Applied Ergonomics 33 (2002) 39–49

A hand-ergonomics training kit: development and evaluation of a

package to support improved awareness and critical thinking
Karin Garmera,*, Lena Sperlingb, Anette Forsbergc
a
.
Department of Human Factors Engineering, Chalmers University of Technology, S-412 96 Goteborg, Sweden
b
Department of Design Sciences, Lund University, P.O. Box 118, S-221 00 Lund, Sweden
c
.
Celero Support AB Volvo, S-405 08 Goteborg, Sweden
Received 13 December 2000; received in revised form 3 July 2001; accepted 29 July 2001

Abstract

A need for a hand-ergonomics training kit has been identified to increase critical thinking concerning choice of hand tools. This
study deals with the design, use and evaluation of a hand-ergonomics training kit for use in ergonomics training programmes. The
effects on awareness of hand ergonomics among training course participants have been evaluated by means of a questionnaire and
interviews at a car production plant in Sweden. The evaluation was carried out about one and a half years after training with the
hand-ergonomics training kit. The training kit consists of a guide to practical exercises, equipment for measuring hand size and
strength, examples of hand tools for use in practical exercises, equipment for testing and evaluating the hand tools and checklists
and judgement forms for qualitative evaluation. In addition, the kit contains relevant scientifically based reference reports on hand
ergonomics.
The evaluation showed that the practical exercises with the hand-ergonomic training kit had, to a remarkable extent, increased
individuals’ awareness of anthropometric differences and of the importance of ergonomically well-designed hand tools. After the
practical exercises with the training kit, communication within the plant when choosing hand tools seems to be based on objective
criteria to a higher degree, however, the results indicate that this communication could be further improved. r 2001 Elsevier Science
Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Hand ergonomics; Ergonomics training; Training kit

1. Introduction addition, the communication between end-users, man-

Product development programmes aimed at improv-
ing the ergonomics qualities of hand tools and powered
hand tools have been carried out in Sweden with
support from seven large manufacturing groups and
the Swedish Working Life Foundation (Sperling et al.,
.
1993; Kardborn, 1995; Gronkvist, 1995). This has
resulted in new ergonomically well-designed hand tools
and powered hand tools, available on the market today.
However, within industrial companies one problem is
that key actors, e.g. managers, purchasers, manufactur-
ing engineers, and end-users of hand tools and powered
hand tools often lack knowledge of the value of well-
designed tools for the reduction of work-related injuries
on hands and arms (Sperling et al., 1993, 1994). In
*Corresponding author.
E-mail address: garmer@hfe.chalmers.se (K. Garmer).
ufacturing engineers, purchasers and managers concern-
ing the choice of hand tools must be based more on
objective criteria.
In order to increase awareness and critical thinking in
terms of the choice of hand tools made by industry, the
need for training in hand ergonomics has been identified
(National Institute of Occupational Health, 1991; Kard-
born, 1995).
To carry out training programmes in hand ergo-
nomics, pedagogical support was needed. A hand-
ergonomics training kit was, therefore, developed for
use during practical exercises in hand ergonomics. The
four stages in experimental learning theory (Kolb, 1984),
i.e. active experimentation, concrete experience, reflec-
tive observation and abstract conceptualisation, were
incorporated in the practical exercises. When placed in
this sequence the stages form the experimental learning
cycle, i.e. learning-by-doing (Gibbs, 1988).

0003-6870/02/$ - see front matter r 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 0 0 3 - 6 8 7 0 ( 0 1 ) 0 0 0 5 5 - 2
40 K. Garmer et al. / Applied Ergonomics 33 (2002) 39–49

The hand-ergonomics training kit is intended as an
instrument in the process of spreading knowledge in the
domain of hand ergonomics to companies using hand
tools. The practical exercises with the hand-ergonomics
training kit are aimed at creating a common experience/
knowledge among end-users, manufacturing engineers,
purchasers, and managers. The intention is that this
should lead to a more fact-based communication
between key actors when purchasing hand tools. The
hand-ergonomics training kit contains: a guide to
practical exercises, specifications of hand tool require-
ments, equipment to measure anthropometric differ-
ences, specific tools to evaluate, equipment to simulate
and evaluate hand tools tasks, checklists for hand tools
and relevant scientifically based reference reports.
1.1. Aims
The aims of this research were to:
(1) develop the components of the hand-ergonomics
training kit and the practical exercises proposed for
use with the hand-ergonomics training kit;
(2) assess whether the practical exercises with the hand-
ergonomics training kit at a car assembly plant
(i) increased the end-users’ and the manufacturing
engineers’ awareness of hand ergonomics and
(ii) enhanced communication within the plant when
choosing hand tools and made it more objective;
(3) assess the long-term impact of the hand-ergonomics
training kit.
variables were the focus of the practical exercises.
Figs. 1–3 show the case used to house the training
materials and the contents.
2. Practical exercises with the hand-ergonomics
training kit
2.1. Guide to the practical exercises
A guide was written for the Occupational Health
Centre (OHC) personnel and other educators in
ergonomics. The guide presents scientifically-based
knowledge for the design and selection of hand tools
based on Kadefors et al. (1993) and Sperling et al. (1991)
and describes practical exercises (whose content also is
based on these references) that may be carried out with
the training kit. These practical exercises and the
different elements of the training kit will be described
in this paper as well.
There are three series of different practical exercises in
the training kit, each of which is best carried out in a
small group (about 4 persons). This means about 12

