Journal Pre-proof

Safe Lifting Ergonomics Program for Truck-Loaders in Nigerian Block

Making Industries: A Multi-site Case Study with Qualitative and
Econometric Analyses

Hezekiah Oluwole Adeyemi , Samuel Babatope Adejuyigbe ,

Babatunde Olusola Adetifa , Olasunkanmi Oriola Akinyemi ,
Oluwaseun Opeyemi Martins

PII: S2468-2276(20)30055-7
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sciaf.2020.e00317
Reference: SCIAF 317

To appear in: Scientific African

Received date: 23 August 2019

Revised date: 17 December 2019
Accepted date: 4 February 2020

Please cite this article as: Hezekiah Oluwole Adeyemi , Samuel Babatope Adejuyigbe ,
Babatunde Olusola Adetifa , Olasunkanmi Oriola Akinyemi , Oluwaseun Opeyemi Martins , Safe
Lifting Ergonomics Program for Truck-Loaders in Nigerian Block Making Industries: A Multi-
site Case Study with Qualitative and Econometric Analyses, Scientific African (2020), doi:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sciaf.2020.e00317

This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition
of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of
record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published
in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that,
during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal
disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

© 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of African Institute of Mathematical
Sciences / Next Einstein Initiative.
This is an open access article under the CC BY license. (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
 Safe Lifting Ergonomics Program for Truck-Loaders in Nigerian Block Making
Industries: A Multi-site Case Study with Qualitative and Econometric Analyses

1
Hezekiah Oluwole ADEYEMI, 2Samuel Babatope Adejuyigbe, 3Babatunde Olusola
ADETIFA, 1Olasunkanmi Oriola AKINYEMI and 2Oluwaseun Opeyemi MARTINS

1
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Olabisi Onabanjo University, Ago-iwoye,
Nigeria
2
Department of Mechatronics Engineering, Federal University Oye-Ekiti, Nigeria
3
. Department of Agricultural Engineering, Olabisi Onabanjo University, Ago-iwoye,
Nigeria
Corresponding Email: adeyemi.hezekiah@oouagoiwoye.edu.ng

ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: An ergonomic method of lifting (EML) was introduced to truck loaders in the South-western
Nigeria blocks-making industry (BMI). The aim was to measure the ergonomics and economic benefits.
METHODS: With 125 workers and 30 managers from 25 BMI, workers' self-adopted un-ergonomics methods
of lifting (UML) were assessed at baseline. Workers then received ergonomics training. Actual lifting time,
pace/time losses, task quality were measured pre and post-intervention in addition to a cost evaluation, at the 7 th,
30th and 60th days into EML implementation, involving return-on-training-investment (ROTI) and ergonomics
training-yield index (ErgoT-YI). Job demands and workers/managers' opinions about UML and EML were rated
through questionnaires.
RESULTS: Under UML, 76% of the workers were frequently absent from work due to lifting-related injuries of
which 84% complained of fatigue, back and shoulder pains. Performance under UML was 64% and rated 48%
after EML implementation. The average actual productive time improved from 95% (UML) to 97% (EML).
ROTIEML was better than ROTIUML by 18.5%. The calculated ErgoT-YI was 1.18 after 7days post-intervention
and increased to 18.62 after 60 days, making EML superior to UML. An independent samples t-test showed a
reduction in product/material wastage with EML (t = 7.900; p<.01, SED=108.35)). Other benefits included
reduced medical costs and absenteeism by 98.3% and 66.7% respectively.
CONCLUSION: EML can be a cost-effective way to improve the health and wellbeing of truck loaders.
However, supervisors and workers may need to be informed of the economic benefits of this approach in order
for it to be fully accepted.

Keywords: economic; ergonomics; benefits; lifting.

1.0 INTRODUCTION
Ergonomics is a field which deals with the planning of a task to make it suitable for the worker so as to reduce
injuries and increase productivity. Ergonomics is valuable because when a task is performed, most especially in
Manual Material Handling (MMH), the body is stressed and the musculoskeletal system of the worker is affected
[1,2]. Implementing ergonomics in an MMH workplace can, however, reduce the risk factors associated with
workers' discomforts leading to healthy workers who are likely to be better committed to the task, thereby
increasing productivity [3]. Ergonomic improvements are important in workplaces. These entail the various
adjustment effected to advance the fit between the work requirements and the worker’s ability to perform it [4].
Lifting as defined by Occupation Safety and Health Administration [5], is a forceful movement demanding
energy and muscle exertion which stresses sensitive parts of the human body like muscles, tendons, and
ligaments. Lifting aggravates forces on humans' spine. It was, therefore, suggested that lifting of loads should be
at a neutral posture (body not twisted) [4].
In addition to the widely reported health and safety benefits of incorporating ergonomics in any workplace,
Lewis et al., [6] mentioned that ergonomics has financial benefits. Tompal et al. [7] also supported this view

