This article was downloaded by: [Kungliga Tekniska Hogskola]

On: 07 October 2014, At: 05:49

Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Ergonomics
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/terg20

Diversity of tasks and information technologies used by

office workers at and away from work
a b c d
Marina Ciccarelli , Leon Straker , Svend Erik Mathiassen & Clare Pollock
a
School of Occupational Therapy & Social Work, Curtin Health Innovation Research
Institute, Curtin University , Perth, Australia
b
School of Physiotherapy, Curtin Health Innovation Research Institute, Curtin University ,
Perth, Australia
c
Department of Occupational and Public Health Sciences , Centre for Musculoskeletal
Research, University of Gävle , Sweden
d
Faculty of Health Sciences, Curtin Health Innovation Research Institute, Curtin University ,
Perth, Australia
Published online: 25 Oct 2011.

To cite this article: Marina Ciccarelli , Leon Straker , Svend Erik Mathiassen & Clare Pollock (2011) Diversity of tasks
and information technologies used by office workers at and away from work, Ergonomics, 54:11, 1017-1028, DOI:
10.1080/00140139.2011.609913

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2011.609913

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the
Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and
should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for
any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of
the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
 Ergonomics
Vol. 54, No. 11, November 2011, 1017–1028

Diversity of tasks and information technologies used by office workers at and away from work
Marina Ciccarellia*, Leon Strakerb, Svend Erik Mathiassenc and Clare Pollockd
a
School of Occupational Therapy & Social Work, Curtin Health Innovation Research Institute, Curtin University, Perth, Australia;
b
School of Physiotherapy, Curtin Health Innovation Research Institute, Curtin University, Perth, Australia; cDepartment of
Occupational and Public Health Sciences, Centre for Musculoskeletal Research, University of Gävle, Sweden; dFaculty of
Health Sciences, Curtin Health Innovation Research Institute, Curtin University, Perth, Australia
(Received 29 August 2010; final version received 28 July 2011)

Background. Computer use is associated with musculoskeletal complaints among office workers. Insufficient
exposure diversity between tasks is a proposed etiological factor, but little information exists on diversity of tasks
Downloaded by [Kungliga Tekniska Hogskola] at 05:49 07 October 2014

and information and communication technologies (ICT) among office workers. Method. Direct observation and
self-report data were collected on tasks performed and ICT used among 24 office workers, over 12 h in work and
non-work environments. Self-reports were repeated on four additional days. Results. Observations were for a mean
[SD] 642[40] min. Productive tasks comprised 63% of observations, instrumental 17%, self-care 12% and leisure
8%. Non-ICT tasks comprised 44% of observations; New electronic-based ICT 36%; Old paper-based ICT 15%,
and Combined ICT tasks 4%. Proportions of tasks and ICT use differed between environments and days. Conclusion.
Information about diversity in tasks and ICT provides the basis for future investigations into exposure variation
in ICT-intensive environments and possible musculoskeletal health risks.

Statement of relevance: Information and communication technologies (ICT) provide office workers access to
perform work-related tasks after work hours and in away-from-work locations. Musculoskeletal disorder risk
assessment for office workers should account for actual tasks performed over a work day, including away from work
exposures. This study provides rich, detailed data on occurrence of tasks performed and ICT used by office workers
throughout the day.
Keywords: office workers; ICT; tasks; direct observation

1. Introduction were reportedly due to body stressing of the

Many 21st century workers use computers and other
forms of new information and communication tech-
nologies (ICT) at the workplace. Rapid developments
in ICT provide office workers with more powerful and
faster work tools than their predecessors of less than
20 years ago. Ninety-four percent of all Australian
businesses access the Internet (Australian Bureau of
Statistics 2009a). Use of ICT away-from-work is also
increasingly commonplace. Recently, 78% of all
Australian homes reported having at least one
computer and 72% had Internet access (Australian
Bureau of Statistics 2009b). Expectations of where,
when and how workers are performing their jobs are
changing due to the spatial and temporal mobility that
is afforded by the use of electronic ICT.
Musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) related to com-
puter use at work are of international concern (Gerr
et al. 2004). While surveys have reported disorder
prevalence rates among computer users (Gerr et al.
2002), actual lost-time injury data is scarce. In
Australia, 90% of lost-time injuries in ‘clerical’ jobs
musculoskeletal system, although the proportion
directly attributable to computer use was not reported
(National Occupational Health and Safety
Commission 2006).
Most clerical tasks and communications can be
performed electronically while seated at a workstation.
This contributes to growing concerns about the impact
of inadequate diversity in the task patterns and a
resulting lack of overall variation in working postures
on the health and well-being of office workers (Straker
and Mathiassen 2009).
1.1. Variation and diversity of exposures
Excessive loading of muscles and joints was widely
thought to be a major cause of computer-related
MSDs with early research and intervention focused on
reducing amplitude exposure levels (Grandjean 1969,
Aarås 1987, Jonsson 1988). However, even very low
levels of muscle loading during sedentary work
have been associated with MSDs (Westgaard and

