Human Factors: The

Journal of the Human

Factors and Ergonomics
Society http://hfs.sagepub.com/

A Job Severity Index for the Evaluation and Control of Lifting Injury
D. H. Liles, S. Deivanayagam, M. M. Ayoub and P. Mahajan
Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 1984 26: 683
DOI: 10.1177/001872088402600608

The online version of this article can be found at:

http://hfs.sagepub.com/content/26/6/683

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Human Factors and Ergonomics Society

Additional services and information for Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics
Society can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://hfs.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Subscriptions: http://hfs.sagepub.com/subscriptions

Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

Citations: http://hfs.sagepub.com/content/26/6/683.refs.html

Downloaded from hfs.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 27, 2013

 >> Version of Record - Dec 1, 1984

What is This?

Downloaded from hfs.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 27, 2013

HU MAN FACTORS, 1984,26(6),683-693

A Job Severity Index for the Evaluation and

Control of Lifting Injury

D. H. LILES,I and S. DEIVANAYAGAM, Department of Industrial Engineering, The University

of Texas at Arlington, Arlington, Texas, M. M. AYOUB, Department of Industrial Engineering,
Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas, and P. MAHAJAN, Department of Mechanical
Engineering, California State University, Fresno, California

Two large field studies were conducted to test the validity of the lob Severity Index (lSI) as
an engineering tool for the control of manual materials-handling injury. Comparisons were
made between the calculated lSIs of 453 individuals working in 101 different jobs and the
injuries sustained by the same individuals over a period of 1 057881 exposure hours (529
exposure years). The results revealed the existence of a job severity threshold above which
the incidence, severity, and cost of injury dramatically increased. It was concluded that the
lSI method can effectively be used to control injuries caused by the manual lifting of loads.

INTRODUCTION handling, matching is based upon the as-

The frequency, severity, costs, and causes
of manual materials-handling injuries are
well documented in the literature. It is
clearly indicated that materials-handling in-
juries are sustained each year by large num-
bers of individuals in the workforce, and that
many of these injuries are of a severe nature.
It is also apparent from the literature that the
costs of these injuries are of considerable con-
cern. Injuries to the back (especially the
lower back) caused by lifting are of particular
concern because of the relative severity of
these types of injuries.
One realistic and potentially effective ap-
proach to the solution of the problem in-
volves the comparison and proper matching
of the abilities of the worker and the require-
ments of the lifting job. In manual materials
I Requests for reprints should be sent of D. H. Liles, Box
19017, Arlington, TX 76019.
sumptions that a worker who is overstressed
on the job is likely to suffer injury, and sec-
ondly that the interface between the worker
and the task can be arranged in a way that
will effectively limit worker stress. Matching
the worker and the materials-handling task
may take one of two basic forms. One may
either design the workplace so that a specific
worker or the general workforce is not over-
stressed, or one may select workers for the job
who have low injury potentials. Both of these
approaches may have certain advantages and
limitations in given situations. In either case,
however, it is implied that both the demands
of the task and the capabilities of the worker
are determinable quantities.
The worker-task matching concept is, of
course, not new. The problem in the past has
been the relative absence of analytical tools
usable for manual materials-handling appli-

© 1984, The Human Factors Society, Inc. All rights reserved.

Downloaded from hfs.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 27, 2013