1
stating that there was adequate proof that ergonomics interventions are worth embarked upon because of their
financial advantages, reducing the occurrence of injuries, improving savings, and/or enhancing productivity. As
reported by Silverstein and Clark [8], economic benefits of ergonomics intervention are not only limited to
injuries and cost reduction, but also minimized absenteeism and turnover among employees, boosts output
quality, and strengthened productivity. However, there are limited peer-reviewed journals narrating these
advantages and in most available cases the positive outcomes are only reported. Also, Richard et al., [9] reported
a rundown of the economic advantages of implementing ergonomics which entail a decline in the frequency of
musculoskeletal injuries, limited and/or loss of workdays, and employees' settlement costs.
There are often a variety of ergonomic solutions available to resolve an identified situation such as the wrong
method common with MMH. Block making factories is an example of a workplace where MMH is common.
Some common works in the industry involve; lifting, pulling or pushing and carrying. These jobs frequently
result in musculoskeletal disorders among the group of workers employed to perform the task [10]. The physical
nature of the task and the unfriendly outdoor weather elements, help give reasons why sprains and strains are the
frequent injury types and the apprehensions for high counts of work-related discomforts with these group of
workers [11,12].
A technique for the reduction of the impacts of lifting and/or lowering tasks was developed by the National
Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) [13]. Specifically meant for manual lifting, the amended
NIOSH lifting equation (revised-NIOSH) (1), which was published in 1991, includes all the attributes as stated.
Revised-NIOSH maintains a deadline, for lifting and/or lowering a load, after which a commitment to implement
ergonomic intervention at reducing the lifting related risks is suggested [14]. The target of the revised-NIOSH is
to suggest the approved weight limit that can be lifted and/or lowered by a healthy worker.
Recommended weight limit = Load constant × horizontal multiplier × vertical multiplier × distance multiplier ×
asymmetric multiplier x frequency multiplier × coupling multiplier (1)
Waters et al. [15] described the applications of each of these variables.
In the posture and force analysis conducted in a handmade brick factory by Travelyan and Haslam [16], poor
standing posture was identified. Pandey and Vats [17] measured the weight of load lifted and the adopted
postures of workers in brick-making factories and it was concluded that there is a need for measures to minimize
or eradicate suffering and injury caused by workers' postural habits. Adeyemi et al. [18] also evaluated the
working postures among construction workers in some parts of South-western Nigeria, the study reported that
most of the workers lacked information on ergonomics and/or not exposed to its training, hence, harmful
postures were frequently adopted at work. The advancement in practical ergonomics training recommended that
materials should be lifted at neutral postures. This ergonomic posture helps blood flow, nerve conduction,
muscle effectiveness and therefore minimizes the risk of work-related disorders [19]
Changing the way work is done may be one of the needed ergonomics training which can enhance safety among
workers in MMH. Workforce Safety and Insurance [20] therefore recommended that ergonomics should be an
integral part of the work method design to reduce awkward postures.
Meanwhile, training is a substantial element in ergonomics method and implementation. When ergonomics
training is effective, workers will engage good work techniques including proper lifting and will be better
informed of tasks that may result in injuries [21]. Lewis et al. [6] stated that training, most especially when in
conjunction with other interventions, results in productivity enhancement.
Among many efforts earlier put in place to inform some workers on the need to change their style of manual
handling of materials, Adeyemi et al. [22] reported a group of workers in Southwest Nigerian construction
industry who opined that the recommended ergonomics postures in manual lifting was time demanding, work
pace reducing and capable of reducing their daily wages. This study was an extended efforts designed to train the
truck loader group of workers in block making industry to engage the use of Ergonomic Method of Lifting
(EML) with the objectives of, reviewing the workers' opinions about the ergonomic technique, appraising the
ergonomic and economic benefits derivable from implementing EML and compare, workers' performances,
actual productive time, output quality and material management under the workers' self-adopted methods of
doing the job and after adopting EML.

2.0 MATERIALS AND METHODS

2.1 Research Locations and Task
Twenty-five (25) block making factories located in Abeokuta, South-western Nigeria, were involved in the
study. A common manual lifting task of loading sand concrete block to the truck bed, regularly performed by the
group of workers (truck loaders) was selected for the study. Trucks used are those common in the industry with
bed height measured between 0.90 m and 1.10 m. Mass of the blocks used for the study ranged from 20 Kg to 21
Kg.
2.2 Collection of Data
2.2.1 Assessment of work conditions
A questionnaire related to information about years of experience on the current job, mode of remuneration, job
demand, cause(s) of absenteeism, work-related injury prevalence and opinions regarding the current job were
administered to the group of workers and their managers/administrators in structured interviews.

2
2.2.2 Measurement of lifting variables
For the purpose of reliability, standardized measurements of all variables were carried out using trained
personnel. In the selected job, three samples for each subject which involved loading 100 numbers of sand
concrete blocks, with their self-adopted technique of lifting, were taken and time used for each round of lifting
were recorded on the first day. The following variables were also measured: a mass of the lifted object (kg) with
the use of a weighing scale of capacity 120 Kg and calibrated in kilogram. The Actual Lifting Time (ALT)
(minutes) to complete lifting of the 100 blocks, was measured using a wristwatch. The height of the truck bed
was measured using a meter rule. The total number of blocks in the truck was counted and the number of good
ones was noted by both methods of observation and direct counting.
2.2.3 Descriptions of workers ‘self-adopted method of lifting
The common method by which the group of workers manually handled the materials from the laysite into the
truck bed was observed and studied by three ergonomics professionals drawn from the academic environment
and the technique were described as Un-ergonomic Method of Lifting (UML). The method involved awkward
lifting, wrong body positioning, pulling, lifting a heavy load with arm extended beyond normal and lifting
without the use of personal protective equipment.

2.3 Introduction of Ergonomic Method of Lifting (EML)

At the second day of the study, the EML, as described by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration
[23], International Organization of Standardization [24] and Worksafe [25], was introduced and the method was
demonstrated to the workers by the professionals in the language understood by all the subjects
2.3.1 Communication of procedures before the lift
Under optimal circumstances, ISO Standard 11228 [24] approved a 25 kg mass for 95% of males as standard for
two-handed lifting. Therefore, samples of the materials to be lifted were measured to comply with the ISO
standard. The trainees were introduced to the materials to be lifted and they were aware of the average weight of
the objects. The workers determined they could lift the mass by themselves. It was ensured that the work area
was dry and cleared of debris. The lift pathway was cleared and all tripping hazards were removed. Proper
protective shoes and gloves were used by the trainees.
The subjects were instructed on the method and the ideal conditions for lifting: standing symmetrically, relaxed
and straight; trunk at a vertical point and without twisting; horizontal length to the load should be lower than 25
cm; there should be rigid grip on the material while the wrist is positioned at a neutral posture. The technique to
lift was demonstrated thereafter.
2.3.2 Demonstration of lifting technique at the origin
The demonstrator maintained a neutral posture, facing the load directly. With the body positioned close to the
load, an extensive posture having a foot ahead and toward the side of the load was maintained. This ensured a
satisfying balance. The back kept straight and buttocks pushed out, hips and legs were used to lower down to the
load; the load slides nearest to the body and a hand put on its side furthest from the body while the other hand
was on the side of the object closest to the body. The two hands maintained on the opposite corners of the
material. The object was firmly grasped with both hands.
The core muscles were tightened as the object was set to be lifted. The sight positioned forward and upward.
Flexing and twisting of the back were avoided as possible while lifting. The material was lifted slowly, breathing
out it was lifted, with head and shoulders followed.
2.3.3 Lifting and moving
Turning with moving of the feet rather than twisting the upper body was ensured to minimize contact stresses.
As the load is carried to its destination, the spine is kept upright. Twisting, bending and reaching were avoided.
Stepping with one foot in the new direction, the rest of the body and the load then followed. The subject
manoeuvred safely along the path.
2.3.4 Lowering load at the destination
Twisting at the waist was avoided to put the material down at the destination. The material was lowered in the
reverse of how it was lifted at the laysite. The load was put down with care to prevent unnecessary
musculoskeletal injuries.
2.3.5 Lifting repetition
Increasing the frequency of task performance in a minute will increase the risk of injury. The physical intensity
of the work was varied by reducing the pace of the task using the specification for lifting frequency as
highlighted by Worksafe [25].