1.2. The hand-ergonomics training kit

The contents of the training kit were chosen to

increase knowledge concerning the design and selection
of hand tools. Kadefors et al. (1993) listed the following
aspects to be covered in any evaluation process of hand
tools: mechanical output of the tool (force, torque,
acceleration); tool mass and centre of gravity; tool
dimensions and grip characteristics; possibility to use
different grips or two-handed grip; grip surface char-
acteristics; working posture; wrist flexion/deviation
angles; muscular load and fatigue, type of grip
employed; local pressure in the hand; risk for injury in
typical use of the tool.
The characteristics of the tasks also have strong
effects on users. Such task characteristics include degree
of force, precision and duration of the task to be
performed (Sperling et al., 1991).
Practical exercises were designed taking into account
the studies considered above (Kadefors et al., 1993;
Sperling et al., 1991), in order to increase individuals’
awareness of hand ergonomics when evaluating and
choosing hand tools. Both individual user and tool Fig. 1. The box.
 K. Garmer et al. / Applied Ergonomics 33 (2002) 39–49
Fig. 2. Examples of hand tools to be evaluated and equipments to be
used when simulating hand tool tasks.
Fig. 3. Main components of the hand-ergonomics training kit. A guide
as help for the educator; specifications of hand tool requirements;
checklists, hand ergonomic reports as help when evaluating the hand
tools; vernier callipers, grip cone and hand dynamometer for
anthropometric measurements; torque dynamometer, bolt board and
a panel of nuts and bolts to use when simulating hand tool tasks.
persons at a time, when describing the training kit, is
just enough. The time needed for carrying out all the
practical exercises is about 112 h and the location for the
practical exercises could be an ordinary conference
room.
41
2.2. Checklists, judgement forms and reports
Checklists and judgement forms (National Institute of
Occupational Health, 1990; Kadefors and Sperling,
1995; National Board of Occupational Safety and
Health, 1998) for evaluating hand tools were provided
in the training kit. The checklists as an instrument for
evaluating hand tools was integrated as a part in some
of the practical exercises to be carried out with the
training kit. In addition, the kit contains two reference
reports on hand ergonomics (Sperling et al., 1991;
National Institute of Occupational Health, 1993).
2.3. Description of the practical exercises and the
different components of the training kit
The following three series of practical exercises (No.
1–3), described below, may be performed with the hand-
ergonomics training kit.
2.3.1. No. 1. Measuring individual hand size and relating
these measurements to optimal hand tool dimensions
Background to practical exercise
It is important for users to know their hand size, e.g.
diagonal hand width (Fig. 4) and functional grip
diameter (Fig. 5) in order to choose the correct tool
size. Diagonal hand width is relevant for the choice of
the appropriate length of the handle, so sufficient space
may be provided for the hand. The functional grip
diameter is important for an adequate and effective
handle diameter when a power grip is needed. Statistical
Fig. 4. Diagonal hand width.
Fig. 5. Functional grip diameter.
42 K. Garmer et al. / Applied Ergonomics 33 (2002) 39–49
information on hand width and grip diameter (Sperling,
1990) are presented in the guide.
Components to measure hand size
In order to measure hand size, the training kit
contains the following components:
* A vernier calliper (Fig. 3) for measuring diagonal
hand width (Fig. 4).
* A grip cone (Fig. 3) for measuring functional grip
diameter (Fig. 5).
2.3.2. Measuring tasks and use of components
In the practical exercises, the participants measure
their respective diagonal hand width with the vernier
calliper and their functional grip diameter with the grip
cone. The participants compare their individual mea-
surements with the average for hand width and grip
diameter presented in the guide, in order to raise their
awareness of the large individual differences and the
need for different handle lengths and handle diameters
for different users.
2.3.3. No. 2. Measuring the strength in different hand
postures in order to realise how important the posture is to
attain efficiency and health
Background to practical exercise
It is important to be aware of differences in individual
hand strengths. Hand strength is usually related to the
size of the hand and arm. A large hand is usually stron-
ger than a small hand, and a strong hand can cope with
more weight and force requirements than a weak hand.
When a power grip is needed, the hand posture should
be close to the hand’s resting posture (Fig. 6), as the
hand is strongest in this posture. A relevant measure for
this posture is the functional grip diameter (Fig. 5). The
possibility to produce hand force is further dependent
on the degree of wrist flexion. It is important not to
deviate from the hand’s natural posture.
Statistical information on hand strength (Mathiowetz
et al., 1985) is presented in the guide. It is important to
realise that individual hand strengths differ a great deal,
which has important implications for the choice of tool
and task.
Components to measure hand strength
In order to measure hand strength, the training kit
contains the following components:
* A hand dynamometer (Fig. 3) for measuring hand
strength.
Fig. 6. The resting posture of the hand.
* A torque dynamometer (Fig. 3) for measuring and
comparing the torque output of the different types of
screwdrivers.
Measuring tasks and use of components
In the practical exercise, the participants measure
their individual hand strength by pressing a hand
dynamometer and they compare their individual mea-
surements with the statistical information on hand
strength presented in the guide.
Further, the effects of the concordance of the
individual’s functional grip diameter and the handle
diameters of different screwdrivers can be tested by
supplying the participant with screwdrivers with differ-
ent handle diameters. The participants compare the
performance of the different screwdrivers by turning the
screw in the torque dynamometer.
It is important to point out that maximum perfor-