*Corresponding author. Email: m.ciccarelli@curtin.edu.au

ISSN 0014-0139 print/ISSN 1366-5847 online

Ó 2011 Taylor & Francis
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2011.609913
http://www.tandfonline.com
 1018 M. Ciccarelli et al.
Winkel 1996), and currently attention is being given to
the influence and effects of exposure variation and
diversity rather than to the exposure level per se.
The term variation in this context describes a
change in exposure with respect to time (Mathiassen
2006). Exposure refers to external exposures (‘what is
done’) such as the task performed or type of ICT used,
as well as internal exposures (‘how it is done’)
including posture and muscle activity. Within a given
time period, tasks performed may involve different
actions, postures and muscle activity to different
extents, and exposure during that period may thus be
more or less variable. In jobs presenting the worker
with prolonged periods of repetitive actions or
constrained postures, more variation is generally
Downloaded by [Kungliga Tekniska Hogskola] at 05:49 07 October 2014
believed to be a necessary remedy against MSDs
(Mathiassen 2006). This conviction is based on both
epidemiologic evidence and on physiologic hypotheses
proposing that continuous activation of specific muscle
fibres is a causal mechanism for the development of
myalgia (Hägg 1991). Some studies do, indeed, support
that short interruptions in shoulder muscle activity
(‘gaps’) are beneficial to musculoskeletal health
(Veiersted et al. 1993, Hägg and Åström 1997). These
interruptions, as well as redistributions of muscle
activity within the muscle may be triggered by
variations in load.
Diversity describes the difference in exposure
between different tasks or time periods. Combining
diverse tasks, i.e. tasks which have different actions,
postures and muscle activities, would result in greater
overall variation (Mathiassen 2006). For example,
there may be little variation in arm postures while
performing task A during a given time period.
However, subsequent tasks B and C may involve
different arm postures and thus provide varying
postural patterns overall. Diversity may be measured
between short epochs (i.e. consecutive work cycles
within a day) or over longer periods such as across
days. Lack of diversity and variation in what workers
do and how they perform their work tasks has been
suggested as an underlying risk factor for MSDs
(Henning et al. 1997, Mclean et al. 2001, Balci and
Aghazadeh 2003).
While (lack of) diversity is recognised as an
important risk factor, surprisingly little research has
been devoted to understanding the occurrence of
diversity and variation in occupational settings, and
the effects of introducing more diverse tasks and more
variation into jobs. Work–rest schedules (Henning
et al. 1997, Mclean et al. 2001), workstation exercise
(Fenety and Walker 2002) and job rotation/job
enlargement (Fernström and Åborg 1999, Mathiassen
et al. 2003, Möller et al. 2004, Schneider et al. 2005,
Mathiassen 2006) have been trialled to increase
variation and thus reduce or prevent discomfort
associated with sustained postural and muscle loads,
even among people working with computers, but the
evidence has been inconclusive (Mathiassen 2006). One
reason is that the effects of these initiatives targeting
exposure variation have not been assessed in
quantitative terms. This in turn illustrates a general
need for metrics that quantify diversity and variation,
and for the application of such metrics in jobs.
Workers’ exposures can be measured via
questionnaires, observations and direct measurements
(Winkel and Mathiassen 1994). To assess external
exposure, information on the tasks performed is
required. It has been suggested that worker self-reports
of time spent in different work tasks, and in computer
keyboard and mouse usage in particular, may be
substantially different from that which is identified
using observations or activity monitoring (Homan and
Armstrong 2003, Heinrich et al. 2004, Unge et al.
2005). Therefore, independent observation may be
preferable for assessing task occurrences. However,
this method is resource intensive and self-report could
be valuable in many studies if its concordance with
independent observation was known.
While work sampling (sporadic observation and
identification of tasks) within a day may be effective in
determining the structure of very regular jobs,
continuous all day observations are necessary to
accurately document the time-line of tasks in
non-cyclic or ‘spontaneous’ jobs such as office work.
However, task patterns may fluctuate from day to day
and thus a better understanding of differences in tasks
between work days would also be useful. The
difference between days is a measure of variation in
itself.
1.2. Exposure variation associated with different ICT
The type of ICT used may influence variation and
diversity in exposures. Job enlargement and job
rotation interventions among office workers are based
on the premise that interchanging tasks that are
mentally and physically diverse will reduce overall risk
levels. The variation in joint and muscle loading
within, and diversity between, computer-based and
non-computer-based tasks has been investigated by
others (Fernström and Åborg 1999, Arvidsson et al.
2006, Richter et al. 2009); however, more information
is needed about exposure variation within and diversity
between other ICT types.
1.3. Work vs. non-work exposures
Prior research on computer-related MSDs has focused
on exposures during work tasks at the workplace.
 Ergonomics
However, non-work activities such as self-care, leisure
and instrumental tasks (e.g. domestic chores) may also
influence the risk of MSDs (Van Den Heuvel et al.
2005). However, it is not known whether internal
exposures during these other tasks are different to
exposures during productive tasks, and thus enhance
overall diversity, or whether internal exposures during
these other tasks are similar and thus provide no
increase in diversity but rather increase the risk of
MSDs.
Similarly, what individuals do away-from-work
may also impact on their MSD risk. Activities in
away-from-work locations may increase diversity and
thus promote recovery from the physical and/or
mental stressors of the workplace; or may compound
Downloaded by [Kungliga Tekniska Hogskola] at 05:49 07 October 2014
the effects of awkward, constrained or prolonged
postures and sustained muscle loading because of
inadequate workstation design and/or non-work-
related psychological stressors.
It is therefore important to know how tasks are
distributed at work and away-from-work locations,
and how different ICT types are used in these tasks and
at these locations. Therefore, this study aimed to
quantify the occurrence of productive, self-care, leisure
and instrumental tasks and the different types of ICT
used in work and away-from-work locations among
office workers. It also aimed to compare self-report
and independent observer methods for monitoring
tasks, and whether one day of sampling will be
representative for the four following days. Internal
exposures were assessed simultaneously using direct
monitoring of participants’ postures and upper body
muscle activity and will be reported separately.
2. Method
2.1. Sample
A convenience sample of 24 right-handed adults
(12 female) with a mean [SD] age 38.5 [8.4] years;
height 169.0 [8.6] cm and weight 70.3 [14.1] kg was
recruited.
Participants performed office-based work at an
Australian public university, and included 14 admin-
istrative staff, 3 academic staff and 7 doctoral students.
Participants were eligible for inclusion if they reported