2.3.6 Subjects’ compliant about the demonstration

The employees and their managers were convinced to adopt the EML method. The time required to lift the same
number (100) of blocks using the new approach (EML) was recorded for each of the subjects.
As reported by Washington State Department of Labour and Industries [26], few among the procedures followed
during the training exercise included instructing employees on how the ergonomics method was applied to their
job, asking trainees to fully concentrate while loading, use of two hands, lifting a single block per time. The

3
training was carried out on-the-job at the subjects' workstations. With the participants' consents, pictures and
videos were taken for proper assessment of compliance.
2.4 The use of Kirkpatrick's assessment framework to ascertain the training effects
The valid test of training is whether the trainees use the acquired knowledge to perform their jobs, hence after
the training program, there was a need to monitor the trainees for some few days to observe what changes they
have effected in their workstations, work methods, and work habits. Responses were received from the employees
via written interview to measure their opinions on the new technique of doing the job, whether there were problems
associated with the new procedures, and/or if they need more training [26]. The training's effectiveness assessment
(TEA) and, the evaluation of workers' opinions to the training process and as it applied to improvement in their
work performances were carried out at three (7th, 30th and 60th days) different post-intervention periods, following
Kirkpatrick's evaluation framework as outlined by Kirkpatrick [27]. This includes; measuring the reactions of the
workers and their perceptions of the training, evaluating the improvement in the acquired skills, assessing the
improvement in work activity and workers' health and rating the economic improvements (cost reduction,
improvements in quality, etc.) that the employers benefited from the use of the training.
2.4.1 Measuring workers' perception of the training: With the questionnaire, the workers (trainees) were
asked to evaluate the quality of the training received. The questions asked included among others, the ability of
the training to meet the workers' interest, whether the time used for the training was good if the training was
simple enough to understand and be adopted.
2.4.2 Measuring improvements in skills acquired and competency: Workers' response to interview and/or
trainers' observation was used to measure the increase in the knowledge and the capability of doing the task in
the direction that was intended. This was to find out if the trainees learnt what was intended to be taught and the
extent of work method change after the training. Performance of the subjects on their works and output quality
were also determined using (1) and (2) respectively. Performance considers "time loss", which included any
antecedent that leads to lifting below the maximum attainable work pace. While quality takes into account
"product loss" [28].

( ) ( )
( )
( )

( )

Time loss was the difference between planned operation time (POT) and ALT. POT was the proposed time for
lifting 100 blocks. As used in this study, POT was the time required to lift 100 blocks by the fastest worker
among all the studied subjects. The actual output accounted for all good blocks lifted within the ALT. Target
output was the expected good numbers of blocks (blocks lifted into the truck with no trace of the defect) lifted
within the POT.
2.4.3. Measuring the economic improvements' benefits
3.4.3.1 Self-reported work-related injuries prevalence
With the use of the structured questionnaire administered before the training and the inclusion of an open-ended
section (to permit explanation of perspectives on information not added in the structured questionnaire) related to
information about workers’ absenteeism, work-related injuries prevalence and opinions regarding the impact(s)
of the current technique of lifting, were administered to the workers. This was to ascertain variance in the
responses of the same set of workers before and after training

2.4.3.2 Evaluation of benefit factors: The following concrete benefits relative to the administrators of the
industry were assessed at three TEA post-intervention periods (7th, 30th and 60th day):
i) Reduction in supervision cost (Brsc):- the equivalent average cost (in Nigerian Naira) (for every 100 blocks
loaded) expended by the management to supervise the workers in the last 60 days and to the period of
intervention (using the existing managers' record and managers interview) and at the three TEA post-intervention
periods after the training were compared.
ii) Reduction in costs of product wastages (Brcmw):- for each period of TEA, a total number of quality blocks
(out of every 100 blocks) safely lifted and lowered into truck beds were noted by observation and direct counting
method. The equivalent cost of the faulted blocks was computed based on the current market price of the product
in Nigerian naira. The result was compared with the pre-intervention computed cost of product wastages.
iii) Reduction in employers' support medical costs (Bremc):- using the managers' records and interview at each
period of the TEA, the managers were asked to report the amount spent to cater for any category of injuries
sustained by the workers. The equivalent cost for every 100 blocks loaded was computed. This was subtracted
from the average calculated medical cost (per 100 blocks) spent in the last 60 days pre-intervention.
4
The other non-material benefits considered as factors in the overall evaluation included;
i) Quality of the skills acquired (Bqsw) and ii) Reduction in productive time wastages (Brptw). The two elements
were rated by the assessors and the managers. For each worker, a percentage was allocated (from 0%
representing poor performance/no benefit to 100% standing for excellent performance/best of benefit) which can
best describe the quality of how the acquired skill was put into use. The average of the two ratings was used. iii).
Reduction in workers' absenteeism (Brwa) was measured using the managers' self-reported data. The average
percentage of absenteeism rate at each period of the post-intervention TEA, after the training, was compared to
that of the last 60 days before the training.
The evaluation of the total benefits item was derived using equation 3:

( )

All elements in the non-material benefits (rated in percentages) were multiplied or divided in (3) above
depending on their contributions as positive or negative [29].
2.4.4.3 Cost evaluation: The evaluated cost factors considered included: teaching costs (Ctc), management
costs (Camc), consultancy costs (Ccc). The determination of the total cost of training (in Nigerian Naira) was
derived using equation 4:
( )
2.4.4.4 Return on training investment (ROTI): The return on investment of the ergonomics training on the
workers was computed using equation 5, modified from Agostino and Viltano [23].

( ) ( )
2.4.4.5 Determining the "Ergonomics Training-Yield Index" (ErgoT-YI): The computation of "ErgoT-YI"
was derived using equation 6.
( )
2.5 Data Analysis
Descriptive statistical procedure and independent-samples t-test were conducted to analyse some of the recorded
data using the SPSS package. Independent-samples t-test procedure was engaged to ascertain whether the means
for two independent groups were significantly different from each at a significant level of 0.05. The variables of
the two groups (UML and EML) tested include: i) The ALT (min.) ii) work pace loss (min.) iii) medical cost
(N) iv) workers' absenteeism (%) v) material wastages (%) and vi) the general benefits to workers.