mance of the screwdrivers is not the aim of the test with
the torque dynamometer since this might lead to
competition between participants, which is not desir-
able. This problem can be tackled if the participants are
encouraged by the instructor to exert an equal power
when turning the screw in the torque dynamometer or if
the participants are encouraged to reproduce a certain
value in the torque dynamometer with the different
screwdrivers chosen.
In the practical exercise the participants change their
wrist angle when pressing the hand dynamometer.
The measurements for different angles are written
down by the participants in order to illustrate
the relation between produced hand force and diffe-
rent wrist angles. To increase understanding of
the relation between wrist angle, hand force and
comfort, the participants and instructor discuss the
participants’ experiences of these factors after the
exercise.
2.3.4. No. 3. Evaluating hand tools by means of the
equipment for simulating hand tool tasks, the
specifications of hand tool requirements, and checklists for
hand tools
Tools to evaluate
The tools in the training kit demand different work
movements: turning, hitting, squeezing and pulling. Five
common categories of hand tools are represented
(Fig. 2):
* Screwdrivers,
* Hammers,
* Combination-pliers,
* Combination-spanners,
* Adjustable-spanners.
Three tools with varying quality of design are
available for each category.
 K. Garmer et al. / Applied Ergonomics 33 (2002) 39–49
Components to simulate hand tool tasks
Four kinds of equipment are available to give the par-
ticipants the possibility to test and compare the tools:
* Torque dynamometer (Fig. 3) for measuring and
comparing the torque output when using the three
different screwdrivers.
* Bolt-board (Fig. 3) for practical testing and compar-
ison of the hammers.
* Cable for cutting and comparing the combination-
pliers.
* Panel of nuts and bolts (Fig. 3) for testing and
comparing the combination-spanners and the adjus-
table-spanners.
2.4. Evaluating tools and use of components
When the viability of each hand tool is evaluated, the
participants compare the different tools within a specific
tool category. They use the equipment in the training kit
to simulate hand tool tasks and later make their
judgements on the hand tools.
The participants compare the results obtained from
the practical hand tool evaluations with that of their
company’s internal specifications of ergonomics require-
ments for hand tools (if any), as well as with current
checklists and judgement forms for hand tools and
powered hand tools available in the training kit.
Furthermore, the participants compare how different
dimensions of, and patterns for, the handles of the
different screwdrivers influence the force needed when
turning the screw in the torque dynamometer. The
instructor encourages the participants to discuss their
preferences regarding hand tools and subjective judge-
ments about the fitness of use.
3. Use of the hand-ergonomics training kit
The hand-ergonomics training kit has been used by
the Occupational Health Centre (OHC) at a car
assembly plant in Sweden, since the spring of 1996.
The assembly plant has a traditional assembly line.
Hand ergonomics is considered a very important issue in
assembly work at the company. During an ordinary
working day, the car assembly workers use a powered or
a non-powered hand tool for approximately 4 h. The
company has chosen to provide ergonomics training for
all employees as one way to reduce the number of work-
related injuries.
One physiotherapist responsible for hand ergonomics
at the OHC has used the training kit in courses given to
operators, manufacturing engineers and managers. By
1999, all the 1500 employees at the assembly plant had
participated in ergonomics training courses where the
hand-ergonomics training kit was used. All 800 assem-
43
bly operators had participated in a one-day basic
ergonomics course. All manufacturing engineers, most
of the managers and the operators with manufacturing
engineering as a supplementary competence had parti-
cipated in a four-day basic ergonomics course. The
different courses had different foci due to the different
typical work tasks of the different competencies. The
participants were trained in small groups of 15 by the
physiotherapist responsible for hand ergonomics. The
hand ergonomics session lasted for 2 h in both the one-
day course and the four-day course.
3.1. Choice of hand tools
The car assembly workers have the possibility of
choosing their individual hand tools (non-powered as
well as powered) at the so-called Hand Tool Centre
within the assembly plant. The Hand Tool Centre is an
organisational function, responsible for the purchase of
all hand tools fulfilling the company’s specifications on
requirements for such tools. The company’s specifica-
tions are based on; (1) the ergonomics for the prevention
of musculo-skeletal disorders, provisions and general
recommendations of the National Board of Occupa-
tional Safety and Health, Sweden; (2) other reports from
the National Board of Occupational Safety and Health;
and, (3) internal company requirements. The Hand Tool
Centre has budget responsibilities for hand tools and
powered hand tools at the assembly plant.
4. Evaluation of the hand-ergonomics training kit
4.1. Interview with instructor
After three years of use of the training kit in different
courses, the instructor was interviewed about her
experiences of the training kit. The interview was semi-
structured, lasted for 1 h, and was tape recorded.
Follow-up questions were asked and answered over
the telephone on several occasions.
4.2. Questionnaire to participants
In addition, a questionnaire with five questions
(Fig. 7) was distributed by the OHC to 104 of the 800
assembly operators who had participated in the practical
exercises with the hand-ergonomics training kit. Twenty
of these had supplementary competence in manufactur-
ing engineering. All the operators answered the ques-
tionnaire. The questionnaire was also distributed to 20
manufacturing engineers, 14 of whom answered. All
departments of the assembly plant were represented in
the evaluation. The questionnaires were answered
anonymously. Due to the limited number of participants
per course between one and one and a half years had
44 K. Garmer et al. / Applied Ergonomics 33 (2002) 39–49