performing electronics-based tasks (i.e. computer,
television, telephone) at work and/or away-from-
work for at least 30 min per day, and were willing to
be observed during one entire work day. Participants
who reported having a congenital or acquired MSD
that impacted on functional performance and required
on-going medical care, and those who wore bi-focal
lenses were excluded.
This study was approved by the Human
Research Ethics Committee at Curtin University of
1019
Technology, and participants provided written
informed consent.
2.2. Data collection
Participants were observed in real time during one
work day, over 12 h duration (9 am–9 pm) to
include work and after-work tasks, and within
participants’ natural environments. Direct
observations of tasks were recorded in an electronic
task log using time-stamped software
(PocketCreationsTM, OT International, Perth,
Australia), with a minute-to-minute resolution. Tasks
of less than 1 min duration were excluded.
Observations were performed by one of two observers,
trained during pilot studies to improve inter-rater
consistency of observations. Direct measurements of
posture and muscle activity were taken simultaneous
to observations; however, these results are not
presented in this article. The monitoring equipment
was composed of inclinometers located on the head,
upper back and right upper arm, with
electromyography electrodes over the right upper
trapezius, deltoid and forearm extensor muscles along
with associated leads and data storage device worn
around the waist.
2.3. Classifying tasks
The various tasks that people typically engage in
were listed in a task observation template in the task
log. Tasks were grouped into categories including
productive, self-care, leisure, and instrumental activities
of daily living, as defined by the American
Occupational Therapy Association (Youngstrom et al.
2002). Productive tasks included work activities in
either paid or voluntary employment, or educational
activities. Self care included tasks related to taking care
of one’s own body (e.g. toileting, bathing, dressing,
eating, sleep and sexual activity). Leisure included
non-obligatory, intrinsically-motivated tasks people do
for recreation or pleasure, such as playing a sport or
reading for pleasure. Instrumental activities of daily
living included complex daily tasks that individuals
complete to sustain and manage their living in the
community, and examples included management of
a household (chores), travel in the community, and
shopping.
2.4. Classifying categories of information and
communication technology (ICT)
The different types of ICT that people use, and the
input interface were included as a category of the
observation template in the task log. The following
 1020 M. Ciccarelli et al.
definitions were developed to discriminate between
different ICT. New ICT included electronic interfaces
including desktop and laptop computers, hand-held
computers or video games, television, telephones,
calculators, photocopiers and faxes. Old ICT included
paper-based methods for completion of tasks such as
reading a book, and writing or drawing with a pen or
pencil. Combined ICT described tasks involving
simultaneous use of New and Old ICT, for example,
composing a written document using a computer while
reading from a book or handwritten notes. Non-ICT
described tasks involving neither Old nor New ICT,
such as sports, board games, eating a meal or self-care
tasks.
Downloaded by [Kungliga Tekniska Hogskola] at 05:49 07 October 2014
2.5. Documenting observations
Observed tasks and the ICT used were logged into a
time-stamped data file by one of two trained observers,
at a 1-min resolution. For each observed task
performed, detailed information was entered recorded
into the electronic activity log, including: (i) task
category (productive, self-care, leisure, instrumental)
and the type of task; (ii) type of ICT being used (Old,
New, Non-ICT), and the device (laptop, desktop, hand-
held computer) and control (keyboard, mouse, touch-
pad, buttons); (iii) geographical location in which the
person was functioning (work or away-from-work);
(iv) gross posture (sitting, standing, walking); and (v)
use of upper extremity support from the external
environment or the person’s own body.
Reports of any discomfort experienced were also
collected during natural and scheduled breaks in tasks
over the recording period. A front and rear aspect
body map with a scale of 0–10 (with 0 ¼ no discomfort
and 10 ¼ worst possible discomfort) was used to assist
participants identify location and intensity (Straker
1999).
2.6. Task diary
At the end of the observation, participants completed
a hand-written diary of the tasks they performed that
day. The task diary (in 30 min periods) included the
main tasks performed and the ICT type and input
device used. Participants were asked if the observed
tasks were typical for that work day. Participants
also completed a hand-written task diary over
the next four consecutive work days (reported as
days 2–5).
2.7. Data analysis
The task log for each participant, containing time-
stamped codes for location (at work, away-from-work),
task category (productive, self-care, leisure,
instrumental) and type of ICT used (Old, New,
Combined, Non-ICT), was analysed using a
custom-designed program in LabVIEWTM (National
Instruments, Austin, Texas). Output included
descriptive statistics about the category of interest
(i.e. geographical location, task category or type of
ICT used), and for each category the accumulated time
was calculated in absolute terms (minutes) and as a
proportion of the total observation period. Data from
participants who did not perform particular tasks
using the different types of ICT in a particular location
were registered as a value of 0 min to calculate group
means.
Data from the self-reported task diaries were
used to give information on the amount of time spent
in the four task categories (productive, self-care,
leisure and instrumental activities of daily living) and
using the different types of ICT (Old, New, Combined
and Non-ICT). Data from task observations on the
day of recording were compared to self-reported
tasks in the diary completed by participants at the
end of the recording period, using Wilcoxon
signed-rank tests (in SPSS,v.17.0). To assess how
representative the day of recording was, Friedman
analysis of variance (in SPSS, v.17.0) was performed
on data from the task diaries, comparing time
spent performing different tasks and using different
ICT on the day of recording (day 1) and each of the
next four individual working days; as well as
comparing time spent during day 1 to the average
of days 2–5. A critical alpha probability level of 0.05
was used.
A variance component analysis (in Excel) was
performed on the self-report diary data from the
non-observed days 2–5, in order to quantify variability
between days within participants as well as variability
between participants. Variability between days was
also analysed in terms of the dispersion (SD) of
grouped averages of time spent performing tasks and
using ICT across the four days.
3. Results
3.1. Tasks performed
Observation data was obtained for a mean [SD] total
of 642[40] min per participant. This is less than the
intended duration of 720 min per participant,
reflecting the time required to complete procedural
tasks related to the study that were not part of the
participant’s daily routine, including the end of day
diary and questionnaire. Approximately, two-thirds of
the observation time was spent at the workplace
(432[48] min) and one-third (210[28] min) away from
the workplace.
 Ergonomics 1021