684-December, 1984
cations. Recent research, however, has pro-
duced engineering methods that provide the
means to adequately evaluate the worker-
task interface and therefore enable the sci-
entific matching of the worker and the ma-
terials-handling task. One such engineering
method is based on the Job Severity Index
(JSI) developed by Ayoub et aI., (1978).
This paper presents the results of research
(Ayoub et aI., 1978; Ayoub, Liles, Asfour et aI.,
1983), which had the objective of testing the
validity of the hypothesis that the Job Se-
verity Index can be used as an effective
method for the control of manual materials-
handling injury in industry.
THE JOB SEVERITY INDEX
The Job Severity Index is a measure of the
physical stress level associated with lifting
jobs. The index is a function of the ratio of
job demands to the lifting capacities of the
person or persons performing the job and is
therefore conceptually similar to the Lifting
Strength Ratio (Chaffin and Park, 1973). Job
demands include observable quantities such
as weight of lift, frequency of lift, and task
geometry. These quantities are determinable
through comprehensive task analysis. Worker
capacity is a predicted quantity that is a
function of measurable human characteris-
tics including strength and body size.
The JSI, as discussed below, is defined by
the following equation.
. ; [hOurS; dayS;] ~ [Fj
JSI = L.J -- X -- L.J-
; = I hours( days( j=I F;
where:
n = number of task groups
hours; = exposure hours/day for Group i
days; = exposure days/week for Group i
hours( = total hours/day for job
days[ = total days/week for job
m; = number of tasks in Group i
Downloaded from hfs.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 27, 2013
HUMAN FACTORS
WTj = maximum required weight of lift
for Task j
CAPj = the adjusted capacity of the
person working at Task j
Fj lifting frequency for Task j
Fj total lifting frequency for Group i.
Lf.
j=l J
The measure of worker capacity used by
the Job Severity Index is the p.'edicted max-
imum acceptable weight of lift. Maximum ac-
ceptable weight of lift is a psychophysical
measure and is defined as that weight of lift
that will be accepted by a specific individual.
It is the maximum weight that a given person
feels he or she can lift repeatedly without
undue stress or overtiring. Ayoub et al. (1978)
and Liles, Deivanayagam, and Dryden (1979)
have reported the development of a set of
mathematical models to predict the max-
imum acceptable weight of lift. These are the
result of a large study performed in the lab-
oratory in which 146 subjects were asked to
determine their maximum acceptable weight
of lift under various conditions of lifting fre-
quency, container bulk, and lifting height or
range (floor to knuckle, floor to shoulder,
floor to full reach, knuckle to shoulder,
knuckle to full reach, and shoulder to full
reach). A large number of strength and body-
size measurements were also taken for each
subject. A complete description of the an-
thropometric and strength measure men ts
WTj] can be found in Liles et ai. (1979) and Ayoub
X --
CAPj et al. (1978). Finally, for each of the six lifting
ranges, a relationship was determined be-
tween the maximum acceptable weight of lift
and the various human measurements taken.
Table 1 gives the coefficients for each of the
six regression equations or models that re-
sulted from the investigation. It should be
noted that these equations predict the sum of
maximum acceptable weight of lift plus body
JOB SEVERITY INDEX December, 1984--685

(,O~<.o.-ov Range #6
(J)(X)""""<O(J)
I'--~<O<O(J)..,.
c:i":c:ic:ic:ic:i
Z KL+25
o
i=
<l
i= KL Range #4 Range #5
~
<O~I'--(J)""M
•...
Il.
NM..-vC"')v
C\J(J)(x)(X)M~ :; KL/2
U.
NNNNNN o Range #1 Range #2 Range #3
•...
z
o
Q. KL/2 Kl KL+25 KL+51 Kl+76

LOLO--COC()..-
C\JMM..,.O..,. POINT OF LIFT TERMINATION (em height)
000000
c:ic:ic:ic:ic:ic:i Figure 1. Lifting range detenninatioll. (KL
knuckle level.)

weight. It is felt that these models are ade-

l/).-vtOC\lT""" quate to predict the relative capacity of in-
'tlll) ..,...,...,. a
I./')<OMMO..,. dividuals and can therefore be used to ac-
c:ic:ic:ic:ic:ic:i
count for individual differences.
The JSI method requires that a job be de-

Cll'O
-
c:
Cll 00..,...,.
<0 (X)
I./')I'--Ol'--C\J<O
C\JC\J""C\JC\JC\J
scribed as a series of lifting tasks. A lifting
task is defined as the unique movement of an
0):';::
<t-Cll c:ic:ic:ic:ic:ic:i item from one point in space to another. Each
o I I I I I I
()
task is described in terms of the maximum
..c:::
required weight of lift, the largest required
0,1: load center of gravity at lift initiation and at
c: Cll It')vlOOU')C'')