1. Has your awareness, after the practical exercises with the hand ergonomics training kit, increased
considering:
1.a. differences in hand size between individuals

Little increased awareness Greatly increased awareness

operators 3 3 4 3 11 7 6 14 5 28

median=8
operators 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 2 3 12
with M. E.
median=10

manufacturing 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 2 8
engineers
median=10

1.b. differences in hand strength between individuals

Little increased awareness Greatly increased awareness

operators 4 1 4 1 6 6 4 16 4 38

median=9

operators 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 4 12
with M. E.
median=10

manufacturing 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 2 9
engineers
Median=10

1.c. that it is important that the tools have an ergonomic design ( a good grip, an optimal shape and proper
dimensions for the user)

Little increased awareness Greatly increased awareness

operators 2 1 4 0 2 4 9 12 9 41

median=9

operators 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 4 12
with M. E.
median=10

manufacturing 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 10
engineers
median=10

Fig. 7. Results from the evaluation questionnaires. Rating values and median values from 84 operators, 20 operators with supplementary
competence in manufacturing engineering (operators with ME) and 14 manufacturing engineers. In the questionnaire, the participants were asked to
rate their opinions by means of a simple subjective rating scale (Sinclair, 1990), reproduced for all questions. The length of each rating scale line was
100 mm, without tick marks.

passed since the assembly operators and the manufac-
turing engineers had participated in the practical
exercises, when the questionnaire was administered.
In the questionnaire (Fig. 7), the participants were
asked to rate their opinions by means of a simple
subjective rating scale (Sinclair, 1990), reproduced for
all questions. On the questionnaire there was also a
possibility to add comments.
4.3. Method of analysis
In the analysis, the subjective rating scale was divided
into 10 parts and the median was calculated for each
question and group (Fig. 7). As subjective rating scales
only indicate a relative position on the scale and not a
magnitude, median values are presented and analysis of
the data is based on methods that use ranks (Agresti,
1990; Svensson, 2000).
In order to analyse the data the Kruskal–Wallis One-
Way Anova Test method (Altman, 1991; Dickinson
Gibbons and Charkraborti, 1992) was used as a one-
way analysis of variance ða ¼ 0:05Þ and the Mann–
Whitney U Test method (Altman, 1991; Dickinson
Gibbons and Charkraborti, 1992) was used to compare
two groups (a ¼ 0:05=3 ¼ 0:017 to allow multiple
comparisons). When the groups are small sometimes
 K. Garmer et al. / Applied Ergonomics 33 (2002) 39–49 45

2. Now that everyone in the production unit has participated in the practical exercises with the hand
ergonomics training kit, do you think that the carrying through of the exercises has improved the
communication within the plant when choosing hand tools ( has the communication become more based
on facts)?

No improvement Full improvement

operators 4 4 11 7 15 17 10 6 5 3

median=5

operators 0 1 3 2 3 4 2 2 1 2
with M.E.
median=6

manufacturing 0 0 1 0 4 0 1 3 2 2
engineers
median=8

3. Have you become more critical in your choice of hand tools after the practical exercises with the hand

ergonomics training?