3.1.1. Total time spent in different task categories
The group mean [SD] of the participants’ total time
spent in productive tasks (405[122] min) accounted for
63% of the observation period1, compared to 17% for
instrumental (106[57] min), 12% for self-care (75[46]
min) and 8% for leisure (54[39] min).
3.1.2. Proportion of time spent in different task
categories at work and away-from-work
When at work, participants performed productive tasks
for 83% of the time (356[141] min) with little leisure
time (9[16] min). However, 23% of the time away-
from-work was also spent performing productive tasks
(49[81] min). This represented more than the propor-
Downloaded by [Kungliga Tekniska Hogskola] at 05:49 07 October 2014
3.2.3. Proportion of time using various types of ICT
at work and away-from-work
New ICT was used 44% of the time at work
(191[126] min), compared to only 20% of the time
when away-from-work. This included using
non-computer-based New ICT such as photocopiers,
fax machines, telephones and television. The
computers used at work were predominantly desktop
computers. Laptop computers were used by four
participants; and hand-held computers by only two.
Forty percent of the time at work was spent using
computers, while only 14% of the time away-from-
work was spent using computers. Regardless of the
location, when computers were used, it was usually
without any other ICT.

tion of time spent in self-care and leisure tasks when
away-from-work. Instrumental tasks comprised 39%
(79[50] min) of the time away-from-work.
3.2. ICT used
3.2.1. Total time spent using different ICT
New ICT accounted for 36% (234[118] min) of the
observation period; Old ICT accounted for 15%
(98[73] min), Combined ICT tasks 4% (24[30] min),
and Non-ICT tasks accounted for about 44% (285[89]
min).
3.2.2. Common tasks using different ICT
A summary of the tasks performed using New, Old,
Combined and Non-ICT during the observation period
is presented in Table 1.
Old ICT was used 19% of the time at work
(83[63] min), and 8% of the time away-from-work
(16[39] min). Combined ICT comprised 11% (24[30]
min) of the time at work; and a negligible period
away-from-work (1[3] min). Combined ICT tasks most
often involved the simultaneous use of the telephone
and writing information on paper. Minimal time was
spent using computer-based Combined ICT (e.g.
computer and hard copy text) at the workplace (4%)
and not at all away-from-work. Non-ICT comprised
70% of the time away-from-work (148[103] min).
3.2.4. Time spent using different ICT when
participating in different task categories
The mean total time spent using different ICT when
performing different categories of tasks was
determined (Table 2). The most time was spent in
productive tasks using New ICT. In contrast, New ICT

Table 1. Tasks performed using different ICT during the observation period.

Performed at Performed Performed at work and

ICT type work only away-from-work only away-from-work
Old Meeting Play with children
Teaching
New Teaching Read email
Photocopying Compose email
Compose document
Edit document
Search Internet
Talk on the phone
Watch video/DVD
Film with camera
Combined Compose Edit document
document Talk on the phone
Non Drive car Meeting
Talk to family/friends Eat meal/snack
Sing/act Drink coffee
Play musical instrument Toileting
Tidy house Collect printing
Childcare and play Prepare meal/snack
Laundry Wash dishes
 1022 M. Ciccarelli et al.

was rarely used for leisure. Old and Combined ICT 1 is shown in Table 3. There were differences in the
were used mostly for productive tasks. Non-ICT was time participants reported performing productive and
used to perform all four task categories. leisure tasks, and using New and Combined ICT, when
compared to the observed data.

3.2.5. Time spent using different ICT in different task

categories at work and away-from-work
The mean total time spent in different task categories
using different ICT at work is presented in Figure 1;
and away-from-work locations in Figure 2. The large
standard deviations indicate participants differed in the
time spent performing tasks using these ICT, and/or
that exposure differed considerably between days
within individuals. New ICT was most used when
performing productive tasks at work. Non-ICT was
Downloaded by [Kungliga Tekniska Hogskola] at 05:49 07 October 2014
3.4. Comparison of 5-day diary data
Twenty-three of the 24 participants completed the end
of day questionnaire. Seventeen participants reported
that the tasks performed and their durations on the
day of observation were representative of their typical
activities on that day of the week. Four participants
reported they would have usually participated in
vigorous physical exercise but did not because they

used across all task categories in both work and away-

from-work locations.

3.3. Comparison of self-reported and observed

durations of tasks and ICT used
The amount of time (median[SD] hours) spent in each
task category as recorded from the task observations
compared to the self-reported end of day diary on day

Table 2. Group mean [SD between subjects] of individuals’

total time (minutes) by task category and ICT type.

Task Figure 2. Group mean [SD between subjects] of

ICT type Productive Self-care Leisure Instrumental individual total time spent using different ICT during
different categories of tasks away-from-work.
Old 90 [74] 3 [10] 0 [0] 6 [20]
New 211 [105] 4 [17] 16 [26] 3 [14]
Combined 27 [34] 0 [0] 2 [6] 0 [0]
Non 82 [55] 68 [38] 36 [40] 11 [48] Table 3. Comparison of time (median; range among
subjects) (hours) engaged in tasks on day 1 between
observed and self-reported diary data.