~~ «JCCcnC\lM<o::t"
000..-..-0
lift termination, the load height (vertical dis-
CJ)-
Cll c:ic:ic:ic:ic:ic:i tance from the floor to the hands) at lift ini-
EO
•.. ()
<t tiation and at lift termination, and the task
exposure time. A sample job description is
{l1:
_.~
8·~
..c:::::::
OC\J<O(J)MI'--
(x)0C\J0lC\J~
(J)""MC\J(X)C\J
c:illir--:llir--:ai
presented by Ayoub, Selan, and Liles (1983).
Each task is grouped with other tasks per-
formed during the same time period (i.e.,
OlCll
'- 0
~
~() some jobs require the performance of dif-
ferent sets of tasks during different times of
C\J..-vClOf"--O the day). Describing the job as a series of
MC\JM(J)<OI'--
(x)M I'--M I./')
(X) lifting tasks and grouping those tasks is nec-
Nr--:..iaiaiai
essary to properly account for the relative im-
111111
portance of each individual job component.
Lifting range determination is made using
M 1'--0 C\J <0<0
(X)1./')(J)(x)<Oltl
<O(X)<O(J)(X)(J) Figure 1 and is based upon the load height(s)
Nlliai..illiU:> at lift initiation and the load height(s) at lift
M<OT""'NC"')T"""
I I I I I I
termination. A given task, such as loading a
pallet, may require the lifting of items over
several different lifting ranges. In such cases,
capacity calculations are performed for each

Downloaded from hfs.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 27, 2013

686--Decernber, 1984 HUMAN FACTORS

a:
1.5 w
::i
a..
1.0
a:
w i=
::; ...I
a.. ::>
i=
...I
::>
..
:E
•...
..
:E
o
1.0 :>
0«
a:
0.9

z CJ
w
::>
c
...o
w a:
...
a: w
•...
0.5 15 0.8
o
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
18 24 30 38

LIFTING FREQUENCY (I; In lilts per minute) CENTER OF GRAVITY (em)

Figure 2. Lifting frequency multipliers (A-lifting Figure 3. Center of gravity multipliers (A-liftil1g
ral1ges 4 and 5; B-lifting ranges J, 2, 3, and 6). range 6; B-lifting ranges 4 and 5; C-li(ting ranges
J, 2, and 3).

of the required lifting ranges. To be conser-

tion of the job analysis procedure with an ex-
vative, the smallest of these capacities is se-
ample may be found in Liles (1983).
lected to represent the entire task.
Frequency correction is based on the total
RESEARCH PROCEDURE
lifting frequency for the task group of which
the task is a part. Task group lifting fre- Pursuant to the accomplishment of the
quency is the sum of the lifting frequencies stated research objective, two large field
of all tasks in a given task group. Center of studies were conducted. Each study required
gravity correction is based on the larger of the accumulation of a large amount of data
two task centers of gravity: that at lift initi- on job requirements, worker capacities, and
ation and that at lift termination. It is as- injuries. Preliminary results of the first study
sumed that task center of gravity is the hor- were reported by Liles et al. (1979). Addi-
izontal distance between the worker's ankles tional data were collected after the prelimi-
and the center of gravity of the item being nary report to complete the first study. A
lifted. The adjusted capacity is simply the second study using a different set of subjects
predicted capacity, less body weight, multi- has recently been completed. The combined
plied by the frequency multiplier (Figure 2) results of the two studies are to be discussed
and by the center of gravity multiplier in this paper.
(Figure 3). Both studies required the participation of
After the foregoing calculations have been organizations having employces performing
made, the maximum required weight of lift manual materials-handling activities. A total
for each task is divided by the adjusted ca- of 28 companies participated. Within each
pacity for each task. These individual task ra- company, a survey was made of materials-
tios are then weighted according to lifting handling activities. Only those activities or
frequency and are averaged with other tasks jobs requiring regular and frequent lifting
in the same group. The final step is to take were selected for study. A regular job is onc
an exposure time weighted average of the that has job requiremcnts that remain rela-
task group ratios. The result is the Job Se- tively constant with time. A frequent job is
verity Index for the job. A complete descrip- one that requires at least 25 lifts per day of

Downloaded from hfs.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 27, 2013

JOB SEVERITY INDEX December, 1984--687

not less than 4.53 kg and requires an exposure

<O'o:t ~'o:tCD
of at least 2 h per day. Most of the jobs se- a <0<0
NN
0
«<i
0
~
'o:t
O(')lO
crjl.C"i""':
I'-
"':
lected cxceeded these minimum require- v.i ~
'"Q)
ments by a considerable margin. (;j