Not more critical Completely more critical

operators 5 1 1 5 16 9 13 15 10 9

median=7

operators 2 0 1 0 1 2 0 2 5 7
with M.E.
median=9

manufacturing 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 2 5 2
engineers
median=9

Note: One manufacturing engineer had new assignments and did not work with the choice of hand tools anymore

and therefore did not answer the two last questions in the questionnaire.

Fig. 7. Continued.

the Mann–Whitney U Test fails to find the differences * How the training kit was used.
that the Kruskal–Wallis One-Way Anova Test does. * The educator’s view of the training kit’s influence on
The Mann–Whitney U Test is not very powerful in those the participants’ awareness and understanding of
cases (Altman, 1991, p. 215). hand ergonomics.

5.2. The goals and fulfilment of goals when using the

5. Results of the analysis
The results presented are based on the outcomes of
the interview with the physiotherapist (the instructor),
and on the ratings and comments in the questionnaires
by the operators and manufacturing engineers (Fig. 7).
5.1. The interview with the instructor
The questions posed covered topics such as:
* The goals and fulfilment of goals when using the
training kit.
training kit
The physiotherapist’s goal was to use the training kit
as a pedagogical instrument to create a deeper under-
standing and awareness of hand ergonomics. The
physiotherapist thought the training kit would provide
the possibility of ‘‘learning-by-doing’’. This matched the
authors’ aims for the training kit. The physiotherapist
considered the practical exercises stimulated events and
that the participants took an active part in them. The
physiotherapist thought that her goal with the use of the
training kit was fulfilled.
46 K. Garmer et al. / Applied Ergonomics 33 (2002) 39–49
5.3. How the training kit was used
In order to raise awareness of what the consequences
of bad ergonomic solutions at work places can result in,
the physiotherapist started the training session in hand
ergonomics with a short introduction to functional
anatomy and a presentation of work-related injuries.
She then presented and discussed the company’s
specifications on requirements for hand tools and
powered hand tools with the participants in terms of
the practical exercises to be carried out.
The main activity was then concentrated on practical
work with the training kit. Participants were asked to
consider anthropometric differences and compare the
hand tools in each tool category. A discussion was then
generated among the participants about how well the
different design solutions fulfilled the company’s speci-
fications of hand tool requirements.
The physiotherapist discussed the different hand tools
from the suppliers’ perspectives and choice of design. In
the four-day course, the participants also had time to
visit their own work places and analyse specific work
place-related problems.
5.4. The instructor’s view of the training kit’s influence on
the participants awareness and understanding of hand
ergonomics and the effects on the choice of tools
The physiotherapist thought that the practical ex-
ercises with the training kit increased awareness and
understanding of the importance of different hand tool
requirements; the importance of choosing well-designed
hand tools (i.e. matching the work demands to the
workers’ capabilities by using the proper tool); and, the
need to consider individual differences. Today when
everyone in the assembly plant has been trained in hand
ergonomics only well-designed hand tools and powered
hand tools are requested by the operators and when the
physiotherapist talks to operators and manufacturing
engineers about hand tools or powered hand tools
needed to fit the hand, she feels that everyone under-
stands what she means. The operators can see for
themselves, she says, that a tool does not fit and the
operators themselves often initiate the choice of new
tools.
As a result of the practical exercises with the training
kit, there has been a change in demand towards better
designed hand tools.
The physiotherapist emphasised that the training kit
and training sessions had provided all those working on
the shop floor and all manufacturing engineers with the
same knowledge base as a platform for communication.
The physiotherapist thought that it was an advantage
that the training kit had been developed at a University,
since it ensured that the choice of the content of the
training kit was objective.
6. Results from questionnaires
6.1. Awareness of individual differences in hand size
The awareness of differences in hand size between
individuals was increased after the practical exercises
with the training kit in the three groups (median for;
operators=8; operators with ME (operators with
manufacturing engineering as a specialist compe-
tence)=10, and; manufacturing engineers=10) (see
Fig. 7).
However, the operators seems to have least increased
awareness of the difference in hand size between
individuals than the other two groups. The Kruskal–
Wallis One-Way Anova Test showed that there were
significant differences among the groups and the Mann–
Whitney U Test showed a significant difference between
the operators and the operators with manufacturing
engineering as a specialist competence ðpo0:01Þ: With
the other pairwise comparison approaching significance
between operators and manufacturing engineers ðp ¼
0:07Þ: It is possible that the operators had less increased
awareness of differences in hand size of individuals after
the course than the other two groups.
6.2. Awareness of differences of hand strength between
individuals
The awareness of differences in hand strength between
individuals had increased after the practical exercises
with the hand-ergonomics training kit to a great extent
for all the three groups (median for; operators=9;
operators with ME (operators with manufacturing
engineering as a specialist competence)=10, and;
manufacturing engineers=10) (see Fig. 7). No signifi-
cant difference was found between the groups.
6.3. Awareness of the importance of the design of hand
tools
Awareness of the importance that hand tools have an
ergonomic design had increased after the practical
exercises with the hand-ergonomics training kit for all
groups (median for; operators=9; operators with ME
(operators with manufacturing engineering as a specia-
list competence)=10, and; manufacturing engi-
neers=10) (see Fig. 7). No differences were found
between the different groups.
6.4. Improved communication within the plant when
choosing hand tools
The practical exercises with the hand-ergonomics
training kit appeared to have improved communication
within the plant concerning choice of hand tools for all
groups (median for; operators=5; operators with ME
 K. Garmer et al. / Applied Ergonomics 33 (2002) 39–49 47