Median( range) (h) Wilcoxon

signed-Rank
Task Observed Diary test

Productive 6.6 (3.8–12.3) 7.5 (6.0–10.0) Z ¼ 72.10;

p ¼ .036
Self-care 1.2 (6.0–10.0) 1.2 (0.5–2.5) Z ¼ 70.99;
p ¼ .324
Leisure 0.8 (0.0–2.1) 1.2 (0.0–4.0) Z ¼ 72.38;
p ¼ .017
Instrumental 1.5 (0.3–5.3) 1.0 (0.0–4.0) Z ¼ 71.83;
p ¼ .068
ICT type
Old 1.8 (0.2–3.5) 1.0 (0.0–4.5) Z ¼ 70.763;
p ¼ .445
New 3.9 (1.0–7.2) 5.5 (0.5–8.0) Z ¼ 73.224;
p ¼ .001
Combined 0.3 (0.0–2.1) 0.0 (0.0–4.5) Z ¼ 72.207;
p ¼ .027
Figure 1. Group mean [SD between subjects] of individual Non 4.4 (1.6–7.0) 4.5 (0.0–9.5) Z ¼ 70.122;
total time spent using different ICT during different p ¼ .903
categories of tasks at work.
 Ergonomics 1023

thought wearing the direct monitoring equipment
would restrict their participation. The remaining two
participants reported not going to the grocery store,
and one participant did not attend a religious function
as planned, because they felt embarrassed by wearing
the visible direct monitoring equipment in public.
3.4.1. Self-reported time spent in different task
categories across different days
Table 4 shows the mean [SD between subjects] time
participants reported performing the different task
categories during each of five work days. Friedman
analysis of variance identified a systematic difference in
productive tasks between day 1 (the day of observation;
Downloaded by [Kungliga Tekniska Hogskola] at 05:49 07 October 2014
task diary. Friedman analysis of variance identified
no significant differences in exposure to the different
ICT across days.
Table 5 shows that the variability (measured as SD)
between participants in time reportedly spent using
different ICT was least for Combined ICT and most for
New ICT. At a group level, variability between days
was greatest for Non-ICT and New ICT. At an
individual level, variability for Combined ICT was
only about one quarter that of other ICT types.
4. Discussion
4.1. Task and ICT exposures beyond the workplace
Population studies indicate that adults do use

7.9 h) and day 2 (p ¼ 0.033), day 4 (p ¼ 0.033) and day
5 (p ¼ 0.039). Time spent in productive tasks on day 1
were also different to the mean of days 2–5 (6.9 h;
p ¼ 0.003). For leisure tasks, time spent on day 1 was
different to the time spent on day 4 (p ¼ 0.022); and
also to the mean of days 2–5 (p ¼ 0.022). The increase
in leisure time on non-observed days is reflected in an
increase in total reported time on days 2–5; however
the data in Table 4 also suggests that there may be a
trend for less time on productive tasks on non-observed
days. There were no significant differences in the time
spent performing self-care and instrumental tasks on
the day of observation compared to the subsequent
four working days.
At both a group level and individual level, diversity
across the non-observation non-direct monitoring
days (i.e. days 2–5) was least for self-care tasks, while
productive tasks had the greatest variability (Table 5).
3.4.2. Self-reported ICT use across different days
Table 4 also shows the mean [SD] time spent using
different ICT on the day of observation compared to
the subsequent four working days as reported in the
computers both at work and away from the workplace
during productive, leisure and instrumental tasks
(Australian Bureau of Statistics 2009a, 2009b);
however, there is limited attention given to exposures
during non-productive tasks and in locations away
from the workplace. The participants in the current
study performed productive tasks away-from-work,
including preparation of teaching materials and
research papers. It is not uncommon for many
academics and researchers to take work home as
needed, and the university in this study offers and
promotes a formal home-based work agreement for
employees whose job duties are compatible with
working from home (Curtin University 2011). Many
office workers are using ICT to telework in away-from-
work locations including the family home (Haddon
and Silverstone 1992, Hardill and Green 2003).
Although there is debate as to what amount and type
of ICT use defines telework (Sullivan 2003), most
studies focus on New ICT. However, the current study
showed that different ICTs including New, Old and
Combined ICT are used to perform productive tasks in
away-from-work locations. Workers perform
productive work tasks away-from-work for many

Table 4. Mean[SD between subjects] hours engaged in different tasks and using different ICT as self-reported in the task
diary over 5 days.

Days recorded in task diary

Task 1a 2 3 4 5 Mean of days 2–5
Productive 7.7 [1.4]* 7.1 [1.8] 7.2 [1.9] 6.3 [1.9] 7.3 [1.5] 6.9 [1.1]
Self-care 1.4 [0.6] 1.6 [0.6] 1.4 [0.6] 1.5 [0.7] 1.4 [0.5] 1.5 [0.5]
Leisure 1.4 [1.0]* 1.9 [1.5] 2.2 [1.4] 2.6 [1.9] 2.0 [1.3] 2.1 [1.1]
Instrumental 1.3 [1.0] 1.2 [0.8] 0.9 [0.9] 1.4 [1.5] 1.0 [1.1] 1.3 [0.8]
ICT type
Old 1.7 [2.2] 1.8 [2.3] 1.8 [2.1] 1.4 [1.8] 1.5 [1.6] 1.6[ 1.1]
New 4.8 [2.6] 4.8 [2.8] 4.5 [2.7] 4.4 [2.4] 5.2 [2.5] 4.7 [2.0]
Combined 0.4 [1.1] 0.5 [0.9] 0.8 [1.5] 0.6 [1.6] 0.4 [0.7] 0.6 [0.9]
Non 5.0 [1.9] 4.8 [2.1] 4.7 [2.4] 5.3 [2.4] 4.2 [2.2] 4.8 [1.7]

Note: aDay of observation; *Differences in time spent (p ¼ 0.05) compared to mean of days 2–5.
 1024 M. Ciccarelli et al.