3.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

3.1 Demographic data
One hundred and twenty-three (98.4%) of the 125 workers and 25 (83.3%) of the 30 managers that participated
in the study filled the questionnaires. All the subjects have spent more than one year on the current work. Table 1
shows the population tally of the workers and their managers.
Table 1: Statistic information of workers and managers examined in twenty- five block making factories
(Ntotal=148).
Descriptions Workers / Managers
Mean SD Range
Age (years) 25.4 (52) 2.2 (3.5) 24-31 (45-62)
Duration of
Employment/Operation 2.3 (5.6) 1.3 (6.2) 1-3 (4-12)
SD= Standard Deviation, ( ) = managers
3.2 Job and safety assessment under UML
3.2.1 Job demands and remuneration method
Figure 2 shows the job demands under the un-ergonomic style of handling the lifting job as reported by the
workers. All the subjects (100%) agreed that the load lifted cannot be broken to smaller units, it was usually
either 228.6 mm or 152.4 mm block sizes. 87% mentioned that they worked at a very fast pace in other to meet
up with the daily target. 62% complained that the task was physically demanding and required the use of force.
However, 68% opined that teaming up was possible in the job, though not usually in practice.

5
 Figure 2: Workers self-reported job conditions and demands
As shown in Figure 3, most of the respondents (67%) had no specific frequency of lift per day. The numbers of
blocks lifted depended on end-users’ request. 21% were in a category where lifting was occasionally done
probably because of absenteeism/unfit of the assigned workers while 12% mentioned some specific number of
blocks they usually lifted per day to allow for rest. The majority of the workers (89%) were on ‘pay as lift'
remuneration. The daily wages were calculated by the number of material lifted/lowered. 6% were placed on
monthly salary and 5% were however on another payment mode not clearly defined.

6
 Figure 3: Workers self-reported work frequency and remuneration

3.2.2 Self-reported work-related injuries under the usage of UML

The studied job was reported, by 84% of the workers, with one level of hazards or another and 76% in this
category missed some of their job scheduled because of the various reported work-related injuries. As noted in
Figure 4, 88% of the total workers reported frequent fatigue after daily work. 87% complained of low back pain,
85% reported shoulder pain, 67% mentioned upper back injury, 59% and 55% suffered from palm and upper arm
pains respectively.

Figure 4: Workers self-reported sustained work-related injuries before EML training

3.3 Trainers' assessments of the lifting job pre and post-training

3.3.1 Recorded variables
Twenty-five selected samples data from all the data collected from the study are shown in Table 2. The selection
ranged from the minimum recorded operation time of lift (10.58 minutes) to the maximum recorded (24.95
minutes). For the ALTUML and ALTEML, the time ranged from 26.10 to 10.58 minutes before and 33.55 to 15.20
minutes after the training. On average, it required 16.57 minutes before the training and 22 minutes after. Using
the POT of the fastest worker (10.58 minutes), the average time (pace) loss by all the other workers before the
adoption of EML was 5.99 (-3.9) minutes and 11.48 (-4.8) minutes when EML was adopted. The average total
good blocks (without any defect) delivered to the destination before using EML was 87.16 and this increased to
91.0 with the use of EML.

7
Table 2: Recorded variables for 25 selected subjects with the use of UML and EML in the truck-block-loading
task
Sample ALTa TLa GPa ALTb TLb GPb
1. 14.62 4.04 89.00 21.28 10.7 89.00
2. 19.44 8.86 90.00 26.77 16.19 93.00
3. 13.85 3.27 92.00 17.91 7.33 94.00
4. 15.07 4.49 90.00 20.68 10.1 92.00
5. 20.47 9.89 90.00 28.46 17.88 91.00
6. 21.15 10.57 89.00 28.71 18.13 89.00
7. 14.37 3.79 81.00 20.39 9.81 86.00
8. 17.57 6.99 88.00 21.42 10.84 89.00
9. 14.92 4.34 81.00 20.36 9.78 90.00
10. 16.05 5.47 89.00 20.43 9.85 91.00
11. 13.62 3.04 81.00 20.82 10.24 94.00
12. 14.14 3.56 80.00 18.42 7.84 90.00
13. 17.06 6.48 87.00 22.18 11.6 87.00
14. 12.63 2.05 89.00 18.47 7.89 88.00
15 22.02 11.44 93.00 28.25 17.67 98.00
16. 19.27 8.69 89.00 25.26 14.68 96.00
17. 17.75 7.17 90.00 22.44 11.86 95.00
18. 26.1 15.52 85.00 33.55 22.97 92.00
19. 12.51 1.93 88.00 19.00 8.42 96.00
20. 24.95 14.37 85.00 32.2 21.62 90.00
21. 11.38 0.80 91.00 16.78 6.20 91.00
22. 12.33 1.75 78.00 16.24 5.66 86.00
23. 15.47 4.89 89.00 17.31 6.73 93.00
24. 10.58 0.00 87.00 15.2 4.62 92.00
25. 16.97 6.39 88.00 18.95 8.37 94.00
Ave. 16.57±4.1 5.99±3.9 87.16 22.06±5.0 11.48±4.8 91.00
ALT & ALT =Ave. actual operating time is taken for lifting 100 blocks before and after training respectively
a b
TL , TL =Time losses before and after training GL , GL = Good lifted before and after training
a b a b

3.3.2 Self-reported work-related prevalent injuries under the usage of EML

When the same types of prevalent injuries reported before training were tested after 60 days among the subjects,
88 workers representing 66.2% of the initial figure responded to the survey. Comparing this report (Figure 5)
with that of Figure 4 obtained before training, 42% EML, 85% UML reported pain in the shoulder region. Other
major reported discomforts are low back pain (35.2% EML 87% UML), upper back pain (15.9% EML 67% UML),
fatigue after work (13.6%EML 88% UML) and upper arm (12.5% EML 55% UML).

Figure 5: Workers self-reported sustained work-related injuries using EML

8
 3.3.2 Estimation of performance and quality of output of workers pre and post-training
Table 3 shows the calculation procedures and the results of the trained workers' performances. Their
performance before the adoption of EML was calculated as 64%. This was rated 48% after the training. The
average time loss (work pace) was 5.99 minutes using UML but increased to 11.48 minutes with EML.
Measuring the quality of materials (blocks without defects) during the lifts, UML yielded 95% while EML
produced 97%. Hence though the performance after training was lower than before, the quality of output was
better using EML
Table 3: Estimation of the performance of workers and the quality of output before and after training
Factors Before Training After Training

Performance

Quality

3.3.3 Employers' economic benefits derivable for implementing EML among their employees
Table 4 shows some of the calculated average benefits derivable from EML by the managers/administrators of
the industry over a period of 60 days. Six benefits were identified and these included reduction in supervision
cost (Brsc), reduction in costs of materials/product wastages (Brcmw), reduction in employers' support medical
costs (Bremc), quality of skills acquired (Bqsw), reduction in productive time wastages (Brptw) and reduction in
workers' absenteeism (Brwa). On average, the total benefits of N1, 062.30 and N2, 684.70 worth were computed
when using UML and EML respectively for every 100 blocks lifted by the employees.