(operators with manufacturing engineering as a specia-
list competence)=6, and; manufacturing engineers=8)
(see Fig. 7). No differences were found between the
different groups.
6.5. Critical thinking concerning choice of hand tools
The three groups had become more critical in their
choice of hand tools after the practical exercises with the
hand-ergonomics training kit (median for; operators=7;
operators with ME (operators with manufacturing
engineering as a specialist competence)=9, and; manu-
facturing engineers=9) (see Fig. 7).
However, the operators were less critical than the
other two groups. The Kruskal–Wallis One-Way Anova
Test showed there were significant differences between
the groups but the Mann–Whitney U Test failed to show
significant differences in a pairwise comparison. How-
ever, the comparison between the operators and the
operators with ME suggests that the operators were less
critical than the other two groups ðpo0:05Þ:
The course participants’ comments given in the
questionnaires are shown in Table 1. They will be
further discussed in the Section 7.
7. Discussion
The potential of the training kit has been demon-
strated through its successful delivery to 1500 employees
at an assembly plant.
Over a period of one and a half years, the practical
exercises with the hand-ergonomics training kit appear
to have increased the awareness of anthropometric
differences as well as the awareness of the importance of
selecting well-designed hand tools. This was the case
among operators, operators with manufacturing engi-
neering as a specialist competence, and among manu-
facturing engineers. Both groups of operators’ and the
manufacturing engineers’ awareness of the importance
of well-designed hand tools seems to have had a positive
effect on their critical thinking in their choice of hand
tools.
However, the operators’ awareness of differences in
hand size between individuals had increased less than
had that of the other two groups and the operators were
also less critical in their choice of hand tools compared
to the other two groups. One reason for this could be
that operators, due to differences in working tasks and
traditional roles, rely on the other two groups and other
specialists when choosing hand tools.
The learning-by-doing method was considered the
most effective and powerful method for acquiring
knowledge and influencing behavioural change (King,
1995). The practical exercises with the hand-ergonomics
training kit have created a good basis for the learning-
by-doing method (Gibbs, 1988) and, moreover, the
practical exercises with the training kit have provided all
those working on the shop floor and all manufacturing
engineers with the same knowledge base as a platform
for communication.
Nevertheless, even though communication within the
plant concerning choice of hand tools seems to be based
on more objective criteria after the practical exercises
with the training kit, the results also indicate that this
communication could be further improved. Commu-
nication within a plant is more complex than merely
awareness on an individual level. Based on a number of
comments in the questionnaires (see Table 1), there are
four possible problems that might have a negative
influence on communication within the plant: (1) it can
be a problem to find ergonomically well-designed tools

Table 1
Comments given in the questionnaires by the respondents

Operators:
The practical exercises were a positive event ðn ¼ 5Þ
The possibility to choose hand tools can be limited ðn ¼ 5Þ
There are not enough alternatives of ergonomically well-designed hand tools on the market ðn ¼ 2Þ
Recently, they have got new, better, powered hand tools, they are quieter and easier to handle ðn ¼ 2Þ
There is a lack of time to work with problems related to hand ergonomics ðn ¼ 1Þ
The noise problem with powered tools should not be forgotten ðn ¼ 1Þ

Operators with a supplementary competence in manufacturing engineering:

The practical exercises were a positive event ðn ¼ 3Þ
The possibility to choose hand tools can be limited ðn ¼ 2Þ
The price of ergonomic hand tools sometimes limit the possible choices ðn ¼ 2Þ
There is a lack of time to think of problems related to hand ergonomics ðn ¼ 1Þ