Table 5. Variability (SD, hours) between and within workers at work (Marcus et al. 2002, Szeto et al. 2005).
participants, of hours reported on days 2–5 performing Prior studies of office workers have identified computer
different tasks and using different ICT.
use as a risk factor for MSDs (Jensen et al. 2002,
Variability Village 2005, Wahlström 2005, Griffiths et al. 2007);
and specifically hours or intensity of keyboard use
Between Grouped Individual
participants between days between days (Katz et al. 2000) and mouse use (Blatter and
Bongers 2002, Ijmker et al. 2007). The office workers
Task in the current study had mean daily exposures to
Productive 1.14 0.56 1.59
Self-care 0.41 0.08 0.49 computer-based New ICT (2.85 h/day) that were less
Leisure 0.94 0.43 1.23 than the daily exposures associated with the
Instrumental 0.73 0.16 0.88 development of musculoskeletal complaints reported
ICT type in prior studies. However, prior studies have relied on
Old 1.17 0.17 1.85 self-reported estimates of total daily or weekly
New 2.04 0.32 1.74
Combined 0.84 0.14 0.39 computer use (Unge et al. 2005), which are suspected
Non 1.65 0.39 1.66 to result in larger numbers than direct observations as
Downloaded by [Kungliga Tekniska Hogskola] at 05:49 07 October 2014