Table 4: Computation of concrete and non-material average benefits for truck-block- loading task at three
training effectiveness assessment periods over 60 days
Brsc Brcmw Bremc Bqsw Brptw Brwa TOTAL BENEFIT
(N) (N ) (N) (%) (%) (%) (N)
A B A B A B A B A B A B A B
13.5 3 1100 0 45 2.86 0.2 0.5 0.2 0.48 0.64 0.3 741.4 20.3
12 6.5 1000 300 30 1.5 0.4 0.7 0.35 0.38 0.72 0.4 857.4 1418.4
8 2.5 800 200 50 0.8 0.2 0.6 0.22 0.42 0.57 0.2 444.6 1452.1
6 5.5 1000 200 10 0 0.2 0.6 0.1 0.51 0.48 0.1 975.4 2417.6
10 10 1000 100 50 0 0.3 0.45 0.12 0.32 0.62 0.3 1643.0 515.6
5 1.5 1100 0 45 0 0.1 0.8 0.3 0.28 0.65 0.1 249.2 42.9
7 3 1900 500 60 1.5 0.2 0.65 0.22 0.44 0.49 0.4 876.2 1863.2
6 11.2 1200 100 50 0 0.2 0.55 0.15 0.52 0.52 0.1 870.8 1176.2
4 0.5 1900 900 45 0 0.25 0.59 0.12 0.5 0.52 0.3 2111.4 3542.0
5 2.2 1100 200 70 1.8 0.15 0.58 0.15 0.49 0.62 0.22 728.5 1097.6
7.5 1.5 1900 1300 50 0 0.3 0.48 0.12 0.42 0.57 0.3 2789.4 4958.1
6.5 1.2 2000 1000 50 0 0.2 0.58 0.12 0.4 0.57 0.18 1953.7 8065.2
10 1.7 1300 0 20 2 0.25 0.48 0.3 0.39 0.48 0.1 532.0 45.5
12 4.2 1100 -100 35 2.4 0.1 0.55 0.2 0.46 0.62 0.3 355.6 -372.2
8 2.9 700 500 50 2.86 0.2 0.48 0.15 0.52 0.65 0.35 656.9 1333.9
12 1.1 1100 700 20 0 0.22 0.65 0.12 0.38 0.49 0.15 1016.9 7995.0
10 1.4 1000 500 42 0 0.25 0.75 0.1 0.52 0.48 0.3 1262.4 2410.6
8 0.8 1500 700 50 0 0.1 0.58 0.12 0.56 0.62 0.13 805.0 5583.3
15 0.4 1200 800 42 1 0.4 0.68 0.12 0.23 0.65 -1 2723.5 -2369.4
7.5 0.7 1500 500 50 0 0.38 0.72 0.3 0.37 0.49 0.11 966.7 8857.6
8.5 3.6 900 0 40 0 0.25 0.65 0.22 0.48 0.52 0.3 560.5 16.3
10 2.8 2200 800 45 0 0.18 0.72 0.15 0.47 0.52 0.32 1407.1 3843.2
8.2 7.1 1100 400 50 1.87 0.12 0.66 0.12 0.41 0.62 0.3 718.1 2194.5
7.5 3.6 1300 500 35 0.2 0.14 0.58 0.15 0.34 0.57 0.1 714.2 8594.2
6.5 3.9 1200 600 50 0 0.1 0.6 0.12 0.5 0.57 0.3 596.8 2415.6
8.55 3.31 1284 428 43.4 0.75 0.22 0.61 .17 0.43 .57 0.19 1062.3 2684.70

9
A = Before training, B = After training, B rsc = supervision cost, Brcmw = costs of materials/product wastages,
Bremc= employers' support medical costs, B qsw = quality of skills acquired, Brptw= productive time,
Brwa = workers' absenteeism.
Cost of wastages, Brcmw, was the highest among others. With UML, N 1,284 was calculated as the cost incurred
from various product defects and this cost reduced, by 66.6%, to N428:00 when EML was put into use. In a
similar manner, the cost of employers' support to upset the medical bills of their injured employees when UML
was in use reduced from N43:40, by 98.3 %, to N0.75. There was a reduction in the workers' absenteeism rate by
66.7%. However, with EML, the percentage of productivity time reduced by 56%.

3.3.4 Cost evaluation, return on training investment and ergonomics training yield index for
implementing EML
From Table 5, the total cost of training (N60,000), the interpolated amounts for 100 blocks (N1, 714) and the
other estimated costs are stated. While the EML training cost N1, 714 for every 100 blocks lifted, no cost was
incurred for learning the workers' self-adopted method of doing the job. The calculated ROTI computed with the
use of EML (N 0.242) at the 7th day post-intervention period was higher in monetary value than using UML (-
0.205) ROTIEML increased from 2.2917 and 3.8173 at the 30th and 60th post-intervention periods respectively.
The calculated ratio of ROTIEML to ROTIUML(ErgoT-YI) was 1.18. It was noted through the computed value for
ErgoT-YI that the choice of EML learning and implementation was a positive one (since it was greater than 1)
for the administrators of the industry.

Table 5: Computation of training and other costs, return on training investment and ergonomics training yield
index for implementing EML at the 7th, 30th and 60th days’ post-EML intervention
Pre- TTC/ SC/ WC/ MC/ GTC/
TC AC CC TTC ROTI
intervention 100bl 100bl 100bl 100bl 100bl
UML 0 0 0 0 0 8.55 1284 43.36 1,336 -0.205

Post- TC AC CC TTC TTC/ SC/ WC/ MC/ GTC/

ROTI ErgT-YI
intervention '000 '000 '000 '000 100bl 100bl 100bl 100bl 100bl
EML7th day 25 5 30 60 1,714 3.31 428 0.75 2,146 0.242 1.18
EML30th day 25 5 30 60 400 3.25 412 0.35 815.60 2.2917 11.18
EML60th day 25 5 30 60 200 2.20 355 0.15 557.35 3.8173 18.62
TC = teaching cost (N), AC = Administrative cost (N), CC = Consultancy cost (N), TTC = Total training cost
(N), SC = Supervision cost (N), WC = Wastage cost (N), MC = Medical cost (N), GTC = Ground total cost (N),
ROTI = Return on training investment, ErgT-YI = Ergonomic Training- Yeild Index, bl = block

3.4 Training outcome and implementations

3.4.1 Workers' self-reported opinions
After implementations of EML, the opinions of the trainees are as shown in Figure 6. The majority (82%)
mentioned that the materials (sand concrete blocks) were safely lifted from the laysite and also delivered to the
destinations better than when using UML. 64% of them opined that the method was better and free of the lifting
related injuries mostly experienced with UML. However, only 18% agreed that EML did not reduce lifting pace
as only 12% and 15% also admitted that EML reduced per lift and job completion times respectively. Only 21%
categorically mentioned that EML was easier than UML.