Manufacturing engineers:
The need for ergonomics courses to be repeated in order not to forget ðn ¼ 1Þ
Familiar with ergonomics and had therefore not become more aware of anthropometric differences or the importance of ergonomically well-designed
hand tools ðn ¼ 1Þ
48 K. Garmer et al. / Applied Ergonomics 33 (2002) 39–49
on the market, which are relevant for car assembly
work, (2) the price might limit the possible choices of
tools, (3) some operators have experienced limited
opportunities to participate in the choice of hand tools
and, (4) a lack of time to try out samples of new hand
tools before purchase.
In order to overcome the problems highlighted. It is
important to have an open discussion within the
organisation about these problems.
In order to achieve true participation of end-users in
ergonomic development work, several preconditions
must be fulfilled. Without for e.g. information, knowl-
edge and power (Wilson, 1991), true participation is not
possible. There seems to be a need to consider these
preconditions in the company further.
Liker et al. (1984, 1991) propose four obstacles to the
utilisation of ergonomics in the work place: (1) a lack of
general ergonomics knowledge, (2) a lack of specific job
knowledge, (3) poor interdepartmental communication,
and (4) perceived low-cost benefit (because of subunit
interests or suboptimisation. The company, in this
study, has tried to tackle these obstacles in the following
ways: (1) ergonomics training of all the employees in the
assembly plant, (2) participation of all the operators in
the choice of hand tools, powered as well as non-
powered, (3) organisation of a Hand Tool Centre as a
staff function located on the shop floor, close to the
assembly line, and (4) by giving the Hand Tool Centre
budget responsibilities for hand tools and powered hand
tools, in order to always attain high priority of good
hand tools and powered hand tools in the plant.
It is obvious that training in hand ergonomics alone
will not be enough to utilise hand ergonomics in the
work place. Organisational issues, e.g. the end-users
possibility to participate in the purchase, must be
considered. Communication between the end-users, the
manufacturing engineers, the managers, the OHC
personnel, and the suppliers must be secured.
The concept of a hand-ergonomics training kit could
also be considered for users for other application areas,
e.g. catering kitchen personnel, electricians, and carpet-
layers. The use of a hand-ergonomics training kit is
feasible for any company; the different components can
easily be put together by an educator in ergonomics.
However, Hasle and Schmidt (1991) point out the
importance of ergonomics training being based on local
conditions. This means that when using the hand-
ergonomics training kit in ergonomics training at other
companies, an adaptation to local conditions should be
made.
The training kit could be used as it was used at the
assembly plant, i.e. as a part of a more comprehensive
ergonomics training programme for e.g. operators,
manufacturing engineers, production engineers, purcha-
sers, and managers. It could also be used as a co-
education form, where different professionals within a
company take part, side by side, and acquire a common
frame of reference and a common language as a
platform for co-operation and communication in
ergonomics development work (Garmer et al., 1995).
Furthermore, the training kit is easy to use for the
educator and could probably with advantage be used in
what Wilson (1994) calls, ergonomics ‘cascaded’ training
and awareness programmes, which are further exten-
sions of ‘the train the trainer’ approach (Nyran, 1991).
The importance of pedagogical instruments of high
usability is important in this kind of training.
Finally, in a broader context, if knowledge of the
advantages of well-designed hand tools increases, this
will lead to an increased demand for improved hand
tools on the market in the future. A consequence would
be that the market will have to adjust to the increased
critical thinking of purchasers strengthening the position
of those companies that manufacture hand tools,
designed with the user in mind.
Acknowledgements
The design of the training kit was supported by the
Swedish Council for Work Life Research and the
Swedish Working Life Foundation. We would like to
thank Kurt Brzokoupil MD, Samhall AB, for his
support in the realisation of the hand-ergonomics
training kit, the Volvo Car Corporation for the
possibility to try out and evaluate the training kit and
also the employees at the Volvo assembly plant in
Gothenburg who participated in the evaluation. Finally,
we would like to thank Designkonsulterna in Gothen-
burg, for their help in the design of the tool box.
References
Agresti, A., 1990. Categorical Data Analysis. Wiley, New York.
Altman, D.G., 1991. Practical Statistics for Medical Research.
Chapman & Hall/CRC, London.
Dickinson Gibbons, J., Charkraborti, S., 1992. Nonparametric