After selection, each job was fully analyzed EQ)

l.I..
to determine the job requirement data used ~
~ c: I'-~ 'o:t
C\l
en
'o:t
<0 CD en
I'-<OlO
<0
CD
til 1'-<0
by the lSI method. The data were acquired Q) Mll'i cri M(') "";mcO N
::E (')CD I'-~(')
by direct observation, inspection of produc- C\l
tion records, and by direct interview of €::J
workers and supervisors. Sixty-three jobs U5 'o:t en <0 <0 en lO
were included in the first study and 38 in the a I'-C\l
<OC\l
a:iN
I'-
N
(') C\l en lO
r-.: «<iocri
~
second. These jobs represent a wide range of v.i ~ ~~
different materials-handling activities. '"
Q)
(;j
Experimental subjects were selected from ::E
lC)
those individuals working in each of the jobs <0
,.. c: (')~ lO en OlOlO lO
who met certain minimum requirements.
til
Q)
(')0
cria:i
0
0 «<i
(,)I'-'o:t
r-.:a:ia:i
~
::E C\ll'- C\l 'o:t
~ I'-(')CD
Only people with at least six months tenure
on the specific job and with no current se-
rious physical problems were selected. This
(')1'- <0 C\l <0 en en
screening was done in part by company man- a 'o:t~
r-:o
'o:t
N
(')
.0
'o:tC\lCD
~c.c:i""':
~
agement and in part by means of a pretest v.i ~
'"
Q)
questionnaire. The subjects were given a (;j
EQ)
complete explanation and were asked to sign l.I..
an informed consent. After selection, each ~
C\l c: en <0 CD lO I'-enen
'o:t~en
C\l
'o:t
til C\ll'- lO en
subject was asked to submit to the series of Q) ""':u:i <0 M(') NOlO N
::E (,)CD I'-C\l(,)
strength and anthropometric measurements
required to predict lifting capacity (Table 1). ~ €::J
c
All subjects were volunteers and were tested <lJ
U5
E
•..::l enC\l C\l ~ lO 'o:t
in private on company premises during reg- <lJ
a lO en
crill'i
CD
M
CD
to
00<0
~"";cxi
(')
C':!
ular working hours. <Il
(l:J
v.i ~~
<lJ CI)
Q)
The sample sizes were 244 subjects (220 Z (;j
~ ::E
males, 24 females) for the first study and 209 u
<lJ
(165 males, 44 females) for the second. The :0
::l
0
C\l
C\l c: enC\l en <0
lO
<OC\110
I'-C\110
CD
(/) til en CD C':! (')

subject measurement data are summarized Q) r-:r-: 0 «<i r-:cri«<i C\l

in Table 2.
'-0
<Il
::E C\ll'- C\l 'o:t
~ 1'-(') CD

C
Comprehensive injury profiles were com- o
.;:
piled for each subject for a period of time be- ro
.;;
0) Q)
ginning at subject measurement and con- Cl ~o
-0 •... Cl
~Clc
tinuing until the subject changed jobs, until •..ro c: Cl.l<: <1l
.l<:~ •...
-0
Q) ~ _ -..c:J
the job itself changed, or until termination of c E E E=&-g~
the research. This time period ranged from
ro ~
::J
(ij'
.s::
Clm ° ~ ~ E
Cl C Q) (/)
ell l/) ~'Q)C::-~_
Q) 3 '-.s::
-~~o$
Q).s:: Q).s:: •...•..•• - :J
III
one month to more than two years, de- -0
c Q) >- E •..• ~Cl:i2Cl •..• (J)Ec
~ >- 0 a. :J'- 0'- (/) .l<: co'-
pending on the subject. The profiles contain
N
ro ::E Q)"O"OQ)oQ):JQ)EocE
~ <Il ClO.c"O.s::.s:: c.s:: •... <1l >-~

information about all injuries sustained by

-l
lD
c
(l:J
«ID« en ~ «IDO
« 0)

each subject during the study period regard- 1-< Z

Downloaded from hfs.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 27, 2013

