 37. Some anatomical
and physiological principles concerned in the design
of seats for naval war weapons.
Dempster, W.T.
1955 Annals of New York Academic Science, 63,559--585.
The anthropometry of body action.
Diffrient, N., Tilley, A.R., and Bardal~y, J.C.
1974 Humanscale 1/2/3. Cambridge, Mass, MIT Press.
Drury, C.G., and Searle, J.A.
1965 A study of the seating and control positions in commercial
vehicle cabs (Report No 1965-17). The Motor Industry
Research Assoc., Warwickshire, England, October.
Publications Service.
Grandjean, E., Hunting, W., Wotzka, G., and Seharer, R.
1973 Human Factors, 15, 3,247-255. An ergonomic
1969 Ergonomics, 12. 2, 171-181. Methods and results of
LeCarpentier, E.F.
I
Mid End
McLeod, P., Mandel, D.R. and Malvern, F.
1980 The effects of seating on human tasks and perceptions,
Second condition H.R. Poydar (ed.). Proceedings of the Symposium
Human Factors and Industrial Design in Consumer
Products. Medford, Mass: Department of Engineering
Design, Tufts University.
Applied Ergonomics September 1982 201
 Oxford, H.W. Shackel, B., Chidsey, K.D., and Shipley, P.
1969 Ergonomics, 12. 2, 140-161. Anthropometric data 1969 Ergonomics, 12. 2,269-306. The assessment of chair
for educational chairs. comfort.
Shvartz, E., Guame, J.G., White, R.T., Riebold, R.C. and
Glassford, EJ.
Panero, J., and Zeinik, M. 1980 Effect of the circutone seat on hemodynamic,
1979 Human dimension and interior space. New York: subjective and thermal responses during prolonged
Watson-Guptill Publications. sitting. Proceedings of the Human Factors Society
24th Annual Meeting, 639-642.
Wotzka, G., Grandjean, E., Burandt, U., Kretzschmar, H.,
Rieck, A. and Leonhard, T.
1969 Ergonomics, 12. 2,206-211. Uber die messung des 1969 Ergonomics, 12. 2, 182-197. Investigations for the
sitzkomforts yon autositzen. development of an auditorium set.

I
introduction to the science of ergonomics.
The APPLIED ERGONOMICS HANDBOOK
has been adopted worldwide by universities
and other educational establishments as a
course text and has been reprinted five
times since its initial publication.

The subjects covered are:

• The industrial use of ergonomics • Noise in industry
• General framework and workstation • Lighting of work places
analysis • Inspection end human efficiency
• Displays • Ergonomics versus accidents
• Controls • Design of work for the disabled work
• Layout of panels and machines organisation
• Seating in industry • Systems design
• Thermal comfort in industry
1974 (reprinted 5 times)/paper/126 pages/0 902852 58 8
£8.50 net in the UK only (plus 50p postage)
Orders should be sent to the appropriate Butterworth office listed below.
For details of other Butterworth Scientific or Ann Arbor titles, please contact the appropriate Butterworth office

United Kingdom USA South Africa Australia New Zealand

Butterworth & Co Butterworth & Co Butterworth & Co Butterworths Pty Ltd Butterworths
(Publishers) Ltd (Publishers) I nc (SA) (Pty) Ltd POB 345 of New Zealand Ltd
Borough Green, Sevenoaks 10 Tower Office Park PO Box 792 North Ryde, NSW 2113 33-35 Cumberland Place
Kent, TN15 8PH Woburn, MA 01801 152-154 Gale Street CPO Box 472
Durban 4000 Wellington 1

202 Applied Ergonomics September 1982