used in this study. We only documented the periods in

reasons including to work unpaid overtime to complete
the demands of the job.
No other studies, to our knowledge, have described
the tasks that office workers typically participate in
beyond work-related tasks at the workplace. This
study has described the diversity of external exposure
by detailing the participation in different categories of
tasks and use of different ICT in work and away-from-
work locations. Due to the occurrence of ICT work
even at away-from-work locations, it may be insuffi-
cient to only assess an office worker’s pattern of daily
tasks and exposure to different ICT types only within
the workplace and during traditional ‘9–5’ work hours.
Thus, our study suggests that understanding an
individual’s exposure to different daily tasks, including
productive tasks, and ICT use requires observation and
measurement in both at work and away-from-work
locations and over extended work hours.
4.2. Diversity of tasks and ICT used
The participants performed a wide range of tasks for
different proportions of time within the 12-h observa-
tion period. Not all participants used computer-based
Combined ICT; however, all other ICT types were used
by all participants for different proportions of time
during the observation. The diversity of task categories
performed and ICT used suggests a potential for
variation in overall postures and muscle activity at
work and away-from-work, provided that these tasks
and ICT types entail sufficiently different exposures.
The distribution of used ICT types depended on the
task category. New and Combined ICT were mainly
used in productive tasks. Computers were used for
email communications, composing and editing docu-
ments and Internet searches, which are similar to the
computer tasks reported in other studies of office
which the participants were actually using the
computer, rather than just sitting at a computer
workstation as using New ICT, and this may explain
why the exposures for computer tasks were
comparatively lower in the current study.
Furthermore, this study shows that when office
workers are not using computers they are using other
forms of ICT to perform a range of different tasks that
may impact on overall risk. Prior studies of office
workers have given little or no attention to the
potentially risk-moderating effects of performing
different tasks and using different ICT types than
those associated with core office work, and while we
suggest that the diversity represented by such activities
would be beneficial, this hypothesis needs more
research.
4.3. Impact of location on diversity and variation
On a typical work day, it is expected that productive
tasks will account for much of an office worker’s time
at the workplace, and the time spent in non-productive
tasks (self-care, leisure and instrumental tasks) will be
greater in away-from-work locations.
However, as this study showed, over and above
the time at the workplace, an additional 23% of the
observation time in away-from-work locations was
also spent performing productive tasks. This time is
taken from leisure, self-care and instrumental tasks and
thus represents a reduction in the contribution these
tasks might have to exposure variation. For example,
late night long-distance telephone conferences with
international partners may displace leisure or
instrumental tasks that would normally be performed
in these after work hours.
When at work, participants were observed to
self-select the tasks performed and the order in which
they were done, suggesting a degree of control over
their job tasks. High job control has been associated
 Ergonomics
with worker health (Arvidsson et al. 2008, Tornqvist
et al. 2009). However, control to schedule the order
and duration of work tasks may permit unhealthy
work behaviours. For example, since participants
scheduled most tasks and breaks at their discretion,
there was the possibility that some individuals
remained on certain tasks, due to pending deadlines
or interest in the task, resulting in less diversity of tasks
across the day. Similar findings of the impact of
deadlines and worker autonomy on task variability has
been reported by others investigating task exposures
among office workers (Van Eerd et al. 2009).
Although computer-based ICT were used during
productive tasks at work, more than half of the time at
work was spent performing non-computer based tasks.
Downloaded by [Kungliga Tekniska Hogskola] at 05:49 07 October 2014
Mean total durations of computer exposure were
different between work (192 min) and away-from-
work locations (29 min). Away-from-work locations
provided less exposure to New ICT but more exposure
to Non-ICT tasks, probably enhancing variation.
ICT exposure was influenced by natural interrup-
tions to tasks in all locations; however, location may
influence the likelihood of natural interruptions. For
example, one participant, at home alone, performed a
productive task using a computer without interruption
for in excess of 2 h.
4.4. The next step in understanding diversity and
variation
Determining the tasks performed and their occurrence
across time is only one factor in determining exposure
and thus the risk of MSDs. A change to another task
may not create sufficient variation in biomechanical
exposures if it has similar postural and muscular
demands as the task just performed, i.e. if the tasks are
not sufficiently diverse (Richter et al. 2009). Objective
measurement of posture and muscle activity should be
matched to tasks and ICT use, at work and away-
from-work. Knowledge about tasks performed and
ICT used among office workers, combined with
knowledge of the patterns of postures and muscle
loading during these tasks, can assist in better under-
standing the relationship between diversity of external
and internal exposures, the potential for creating
exposure variation by combining the tasks, and
possibly the associated risk or no-risk of MSDs.
4.5. Independent observation versus self-report of tasks
and ICT use
The total time observed in different categories of
tasks and ICT was similar to that reported by the
participants in the task diaries, suggesting that the self-
reported time spent performing different tasks and
1025
using ICT over the working week may be a useful
representation. However, there were some differences
suggesting caution. Time spent performing productive
and leisure tasks, and New ICT were over-estimated by
self-report compared to observations and Combined
ICT time was under-estimated. The 30-min scale in
the task diary compared to the minute-to-minute
sensitivity of the observations may have contributed to
these differences. Self-report times using smaller time
period increments (e.g. 15 min) may improve the
accuracy of time estimates, but may also require the
task diary to be completed more frequently throughout
the day to limit recall error. However, this would
introduce unnatural interruptions to typical task
patterns and durations, and thus change task
exposures.
Direct observation provided accurate detailed
information of participants’ daily task patterns.
However, within groups of office workers, e.g.
secretaries, administrative assistants, there can be a
wide inter-individual variation in tasks performed, and
between groups there may be even greater variation
with some office workers such as call centre operators
that are exposed to the same computer-based short
cycle tasks repeatedly, while other groups, like the
researchers in the present study, may have more
diversified tasks. Therefore, the task and ICT
exposures reported in this study are not representative
of all workers who use computers. Direct observations
or video recordings can improve precision of task
identification and duration, but these exposure
assessment methods are time-consuming and expensive
(Van Eerd et al. 2009). Self-report measures are less
burdensome to researchers, but obtaining precise data
requires greater commitment by workers to document
all tasks regularly throughout the day, and thus task
diaries are not favoured by workers (Van Eerd et al.
2009). However, self-report measures may be the
only available method practicable for large samples,
unless exposure information can be obtained from
work ICT systems, such as registrations of customer
contacts at call centres, or from registration software
downloaded to the computers of the participants
(Blangsted et al. 2004, Richter et al. 2008, Chang
et al. 2010).
4.7. Sampling tasks and ICT use on 1 day versus
5 days
At a group level, the time spent using different ICT on
the day of observation was similar to that during days
2–5, suggesting that the pattern of ICT use did not
depend to any notable extent on the day of the week.
Self-care and instrumental tasks were also
performed for similar amounts across the five work
 1026 M. Ciccarelli et al.
days; however, productive tasks on the day of
observation were performed for significantly longer
than on days 2–5; while time in leisure tasks during
the observation was less than on days 2–5. This may
have been due either to systematic effects of having
an observer present or the inability to participate in
certain leisure tasks because of the direct monitoring
equipment worn by participants. When participants
were asked about the day of observation, those who
reported differences stated the monitoring equipment
was the reason.
While the observation day did, in some respects,
seem to differ systematically in exposure from non-
observation days, we found a generally large varia-
bility between days in the proportions of task
Downloaded by [Kungliga Tekniska Hogskola] at 05:49 07 October 2014
categories and ICT use of a specific individual. This
suggests that exposure variation for the individual is
increased by doing different tasks on different days, as
compared to the variation obtained during one specific
day.
5. Limitations
The labour intensive nature of the direct observation