688-December, 1984
less of injury cause, type, or severity. The in-
formation was obtained through inspection
of company personnel files, from the insur-
ance carrier, or in a few cases by interviewing
the subject's supervisor.
The injury information collected during
both studies included injury type (Ayoub,
Selan, and Liles, 1983; also see the footnote
in Table 3), injury cause (lifting or nonlifting),
and the number of lost workdays. During the
second study, medical expenses, wages paid
during lost workdays, worker's compensation
paid, and extraordinary expenses were re-
corded. The number of hours worked by each
subject during the study period was also de-
termined during both studies. The data are
summarized in Table 3. It should be noted
that the results of this study are based on a
total of 55 nondisabling back injuries caused
by lifting, 36 disabling back injuries, and
1146 days lost.
ANALYSIS AND RESULTS
The verification of the JSI method required
that two questions be answered: first, "Is the
method a valid employee screening or selec-
tion tool?" and secondly, "Is the method a
valid job design too!?" The answering of
these questions required two approaches and
two analysis procedures.
Employee Screening
The relationship between worker JSI and
injury is important when considering the va-
lidity of the JSI method as an employee
screening and placement tool. Theoretically,
if JSI evaluation were performed for each
person seeking a particular job and if only
those persons with acceptably low JSI values
were selected for that job, then the injury
rates on that job should also be acceptably
low. This assumes, of course, that a low lSI
value implies a low injury potential. The re-
sults support this assumption.
The first step in the "screening" analysis
was to calculate individual JSIs for each in-
Downloaded from hfs.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 27, 2013
HUMAN FACTORS
dustrial subject. These calculations used as
input the detailed job requirement data for
the job in which each subject was working
and the subject's measurement data, as re-
quired to predict capacity. The result was a
set of 453 JSI values, one for each of the 244
subjects included in the first study and one
for each of the 209 subjects included in the
second.
Based upon individual lSI values, the sub-
jects were ranked and divided into 10 JSI
groups ranging from very low stress to very
high stress levels. The injury data for the sub-
jects in each group were compiled and
summed, and injury statistics were calcu-
lated. The grouping was done so that each
group represented approximately the same
number of hours of worker exposure. The in-
jury statistics should therefore be compa-
rable. The results that are to be presented de-
scribe the injury experiences of 453 individ-
uals working in 101 different lifting jobs and
represent a total of 1 057881 h of worker ex-
posure. Table 4, based upon the combined
data from both studies, summarizes the re-
lationships betwe'en JSI and three injury sta-
tistics that describe the incidence and se-
verity of back injury caused by lifting.
The injury rate statistic used in Table 4 is
defined as the total number of lifting back
injuries per 100 FTE (100 FTE =' 100 full-
time employees =' 100 worker years ='
200000 exposure hours). The disabling injury
rate statistic is defined as the number of dis-
abling back injuries (one or more lost work·
days) per 100 FTE. The severity rate statistic
is defined as the number of days lost per dis-
abling back injury.
To further illustrate the relationships, Fig-
ures 4, 5, and 6 are presented. These figures
show cumulative injury statistics for seg-
ments of the subject population (453 individ-
uals) working at or below various levels of
JSI. For instance, Figure 4 shows that the
subject population working at or below a JSI
JOB SEVERITY INDEX December, 1984--689

.9
Ul
Q)
It) C') I'- I'- to Ll) 0 0Ll)
to to "§
~ C')
:s-
n;
Qi
Qi
'<t 0 0 0 0 0 00
~
~ C') 0
"3
u
Ul
:J
E
I'- 0'> Ll) N ~ ~ <Xl <Xl C') Ol
<:t ~ I'- N Ll) to I'- Ll) Ol
II

(")

~
N I'- to I'-~ ':":~
Q) :J
C') N I'-<:t
N ~:s
~gJ
:J 0
E~
N 0 (') to <:t N
to
~
~ 0
to
C')<:t .'"
0>=
C\j N to 01'- c Q)

~ <Xl Ll) <:tl'- ::E~

~(') ~ 'e:
0
c II

<I) II on
Q.