Figure 6: Trainees' self-reported opinions about the EML

3.4.2 Workers' self-reported agitations for EML full implementation

Figure 7 shows the workers' opinions about implementations of the training. 72% mentioned that their employers
may not pay wages for any shortfall in the number of lifted materials, 68% stated that lifting at neutral posture
10
may require more training and practices, hence more time may need to be devoted. 57% of the subjects, most of
which were in the category of ‘pay as lift' mode of remuneration, reported that using the method may reduce
work pace and the quantity of daily work thereby reducing daily wages. 47% opined that teaming up practice
may require more workers for the same job volume and this may lead to sharing the fixed wages among the team
members.

Figure 7: Workers' self-reported agitations for EML full implementation

3.5 Managers self-reported opinions and possible future actions on the usage of EML
Figure 8 shows the responses of the managers to the EML adopted by the truck loaders. Though 72% of the
managers observed and reported that EML had a tendency to reduce workers' work pace and volume of the
expected work, 91% mentioned that usage of EML can minimize wastages, promote quality product delivery to
end-users (87%) hence, 92% stated that using EML can improve savings. On workers' occupational safety and
health, EML can minimize; workers' absenteeism (65%) and reduce injuries occurrence among the workers (72%).

Figure 8: Managers' self-reported opinions about EML training for their employees.
Figure 9 shows the responses of the participated managers regarding EML implementation among their
employees. 88% disagreed not to reduce workers' wages if the expected work volume was not completed.
However, 51% agreed not to reduce wages for any extension of job completion time provided the work is
eventually completed. 87% disagreed to possible enforcement of EML among their workers but 21% agreed to
orientate the newly employed to use the method. 67%, however, disagreed to pay more in other to fully
implement the new method. On teaming up of workers, 23% agreed to increase their workforce to enable them to
assist one another but 77% supported this on condition that the team members be willing to share the fixed
wages for the task.

11
 Figure 9: Managers self-reported possible future actions for EML implementations

3.6 Statistics Analysis

The result of independent-samples t-test comparing various benefits driveable from using UML and EML are as
stated in Table 6. In the case of actual lifting time, the t value of -4.266 (p = 0.001, SED = 1.286) indicated that
the time required by the second group (ALT EML) was higher than the first group (ALTUML). Meaning that the
work pace recorded using UML, differed significantly from that obtained using EML and, was faster.
However, since the p-value for all the tested groups of variables were lower than 0.05, there existed significant
divergences between each of the paired groups.

Table 6: Independent sample t-test comparing benefits derived for adopting UML and EML in the truck-block-
loading job (degree of freedom = 48)
Sig. Std. Error
Description t Judgment
(2-tailed) Difference
Actual Lifting Time .001 -4.266 1.286 Significant
Work pace .001 -4.289 1.246 Significant
Medical cost .001 16.501 2.582 Significant
Workers absenteeism .001 6.963 .0551 Significant
Material wastages .001 7.900 108.351 Significant
General benefits to employers .013 -2.589 626.762 Significant

3.7 Discussion
This study used a healthy combination of relevant measures to evaluate program effectiveness, user acceptance,
and economic viability of ergonomics lifting program for truck loaders in the block industries cited in South-
west Nigeria. Truck loaders are a group of workers responsible for manual lifting of blocks, with two hands fully
engaged, from the floor and/or stacked height and lowered the same into the truck bed. The mass of materials
(sand concrete blocks) manually handled by this group of employees ranged between 20 Kg and 22 Kg and
cannot be broken into a smaller mass. The workers were constrained to lifting the heavy load. The job was
mostly on "pay as you lift" remuneration leading most of the workers involved in adopting a high level of lifting
pace with the use of the un-ergonomic method of lifting (UML). The task required energy and efforts that stress
muscles. Therefore, the mass of the material, the frequency of lift, high work pace, high job demands and wrong
methods of performing the task may have contributed extremely to most of the workers' reported fatigue, low
back and shoulder pains.
To enhance the safety and health of the workers, the study attempted to introduce an ergonomics training
program which helped the workers to lift the materials comfortably and maintained a neutral posture, zero
degrees asymmetric posture. The method, described as safer, healthier, more efficient and comfortable for
workers by Workplace Safety and Health Council [30] was demonstrated by some ergonomics professionals and
was adopted by the group of workers. Comparisons were made of the workers' efficiency between using UML
and the EML at three different post-intervention periods (seven (7) days, thirty (30) days and sixty (60) days), to
assess the trends of ergonomics and economic values of the techniques to both the employees and their
employers. The results of trainees' performances evaluation established the opinions of the majority of the
reported workers in some construction industry that considered the EML as time-demanding and capable of
reducing work pace [18]. The statistics test conducted further confirmed more of the differences between using
EML and UML in the areas of actual lifting time, medical cost, workers' absenteeism, product wastages and
work pace to mention few.
It was noted in the study that at the early stage, the EML required an extra 5.49 minutes on the average more
than the time required by the workers engaging UML to load 100 blocks. The workers' performance before the
training was 64% and was rated 48% immediately the EML was adopted. The quality of material handled while
using EML, however, increased from 95% to 97%. One major reason for the reduction in the performance of
workers at using EML may be as a result of the learning stage of the new method and this may have lead to the