Statistical Inference. Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York.
Garmer, K., Dahlman, S., Sperling, L., 1995. Ergonomic development
work: co-education as a support for user participation at a car
assembley plant. A case study. Appl. Ergonom. 26 (6), 417–423.
Gibbs, G., 1988. Learning by doingFA Guide to Teaching and
Learning methods. Further Education Curriculum Review and
Development Unit (FEU), London.
.
Gronkvist, L., 1995. New grip on powered hand-tools (Nya grepp
p(a handmaskiner). Joint Industrial Safety Councul (Arbetars-
kyddsn.amnden), Sweden (in Swedish).
Hasle, P., Schmidt, E., 1991. Workplace improvements initiated by
action-oriented training. In: Queinnec, Y., Daniellou, F. (Eds.),
Designing for Everyone: Proceedings of the 11th Congress of the
International Ergonomics Association, Paris, Vol. 2. Taylor &
Francis, London, pp. 1356–1358.
Kadefors, R., Sperling, L., 1995. Checklist for powered hand-tools
.
(Ergonomisk checklista vid maskinval och bedomning av arbete
 K. Garmer et al. / Applied Ergonomics 33 (2002) 39–49
.
med handh(allna maskiner). Lindholmen Utveckling AB, Goteborg,
Sweden (in Swedish).
Kadefors, R., Areskoug, A., Dahlman, S., Kilbom, A., ( Sperling, L.,
Wikstrom,. .
L., Oster, J., 1993. An approach to ergonomic
evaluation of hand tools. Appl. Ergonom. 24 (3), 203–211.
Kardborn, A. 1995. Inter-organizational participation and user focus
in a large scale product development programFThe Swedish Hand
Tool Project. Thesis, Department of Consumer Technology,
Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg, Sweden.
King, P.M., 1995. Employee ergonomics training: current limitations
and suggestions for improvements. J. Occup. Rehab. 5 (2), 115–123.
Kolb, D., 1984. Experiential LearningFExperience as a Source of
Learning and Development. Prentice-Hall, New Jersey.
Liker, J., Joseph, B., Armstrong, T., 1984. From ergonomics theory to
practice organizational factors affecting the utilization of ergo-
nomics knowledge. In: Hendrick, H., Brown, O. (Eds.), Human
Factors in Organizational Design and management, Vol. 1. Nort
Holland/Elsevier, Amsterdam.
Liker, J., Joseph, B., Ulin, S., 1991. Participatory ergonomics in two
US automotive plants. In: Noro, K., Imada, A. (Eds.), Participa-
tory Ergonomics. Taylor & Francis, London, pp. 97–138.
Mathiowetz, V., Kashman, N., Volland, G., Weber, K., Dowe, M.,
Rogers, S., 1985. Grip and pinch strength: normative data for adults.
Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 66 (10), 670–674.
National Board of Occupational Safety and Health (Arbetarskydds-
styrelsen), 1998. Belastningsergonomi (ergonomics for the preven-
tion of musculoskeletal disorders) AFS 1998:1. Provisions and
general recommendations of the National Board of Occupational
Safety and Health, Solna, Sweden.
National Institute of Occupational Health (Arbetslivsinstitutet), 1990.
New grip on hand tools (Nya grepp p(a handverktyg). Solna,
Sweden (in Swedish).
National Institute of Occupational Health. (Arbetslivsinstitutet), 1991.
Design with regard to optimal hand-arm-function and perfor-
49
mance. Final Report from the Project: Hand Held Tools, Solna,
Sweden (Chapter 4) (in Swedish).
National Institute of Occupational Health (Arbetslivsinstitutet), 1993.
New tools for better working conditions. Research and practice
about work environment (Forskning & Praktik om arbetsmiljo), .
No. 3, Solna, Sweden.
Nyran, P.I., 1991. Cost Effectiveness of Core-Group Training.
In: Karwowski, W., Yates, J.W. (Eds.), Taylor & Francis,
London.
Sinclair, M., 1990. Subjective assessment. In: Wilson, J., Corlett, N.
(Eds.), Evaluation of Human Work: A Practical Ergonomics
Methodology. Taylor & Francis, London, pp. 57–87.
Sperling, L., 1990. Ergonomics of the female hand (Kvinnohandens
.
ergonomi). AB Volvo, Goteborg, Sweden (in Swedish).
.
Sperling, L., Dahlman, S., Wikstrom, L., Kadefors, R., Kilbom, A., (
1991. Tools and hand function: the cube model- a method for the
analysis of the handling of hand tools. In: Qu!einnec, Y., Daniellou,
F. (Eds.), Designing for Everyone. Taylor & Francis, London, pp.
176–178.
. L., Kadefors, R., 1993. Better
Sperling, L., Kardborn, A., Sundstrom,
.
hand tools for Swedish industry. In: Nielsen, R., Jorgensen, K.
(Eds.), Advances in Industrial Ergonomics and Safety V. Taylor &
Francis, London, pp. 651–657.
Sperling, L., Kardborn, A., Kadefors, R., 1994. An approach to
ergonomics quality declaration of hand tools. A preleminary study.
Proceedings of the Triennial Congress of the International
Ergonomics Association, Vol. 4, Toronto, pp. 41–44.
Svensson, E., 2000. Comparison of the quality of assessments using
continuos and discrete ordinal rating scales. Biom J. 42 (4),
417–434.
Wilson, J.R., 1991. ParticipationFa framework and a foundation for
ergonomics. J. Occup. Psychol. 64, 67–80.
Wilson, J.R., 1994. Devolving ergonomics: the key to ergonomics
management programmes. Ergonomics 37 (4), 579–594.