~ ,... (') N 0 Ll) N to I'- 0 01'-

~
Z~
_ :J

~ 0'>
Ll)
N
N <Xl ~:s
"c:
<\)
<I)
:=CLl
::::1
11
Ul
.!Q

'"
:;)
I'- Ll) ON
-';
.. u
<\) It) 0 0 0 <Xl C') <Xl <Xl <Xl I'- Q) '"
Ul'l:
U -J <:t (') <Xl
c ~~
:;) ~O;
:J~

~ '<t 0 0 0 0 Ll) 0 0Ll)

£"0
-J N N en n
;;"
0..:
~ u
~o.'"
Q)

N to <:t I'- (') COCO

:J E
<Xl 0 0 Ul'-
(") (') N (') (') (') to ~ 00
<:t 0 (')CO 0._
-J " Ol
N (') Ol :J
~"O

~~
m:J

I'- 0'> I'- to Ll) Ll)tO

~:S
C\j
to
N
<Xl N
N to to ~
~ <Xlto
<:tl'-
i~
U Ul
Ol Ul
-J C') tOO E-;:;
:J Ol
Ul U

",'"
0'1:
N:J
.. Ul

(') Ll) (') N

C')
~ (')
Ll)
I'- to
to
<:tl'-
(,)N
,.,
N
II

N N "OM
,... N 0'>
to <:t to (') (')(') :J
-<Ii
-J Ol (') <Xl~ en-
N N to ~o.
.",
:J ,.,
0"0
~o
~~
"1:l c: :J Q)
Ul~
<l) 0
iaen
0-
u 0.0

~ en
Q)
rJl
Q)
Cl
c: c:
"
Ol-
OUl
0

-0 •.. onOl

U
''::
:I
''::
:I ~:I~c.
Q) ~ (\I";:

19 'c "C ~"O~E

Q)
rJl
~'E-
on .-

C':l .•... -0>- .•...

Cl '0
-0>-
'0 enOEO~ ~~rJl8 ~
~~
•.. enOEO~
Q) ••.•• _ :rr....- •.. Q) ~.-
en ~~-
en CO C
••.• --
~c.
"O~-)( B~
C
:l
Q)'~
.0 :1.0-.0
Q) ~ Q) CI'J
>.
Q)";:: (],) ~ Q)
.0 :J..o •..•..0 >. u
Q) en Q)"O Q) :J Ul
UlE

g E'c
:1--:1-:1"0
E ~ E to E'c
:1'-
E ~ E to:O ~ ~ ~ -c'iii Iii
:I - :l"O Q) Q)tO-Oc.c;
"
"u
NUl
:J

'-0 Z Z Z Z Z Z ~ ?; ?; I- ;":E
:J

>. ~lJ
1"1 •... .;!N

u..l C':l en -
...:i E l ApnJS G ApnJS .. u -"'
I!l E E~
~
I-
:l
rFJ
ZQ)

==

Downloaded from hfs.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 27, 2013

690-December, 1984 HUMAN FACTORS

TABLE 4

Injury Rates Observed (Back Injuries Caused by Lifting)

Number of Disabling
Number of Exposure Injury Injury Severity
Group JSJ Range Workers Hours Rate' Rate" Rate'"

1 0.00 to 0.29 43 105010 3.8 3.8 3.0

2 0.30 to 0.57 43 106473 1.9 0.0 0.0
3 0.57 to 0.81 39 103665 7.7 0.0 0.0
4 0.81 to 1.07 36 107 132 3.7 3.7 11.0
5 1.09 to 1.42 47 105546 0.0 0.0 0.0
6 1.42 to 1.76 55 106901 15.0 11.2 17.3
7 1.77 to 2.09 50 106 213 17.0 13.2 16.7
8 2.10t02.61 45 105650 18.9 9.5 18.8
9 2.62 to 3.65 47 106 134 18.8 15.1 9.8
10 3.66 and above 48 105 157 17.1 11.4 120.8
• Injury rate = Number of injuries/tOO FTE; (100 FTE = 200000 exposure hours = tOO worker years)
•• Disabling injury rate = Number of lost-time injuries/100 FTE
••• Severity rate = Number of days lost/number of lost-time injuries

level of 1.5 had an average injury rate of 3.9
injuries per 100 FTE. The injury rate for the
subject population working at lSI levels of
2.5 or less was observed to be 8.6 injuries per
100 FTE.
Figures 1, 2, and 3 and Table 4 seem to
indicate the existence of an injury threshold
at a lSI of about 1.5. This hypothesis, origi-
nally based upon the results of the first study,
is supported independently by the results of
the second study. The hypothesis is further
supported by the cost data collected during
the second study only. The total direct injury
expense for those subjects working at lSI
levels above 1.5 was about $60 000 per 100
FTE as compared with an injury expense of
only $1000 per 100 FTE for those persons
working at lSI levels of 1.5 or less.