12
reduction in the total number of the average blocks loaded within the actual lifting time. Under UML, an average
worker performed faster and lifted more blocks but ignorantly achieved this in exchange for their comforts and
safety. However, the workers' actual productive time (APT) under EML was improved. This corroborates with
Subramaniam et al. [31], the ultimate goal should be to maximise APT, the time for good pieces (material)
delivered. In this study, an enhanced APT was one of the verified merits of using EML. Reduction in the cost of
product wastages was a major advantage to employers. At the 7th day post-intervention period, the average cost
of wastages for loading 100 blocks was N428. This amount was reduced to N412.00 and N355.00 at the second
and third assessment respectively. The reduced product wastages advanced the managers' savings and promoted
their products.
With the use of EML, the administrators may have also recorded low occurrences of work-related injuries among
the workers because the lesser amount was expended as medical support for the injured workers compared to the
cost recorded using UML. At the 7th day post-intervention, the average medical support cost for lifting 100
blocks was N0.75. This amount was reduced to N0.35 on the 30th day and further reduced (N0.15) on the 60th
day. This may have assisted to reduce the level of absenteeism commonly reported among the group of workers
while using UML and may have improved savings.
The responses of the workers after 60 days of lifting with the new method revealed a remarkable reduction in the
reported injuries prevalence. Shoulder and low back pains are however leading the report. According to Grieve
and Dickerson [32], injuries in the low back and the shoulder regions are the common discomforts experienced
among workers involved in manual material handling. This study confirms the report of Koester et al. [33],
because it was observed that performing a task with the hands positioned above shoulder level was the main
cause of pains in the shoulder region. Though with reduced intensity compared with the report before EML
adoption, extra attention is required to further minimize shoulder and low back pain injuries among the workers.
When involved in tasks that require raising objects, the strain should be reduced by keeping elbow bent and in
front of the body [34]. Similarly, when lowering arm, the elbow should also be bent and this will keep hand very
close to the body. In addition, lower back pains can be reduced by maintaining a continuous neutral spine with
proper lifting [35].
This study confirms the fact that Return On Training Investment (ROTI) calculation can help to measure or
predict the economic results of a training program [36]. As noted in this study, the average value of ROTI in
lifting 100 blocks using EML even at the first assessment (N0.24) was better than the value recorded (N-0.21)
using UML. The negative sign in the outcome of ROTIUML indicated that the costs incurred while performing
the tasks, under the unsafe technique, were more than the economic benefits attached. According to Agostino
and Vittorio [29], the computation of Yield Index with an emphasis on economic and qualitative perspective is
another credible tool of control and assessment. The introduced method change, among the group of workers,
was desirable because the Ergonomics Training -Yield Index (ErgT-YI) was greater than 1.0 in all the three
periods of program effectiveness assessments. At day 7 after the implementation of EML, the ErgT-YI was 1.18;
it increased to 18.68 after 60 days post-intervention. Hence the UML was confirmed as inferior to the EML.
There, however, appeared to be some reluctance on the part of the workers and the supervisors to adopt EML.
The managers may have mistakenly focused only on their workers' low-performance output as measured by the
numbers of blocks loaded at the early stage of EML implementations, without also considering the reduced costs
associated with work-related injuries, absenteeism, poor product delivery, and many others. On the part of the
workers, the majority (60%) mentioned that using EML reduced the quantity of their daily work volume and the
wages. More than 70% opined that their employers may not pay wages for any shortfall in the number of lifted
materials. In confirmation of this, 88% of the managers disagreed not to reduce workers' wages if the expected
work volume was not completed for using EML. For the workers, the fear of losing their jobs and/or possible
wage slashes appeared to be the main factors for the level of reluctance to the EML implementation. As reported
by Brownlee and Pandey [37] the leading step towards actualizing program acceptance is to turn the character of
the user from "unwilling" to "willing". The manager's role is considered important in this direction.
Administrators in the industry should accept that the appropriate use of a new method may pose threats to
workers' performance and/or effectiveness and may also demand additional funding.
The workers may require extra time, than the usual, to implement and be accustomed to the new technique. This
is supported by Dempsey [38] that earlier mentioned that for the combination of the revise-NIOSH criterions in a
real-life, a worker will need extra training and practices to master their usage. When workers are however averse
to method change, an economic instrument to motivate them to easily and quickly adopt the new technique may
be necessary. One of such pivotal responsibilities expected of the managers should be to facilitate their workers'
confidence with the assurance of getting their usual daily pay most especially at the early stage of the program
implementation. It may also include giving incentives to their employees for maximizing APT under the usage
of EML and adopt a zero cost for any drop in their normal work efficiency. These measures, among others, can
form the basis for effective EML implementation and reduce the reluctance level among the workers.
For future efforts, a similar study in the related manual material handling different from truck loading tasks
should also be thought over for comparison of results.

4. CONCLUSION

13
This study introduced ergonomics training and evaluated the ergonomics and the economic effects of engaging
ergonomic method of lifting (EML) amidst truck loaders group of workers in the Southwest Nigeria block
making factory. Arising from the major findings, the following points were drawn;
1. Majority of the group of workers frequently missed their job scheduled. Lifting-related fatigue and injuries
were reported as major reasons. Un-ergonomic method of lifting (UML) used by the workers may have
reinforced the high recorded injuries prevalence.
2. Workers' performance under their self-adopted UML was reduced immediately after EML implementation on
the same work. The actual productive time was however maximized under EML leading to job quality
improvement under EML.
3. With statistical test result, the actual lifting time, work pace, medical cost, absenteeism rate, materials
wastages and general benefits using UML and EML were all significant.
4. Return on Training Investment (ROTI) for adopting EML was better than that of the UML for the three
periods (day 7, 30 and 60) post-intervention program effectiveness assessment. The calculated ergonomics
training-yield index increased on the 60th day. Meaning that the EML was superior to UML.
5. Reduction in, workers' supervision, product/material wastages, work-related injuries, medical support costs
and employees' absenteeism with a high level of enhanced quality skills of work performance were some of
the benefits associated with the use of EML for both the workers and the managers.
This study, therefore, recommends the use of an economic instrument to motivate the workers to adopt EML and
introduction of other incentives for maximizing actual productive time while adopting EML.

