

Request Demo

T h e T r o u b l e w i t h R U L A ( R a p i d U p p e r
A s s e s s m e n t )

Peter Budnick, PhD, CPE 25th January, 2012

RULA, or Rapid Upper Limb Assessment, is a method first proposed by

researchers McAtamney and Corlett in a paper they published in the journal
Applied Ergonomics (1993). It immediately gained a following because
ergonomics practitioners were looking (and continue to do so today) for a
method that is fast, observational, meaning you or I could perform the
assessment in real time without instrumentation, valid and reliable. With the
benefit of hindsight, RULA has lived up to some of these expectations, but not
all. It remains a valuable assessment tool, but only when applied in specific
ways, and only when applied and interpreted by a trained professional. Like
most ergonomics analysis techniques, RULA’s results are not absolute.

Once an assessor has been trained to use RULA, it can be applied fairly
quickly, and it can also be applied in real time while observing a person
performing the subject task(s). With experience, some ergonomists can
estimate a RULA score without even putting finger to keyboard, or pen to
paper. Instead, it’s the validity and reliability that sometimes concerns me.

First, let’s review how RULA works, which will then lead me to add a caveat
about how fast we can apply it. RULA actually considers the entire body, not
just the upper limbs, as the name implies. The figure below is a screenshot of
a paper form Ergoweb developed for training and field application purposes.
Notice that the left side of the sheet captures upper limb scoring; the right side
captures scoring for the rest of the body, and the tables are then referenced to
arrive at a final score.

Trained ergonomists know that there are several key risk factors that must be
considered when assessing risk for a given task, including:

force

posture

repetition (or frequency)

Duration (of the event(s), and of the work day)

As you review the scoring

form you’ll notice that most of
the questions deal exclusively
with posture. Step 6 captures
only a small bit of information
pertaining to “Muscle Use” in
the arm and wrist, which is
actually a question pertaining
to repetition and duration (Step 13 asks the same questions, but for the rest of
the body). With only two choices, the analyst must either select “static” (which
implies long duration) or “repetitive”. Step 7 and Step 14 ask us to rate the
Force/Load for the Arm and Wrist, giving us only some very basic categories
to choose from.

So, RULA has a strong focus on posture, but a weak focus on force, repetition
and duration. The Ergonomics Report™ subscribers may recall a recent study
we reviewed that highlighted the importance of Duty Cycle, which is
essentially the portion of a task that’s spent in exertion, a measure of duration
of exertion. The researcher found DC to be so important in predicting upper
extremity risk that he was able to derive an equation using only DC to predict
acceptable levels of force exertion for repetitive tasks. Therefore, it’s
significant that RULA does not adequately consider duration, let alone its
weak recognition of force and repetition.

This isn’t necessarily bad, but it does suggest that RULA is probably best
applied to jobs and tasks that do not involve a great deal of force or
repetition. Jobs that are characterized by static postures, for example, are
good candidates for RULA. Since office work involves long term static
postures, but low forces and repetition (except for keying and mousing
activities, of course), such seated office work is a good candidate for RULA.
However, somewhere along the timeline between 1993 and today,
practitioners have “tweaked” RULA to add questions that deal with common
office activities. For example, one version adds the following question to Step
1:

+ 1 point = Work with raised shouldersOR speak on the phone on

average at least 10 minutes per hour AND sometimes “scrunch” neck
when speaking on the phone. (Maximum of 1 point for any of these
conditions)

You can find reference to this, for example, atHumanics Ergonomics, where
you’ll also see this statement:

Unlike the original, this modified version has not been validated.

Interested readers will find that other versions of RULA have surfaced over
the years, though it’s likely none have been validated in the scientific
literature.

There are other RULA characteristics that can lead to misapplication and
misinterpretation of the tool, including:

RULA is applied to a single snapshot in time;

for asymmetric postures, RULA must be applied to each side of the body
separately (i.e., 2 analysis must be performed for a single posture)

Imagine a job, like most real jobs do, that involves dynamic postures.
Technically, if we’re really interested in the overall posture risk for the job, we
would need to apply RULA to each and every posture, then somehow weight
the scores by the amount of time — duration — the person spends in each. If
we did this, RULA would no longer be the fast and efficient tool I suggested
above. Instead, many job evaluators simply watch a job and identify the most
extreme posture, or postures, and then apply RULA only to those points in
time. The obvious concern with this approach is that an evaluator can simply
pick one extreme posture — even if that posture is held for only an instant —
and produce an analysis that suggests the job is very high risk and requires
immediate change. In other words, based on the analyst’s decision as to
which posture or postures to analyze, the same job could be characterized as
a high risk or a low risk. In the hands of a trained professional, this is not
necessarily bad, because he or she can consider the results and weigh them
against experience and combine them with the results of other tools in their
analysis toolbox to arrive at an informed opinion. In the wrong hands,
however, RULA can be horribly misapplied, and horribly misinterpreted.

In summary, RULA remains a useful tool in the occupational ergonomist’s

toolbox, but only with proper training in its application and interpretation. It’s
best applied to jobs characterized by static postures with lower concern for
force and repetition factors. Jobs that involve multiple postures will require
additional analysis time and effort if a complete risk analysis is desired. In
such cases, the results of RULA are best considered along with the results of
other evaluation tools (e.g., Strain Index, Kodak/Rogers Muscle Fatigue
Analysis) and tempered with professional experience and knowledge. It’s easy
to overestimate the risk of a job with RULA if the analyst focuses only on
extreme posture(s), especially if those extremes have short durations. In other
cases, such as jobs involving forces, repetition and durations, RULA may
underestimate risk. Careful consideration must be applied in the use and
interpretation of RULA.

References

RULA: a survey method for the investigation of work-related upper limb

disorders”, McAtamney, L., and Corlett, E.N., Applied Ergonomics, 24(2), (1993)
pp. 91-99.

RULA Help Section, Ergoweb Enterprise Help Document, Ergoweb Inc.

This article originally appeared in The Ergonomics Report™ on 2012-01-25.

Share     

Related posts

January 28, 2020

Exoskeletons and Ergonomics — What You Need to Know

 Read more

January 4, 2019
Workplace Exercise Programs and Ergonomics

 Read more

April 16, 2014

Commentary: Ergonomics and its Relationship with Wellness

 Read more

December 20, 2013

Checking and Sorting

 Read more

December 11, 2013

Reliability of Postural Observations in Ergonomic Assessments

 Read more

November 19, 2013

Effect of Cold Temperatures on Dexterity

 Read more

Our Latest Guide:

More Downloadable Guides:

Ergoweb’s Site Ergonomics Planning Template

 December 17, 2019

Ergoweb’s Guide to Picking the Best Ergo Analysis Tool for

the Job

 May 24, 2019

Ergoweb’s Guide to Using Setting-Specific Ergonomic

Checklists for Non-Cyclical Work
 May 24, 2019

Ergoweb’s Guide to Assessing Ergonomic Risk of Non-

Cyclical Work
 May 23, 2019

Sustainable Ergonomics Systems

Less Injuries + Increased Productivity + Higher Quality

1-888-ERGOWEB (888-374-6932) | 435-214-4150 |info@ergoweb.com

Learn More About Ergoweb | Ergoweb Enterprise | Media Center + News

Releases | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use
 
Copyright ©1995 - 2019 Ergoweb LLC. All rights reserved.