Job Design

The relationship between job stress classi-

fication and injury is important when consid-
ering the validity of the lSI method as a job
evaluation and design tool. Theoretically, if a
given job were designed or redesigned such
that a small percentage of the population
would be overstressed, then a comparatively
low level of injury should be expected. This
is based upon the assumption that a low per-
centage overstressed implies a low injury po-
tential. The results that will be presented
support this assumption.
The first step in the "design" analysis was
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 •. 0 00
to determine the amount of stress presented
JSI by each job. This was accomplished by pre-
Figure 4. Cumulative injury rate versus lSI. dicting the percentage of the entire workforce

Downloaded from hfs.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 27, 2013

JOB SEVERITY INDEX December, 1984-691

iii 'E::J-
t:0
0
E
~ III
.5
••
"-
.!! e :0
:; ••••
Q
~ :;::
w
I-
••
0
« ...J
r:
>-
•..
II>

r:
:;)
...• e••
w
:!: I-
«
15
el r:
Z
:J >-
III I-
« ii:
UI w
2i >
w
w UI
> w 5
i= >
«
...J i=
:;) «
...J
::E
:;)
:;)
:IE 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 4.0
U :;)
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 4.0
"" U
JSI
JSI Figure 6. Cumulative severity rate versus lSI.
Figure 5. Cumulative disabling injury rate ver-
sus lSI.
tional Institute for Occupational Safety and
that would be overstressed if working in a Health [NIOSH], 1981). This job classifica-
particular job. The workforce was repre- tion procedure did not consider the female
sented in these calculations by a sample of population because of the relatively small
385 male workers. This sample consisted of number of females in the subject population.
all of the male workers measured in both For comparison purposes. however, the data
studies (220 males from the first study and seem to indicate that a job that overstresses
165 males from the second study). Using the 5% of the male population would overstress
predicted capacities of the male subjects, 385 approximately 50% of the female population
lSI calculations were performed for each job. and one that overstresses 75% of the male
That proportion of the sample with lSI population would overstress virtually all of
values greater than 1.5 was defined as the the female population.
percentage overstressed for the job. Injury and cost statistics were calculated
The jobs were then placed into one of three for each job stress category. These statistics
stress catagories according to the percentage are shown in Table 5. The table shows a def-
of the population overstressed. The first cat- inite increase in injury rates and costs as the
egory included those jobs that overstressed percentage overstressed increases. The days-
5% or less of the sample population. The lost statistic, however, is other than expected.
second category included those jobs that This was caused by an individual with a
overstressed more than 5% but less than or small predicted capacity who was seriously
equal to 75% of the sample population. The injured while working in a relatively low-
third category included those jobs that stress job. This illustrates the point that even
overstressed more than 75% of the sample when a job accommodates a large percentage
population. These categories are similar to of the population, injuries may be sustained
those used in the Work Practices Guide (Na- by individuals who are overstressed due to

Downloaded from hfs.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 27, 2013

692-December, 1984 HUMAN FACTORS

their small capacity. These job design results
have been compared with results from a sim-
ilar analysis based upon the method dis-
cussed in the Work Practices Guide (NIOSH,
1981). This comparison (Liles, Mahajan, and
Ayoub, 1983) indicates that the two methods
yield similar job-stress assessments.
Comments
The foregoing discussion pertains only to
those injuries to the back caused by lifting.
As shown in Table 3, lifting back injuries ac-
counted for 14% of all injuries, 28% of all dis-
abling injuries, 63% of all days lost, and 58%
of all expenses. This one type of injury is ob-
viously worthy of primary consideration. If
the statistics were presented here for the
other four types of lifting injury, it could be
seen that large lSI values (or percentage
overstressed) lead to increased incidence, se-
verity, and cost of other types of lifting injury.
The same is true to some extent for nonlifting
injuries. It should be noted that during injury
data collection and analysis, injuries with un-
certain causes were classified as nonlifting
injuries. Undoubtedly, some injuries that
were actually caused by lifting were classi-
fied as nonlifting. This could partially explain
any correlation between non lifting injury and
lSI.
CONCLUSIONS AND
RECOMMENDA TIONS
Based upon the observations presented
the previous sections, it is concluded that the
lob Severity Index method is valid and can
be effectively used for the control of manual
materials-handling injury. The method is fea-
sible for both job design and employee selec-
tion. An injury threshold appears to exist at
a lSI level of 1.5. Individuals working at lSI
levels greater than 1.5 should expect to be
injured much more frequently and more se-
verely than those working at lSI levels less
than 1.5. This may imply that the typical
worker can safely lift 50% more than his or
her predicted capacity. A question may arise
as to why the threshold does not appear at a
lSI of 1.0. The reason is that in the lSI
method, the basic ratio is equal to the max-
imum required weight of lift divided by the
minimum appropriate predicted capacity.
This is a worst-case procedure and is there-
fore conservative.
The primary focus of any injury control at-
tempt using this method should be job de-
sign. Employee selection should be sec-
ondary. There are two reasons for this. First,
job design modifications are relatively per-
manent and require no ongoing programs.
Employee selection would require that each
person be measured and evaluated before
placement. Secondly, employee screening
and selection techniques of any type are dif-
ficult to apply due to the constraints imposed
by government and labor. This method may
favor large strong men over small weak
in women. This apparent discrimination is, of