Conflict of Interest
The authors will like to state that there is no any conflict of interest in this study. The
research was self-sponsored by all the authors
REFERENCES
1. Bos J, Kuijer PP, and Frings-Dresen, MHW. Definition and assessment of specific occupational demands
concerning lifting, pushing, and pulling based on a systematic literature search. Occupational
Environmental Medicine 2002; 59: 800-806.
2. Marras WS, Allread WG, Burr DL and Fathallah FA. Prospective validation of a low-back disorder risk
model and assessment of ergonomic interventions associated with manual materials handling tasks.
Ergonomics, 2000; 43:1866-1886.
3. Human Resources and Environment, Health & Safety [Internet]. Guidelines for Manual Material
Handling. 2011. Available from https://brocku.ca/webfm_send/19254.
4. Ergonomic Guidelines for Manual Material Handling (EGMH). Cal/OSHA Consultation Service,
Research and Education Unit, Division of Occupational Safety and Health, California. 2007. Available
from https://www.dir.ca.gov/dosh/puborder.asp.
5. Occupation Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) [internet]. Preventing Musculoskeletal Disorders
in Construction Workers. 1999. Available from ww.elcosh.org/.../preventing-musculoskeletal-d.
6. Lewis RJ, Krawiec M, Confer E, Agopsowicz D and Crandall E. Musculoskeletal disorder worker
compensation costs and injuries before and after and office ergonomics program. International Journal of
Industrial Ergonomics 2002; 29(2): 95-99.
7. Tompa E, Dolinschi R, de Oliveira C, and Irvin E. A Systematic Review of OHS Interventions with
Economic Evaluations, 2007; 2. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Institute for Work & Health.
8. Silverstein B, and Clark R. Interventions to reduce work-related musculoskeletal disorders. Journal of
Electromyography and Kinesiology, 2004; 14: 135−152.
9. Richard WG, Peregrin S, Greg LN. Estimating the effectiveness of ergonomics interventions through case
studies: Implications for predictive cost-benefit analysis. Journal of Safety Research 2008; 39: 339–344
10. Godwin C H, and Ndubueze DU. Work-Related Musculoskeletal Disorders Among Workers In Brick-
Making Factory And Building Construction Sites: An Overview, International Journal of Engineering
Research & Technology (IJERT) 2013; 2(6):27-31
11. Schneider S P. Musculoskeletal injuries in construction: A review of the literature, App Occ Environ Hyg
20011; 6(11): 1056-1064.
12. Goran E. and Eva H. Dose-Response Associations between Musculoskeletal Disorders and Physical and
Psychosocial Factors among Construction Workers. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment, and
Health, 2005; 31(2): 57-67.
13. National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). Applications of manual for the revised
NIOSH lifting equation 1994. www.cdc.gov/niosh/94-110/pdfs
14. Elfeituri FE, Taboun SM. An Evaluation of the NIOSH Lifting Equation: A Psychophysical and
Biomechanical Investigation. International Int J Occup Saf Ergon 2002; 8: 243-258.
15. Waters TR, Putz-Anderson V, Garg A, Fine LJ. Revised NIOSH equation for design and evaluation for
manual lifting tasks. Ergonomics 1993; 36: 749-776.

14
16. 16Travelyan F. and Haslam R. Musculoskeletal Disorders in a Hundred Brick-Manufacturing Plant,
International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 2001; 27: 43-55.
17. 17Pandey K, Vats A. An Owas-Based Analysis of Workers Engaged in Brick Making Factories. India
Journal of Ergonomics 2012; 2: 104-116.
18. 18Adeyemi HO, Adejuyigbe SB, Akanbi GO, Ismaila SO, Adekoya AF. Enhanced Ergonomics
Training; A Requisite To Safe Body Postures in Manual Lifting Tasks, Global Journal of Researches in
Industrial Engineering 2013a;13(6):37-42.
19. Occupation Safety and Health Administration. Ergonomics: The Study of Work. 2000. Available from
www. Osha.gov/publications/osha3125.pdf
20. Workforce Safety & Insurance (WSI) [internet]. Ergonomics Program Training, 2003. Available from
www.WorkforceSafety.com
21. United State Department of Labour (USDL). Occupation safety and health administration. Ergonomics.
2013. Available from https://www.osha.gov
22. Adeyemi HO, Adejuyigbe SB, Akanbi OG, Ismailia SO, Adekoya AF. Manual Lifting Task Methods and
Low Back Pain among Construction Workers in the South-western Nigeria. Global Journal of Researches
in Industrial Engineering 2013b; 13(3): 27-34.
23. Rashmi S. The NIOSH Lifting Equation for Manual Lifting and Its Applications Journal of Ergonomics,
2016; 6(2) doi:10.4172/2165-7556.1000159
24. International Organization of Standardization (ISO). Ergonomics — Manual handling — Part 1: Lifting
and carrying. ISO 11228-1:2003(en) Available from: https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:11228:-1:ed-
1:v1:en
25 Worksafe. Ergonomics Guidelines for Manual Handling 2nd Edition. 2010. Available from
Https://Www.Worksafenb.Ca/Docs/Manualedist.Pdf
26. Washington State Department of Labour and Industries [internet]. Office Ergonomics: Practical solutions
for a safer workplace. 2002. Prepared by WISHA Services Division. Available from
www.lni.wa.gov/IPUB/417-133-000.pdf
27. Kirkpatrick D. The Four Levels of Evaluation. In: Brown S., Seidner C, editors. Evaluating Corporate
Training: Models and Issues. Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic. 1998; 95-112.
28. Sermin E. and Birol E. Performance Measurement of Mining Equipment by Utilizing OEE. Acta
Montanistica Slovaca Ročník 2010; 15(2): 95-101.
29. Agostino M. and Vittorio M. Measuring the Economic Benefits of E-Learning: A Proposal for a New
Index for Academic Environments. Journal of Information Technology Education 2005; 4: 330-346.
30. Workplace Safety and Health Council (WSHC). Workplace Safety and Health Guidelines Improving
Ergonomics in the Workplace. 2014. Available from
https://www.wshc.sg/files/wshc/upload/cms/file/2014/WSH_Guidelines_ImprovingErgonomicsintheWork
place.pdf
31. Subramaniam SK, Husin SH, Yusop Y, Hamidon AH. Machine efficiency and man power utilization on
production lines. Proceedings of the 8th WSEAS Int. Conf. on electronics, hardware, wireless and optical
communications. 2006. Available from https://www.noexperiencenecessarybook.com/ro65V/microsoft-
word-conference-paper-2-final.html.
32. Grieve, J. R., and C. R. Dickerson. 2008. "Overhead work: Identification of evidence-based exposure
guidelines". Occupational Ergonomics 8 53-66
33. Koester, M. C., M. S. George, and J. E. Kuhn. 2005. "Shoulder impingement syndrome". The American
journal of medicine 118 (5): 452-5. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.amjmed.2005.01.040
34. Arthritis Research UK (2018) Shoulder pain. Available at; https://www.arthritisresearchuk.org
35. Casazza, B. (2012). Diagnosis and Treatment of Acute Low Back Pain American Family Physician
Vol. 85(4):343-350
36. Kossmann D. [Internet]. Investing in learning: Consider value, not just ROI. 2004. Available from
http://www.clomedia.com/content/anmviewer.asp?a=464.
37. Brownlee M, and Pandey S. The Significance of EMR Adoption in Achieving Meaningful Use. 3rd
Quarter, Healthcare Information Management and Communications (HCIM&C); 2010:42-44 Available
from http://www.healthcareimc.com
38. Dempsey PG. Usability of the revised NIOSH lifting equation Ergonomics, 2002; 45: 817-828.

15