TABLE 5

Injury and Expense Rates Observed in Various Job-Stress Categories (Back Injuries Caused by Lifting)

Percentage of
Population Number of Injury Disabling Severity Expense
Overstressed Hours Rate' Rate' Rate Rate'

%~5 305333 5.24 2.62 39.75*- 9 208'"

5 < % ~ 75 510485 10.97 7.05 15.11 35092
% > 75 342063 15.70 11.57 51.07 36337
• Per 100 FTE
•• Excluding one very serious injury. this rate is 1.75.
••• Expense data for second study only.

Downloaded from hfs.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 27, 2013

JOB SEVERITY INDEX December, 1984--693

NIOSH Grant No. 5ROIOHOO798-04). Cincinnati, OH:

course, based upon measurable human char- NIOSH.
acteristics and solid experimental observa- Ayoub, M. M., Selan, J. L., and Liles, D. H. (1983). An cr-
gonomics approach for the design of manual materials
tion, but it is difficult to absolutely guarantee handling tasks. Human Factors, 25, 507-515.
that a specific small, weak female would be Chaffin, D. B., and Park, K. S. (1973). A longitudinal study
of low back pains as associated with occupational
injured more frequently than a specific large, wcight lifting factors. American Industrial Hygiene As-
strong male if working on the same job. sociation Journal, 34, 513,525.
Liles, D. H. (1983) The application of the job sevcrity index
ACKNOWLEDGMENT to job design for the control of manual materials han-
dling injury. Manuscript submitted for publication.
This rcscal'ch was supported in part by NIOSH Grant Liles, D. H., Deivanayagam, S., and Drydcn, R. D. (1979,
No.5ROIOH00798-04. May). Job design and employee placement in manual
materials handling. In Proceedings of the 1979 Spring
REFERENCES Conference of the American InstitUle of Industrial E.1-
gineers (pp. ]02-111). San Francisco, CA: AIlE.
Ayoub, M. M., Bcthca, N. J., Dcivanayagam, S., Asfour, Liles, D. H., Mahajan, P., and Ayoub, M. M. (1983). An eval·
S. S., Bakken, G. M., Liles, D., Mital, A., and Sherif, M. uation of two methods for the injury risk assessment
(1978, Septcmber). Determit1ation and modeling of of lifting jobs. In Proceedil1gs of the Human Factors So-
lifting capacity (Final rcport, NIOSH Grant No. ciety 27/h AI1I1lwl Meeting (pp. 279-283). Santa Monica,
SROIOH00545-02). Lubbock, TX: Texas Tech Univcr- CA: Human Factors Society.
sitv. National Institute for Occup~tional Safety and Health.
Ayoub', M. M., Lilcs, D. H., Asfour, S. S., Bakken, G. M., (1981, March). Work practices guide for manualliftil1g
Sclan, J., Mahajan, P., and Bethca, N. (1983, January). (DHHS [NIOSH] Publication No. 81-122). Cincinnati,
Effects of task variables on/ifting capacity (Final report, OH: Author.

Downloaded from hfs.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 27, 2013

Downloaded from hfs.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 27, 2013