limited observations of each participant to one
work day in the current study. More days of
observation may better determine the ‘typical’ activity
patterns across the week, if indeed such patterns exist
(Wahlström et al. 2010). Further studies comparing
tasks and ICT use by office workers on workdays
versus non-workdays are also recommended, to
determine if non-work days enhance exposure diversity
and thus may reduce the risk of MSDs.
The study sample was purposively selected from
staff and graduate students at a University. This
combined with the small sample size limits the
generalisability of the study results beyond the study
sample and populations in similar settings.
6. Conclusion
This study has provided the first rich description of the
occurrence of productive, self-care, leisure and instru-
mental tasks and ICT use of office workers at work and
away-from-work. When performing productive, self-
care, leisure and instrumental tasks, the 24 participants
used different ICT. Computer-based New ICT and
Combined ICT tasks were alternated with tasks
involving Old and Non-ICT, thereby contributing to
the participants’ overall daily diversity of tasks, and
possibly even increased exposure variation.
The location of office workers influenced the tasks
performed and ICT used and thus diversity. The
proportion of time spent engaged in the different tasks
changed between work and away-from-work locations.
New ICT was used more at the workplace during
productive tasks, whilst more Non-ICT was used
when performing instrumental and self-care tasks in
away-from-work locations.
There were differences in self-reported and
independent observations of time spent performing
tasks and using ICT. Participant self-reports
over-estimated the time spent using New ICT and
performing productive and leisure tasks, compared to
observation data. Differences in the time-resolution of
the two measurement methods may have contributed
to over- or under-estimation in the self-report data.
This information about diversity in tasks and ICT,
as well as their diversity between days, provides an
elementary understanding of external exposure to risks
associated with office work, especially computer-based
tasks. This work provides a basis for matching tasks
and the ICT used with associated postures and muscle
loads, which will assist in assessing diversity of internal
exposures at work and away-from-work, and
determining relationships between exposure variation
and risks of developing MSDs among office workers.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank Mr Paul Davey for writing the
LabVIEWTM software programme used for the data
processing and Mr James Lyra for assistance with task
observations. A National Health and Medical Research
Council of Australia Public Health Scholarship and a research
grant from the Occupational Therapists’ Registration Board
of Western Australia supported this study.
Note
1. The sum of time spent in different task categories was
less than the total observation period due to rounding
error.
References
Aarås, A., 1987. Postural load and the development of
musculo-skeletal illness. Scandinavian Journal of
Rehabilitation Medicine, 18, 5–35.
Arvidsson, I., et al., 2006. Changes in physical workload with
implementation of mouse-based information technology
in air traffic control. International Journal of Industrial
Ergonomics, 36 (7), 613–622.
Arvidsson, I., et al., 2008. Neck postures in air traffic
controllers with and without neck/shoulder disorders.
Applied Ergonomics, 39 (2), 255–260.
Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2009a. 8129.0 Business use of
information technology, 2007–08 [online]. Available from:
http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Lookup/
8129.0MainþFeatures12007–08?OpenDocument
[Accessed 8 August 2011].
Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2009b. 8146.0 – Household
use of information technology, Australia, 2008–09.
Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics.
Balci, R. and Aghazadeh, F., 2003. The effect of work-rest
schedules and type of task on the discomfort and
performance of VDT users. Ergonomics, 46 (5), 455–465.
 Ergonomics
Blangsted, A., Hansen, K., and Jensen, C., 2004. Validation
of a commercial software package for quantification
of computer use. International Journal of Industrial
Ergonomics, 34, 237–241.
Blatter, B. and Bongers, P., 2002. Duration of computer use
and mouse use in relation to musculoskeletal disorders
of neck or upper limb. International Journal of Industrial
Ergonomics, 30 (4–5), 295–306.
Chang, C., et al., 2010. Daily self-reports resulted in
information bias when assessing exposure duration to
computer use. American Journal of Industrial Medicine,
53, 1142–1149.
Curtin University, 2011. Ethics, equity and social justice: work
and family [online]. Available from: http://eesj.curtin.
edu.au/employment/workandfamily.html [Accessed 8
September 2011].
Fenety, A. and Walker, J., 2002. Short-term effects of
workstation exercises on musculoskeletal discomfort and
postural changes in seated video display unit workers.
Downloaded by [Kungliga Tekniska Hogskola] at 05:49 07 October 2014
Physical Therapy, 82 (6), 578–589.
Fernström, E. and Åborg, C., 1999. Alterations in shoulder
muscle activity due to changes in data entry organisation.
International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 23 (3),
231–240.
Gerr, F., et al., 2002. A prospective study of computer
users:1. Study design and incidence of musculoskeletal
disorders. American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 41
(4), 221–235.
Gerr, F., Marcus, M., and Monteilh, C., 2004. Epidemiology
of musculoskeletal disorders among computer users:
lesson learned from the role of posture and keyboard
use. Journal of Electromyography & Kinesiology, 14 (1),
25–31.
Grandjean, E., 1969. Fitting the task to the man. London:
Taylor & Francis.
Griffiths, K., Mackey, M., and Adamson, B., 2007. The
impact of a computerized work environment on profes-
sional occupational groups and behavioural and physio-
logical risk factors for musculoskeletal symptoms: a
literature review. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation,
17 (4), 743–765.
Haddon, L. and Silverstone, R., 1992. Information and
communication technologies in the home: the case for
teleworking [online]. Available from: http://www.mot.
chalmers.se/dept/tso/haddon/cict.pdf [Accessed 5 May
2006].
Hägg, G., 1991. Static work loads and occupational myalgia –
a new explanation model. In: P. Anderson, D. Hobart,
and J. Danoff, eds. Electromyographical kinesiology.
Amsterdam, Elsevier Science, 141–144.
Hägg, G. and Åström, A., 1997. Load pattern and pressure
pain threshold in the upper trapezius and psychosocial
factors in medical secretaries with and without shoulder/
neck disorders. International Archives of Occupational
and Environmental Health, 69 (6), 423–432.
Hardill, I. and Green, A., 2003. Remote working – altering
the spatial contours of work and home in the new
economy. New Technology, Work and Employment, 18
(3), 212–222.
Heinrich, J., Blatter, B., and Bongers, P., 2004. A compar-
ison of methods for the assessment of postural load and
duration of computer use. Occupational and Environ-
mental Medicine, 61 (12), 1027–1031.
Henning, R., et al., 1997. Frequent short rest breaks from
computer work: effects on productivity and well-being at
two field sites. Ergonomics, 40 (1), 78–91.
1027
Homan, M. and Armstrong, T., 2003. Evaluation of three
methodologies for assessing work activity during
computer use. American Industrial Hygiene Association
Journal, 64 (1), 48–55.
Ijmker, S., et al., 2007. Should office workers spend fewer
hours at their computer? A systematic review of the
literature. Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 64
(4), 211–222.
Jensen, C., et al., 2002. Musculoskeletal symptoms and
duration of computer and mouse use. International
Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 30 (4–5), 265–275.
Jonsson, B., 1988. The static load component in muscle
work. European Journal of Applied Physiology, 57 (3),
305–310.
Katz, J., et al., 2000. Prevalence of upper extremity
musculoskeletal disorders in college students. American
Journal of Medicine, 109 (7), 586–588.
Marcus, M., et al., 2002. A prospective study of computer
users: II. Postural risk factors for musculoskeletal
symptoms and disorders. American Journal of Industrial
Medicine, 41 (4), 236–249.
Mathiassen, S., 2006. Diversity and variation in
biomechanical exposure: what is it, and why would we
like to know? Applied Ergonomics, 37 (4), 419–427.
Mathiassen, S., Möller, T., and Forsman, M., 2003.
Variability in mechanical exposure within and between
individuals performing a highly constrained industrial
work task. Ergonomics, 46 (8), 800–824.
Mclean, L., et al., 2001. Computer terminal work and the
benefit of microbreaks. Applied Ergonomics, 32 (3),
225–237.
Möller, T., et al., 2004. Job enlargement and mechanical
exposure variability in cyclic assembly work. Ergonomics,
47 (1), 19–40.
National Occupational Health and Safety Commission, 2006.
The national workers’ compensation statistics database
[online]. Commonwealth of Australia. Available
from: http://nosi2.nohsc.gov.au/site.taf?go¼assisted&_
UserReference¼1F4B68F43BE6F41F44826574
[Accessed 18 May 2006].
Richter, J., et al., 2009. Differences in muscle load between
computer and non-computer work among office workers.
Ergonomics, 52, 1540–1555.
Richter, J., et al., 2008. Computer work duration and its
dependence on the used pause definition. Applied
Ergonomics, 39, 772–778.
Schneider, S., Davis, K., and Jorgensen, M., 2005. Pros
and cons of job rotation as a means of reducing injury
costs. Journal of Occupational and Environmental
Hygiene, 2 (1), D1–D3.
Straker, L., 1999. Body discomfort assessment tools. In: W.
Karwowski and W. Marras, eds. The occupational
ergonomics handbook. 1st ed. Boca Raton, USA: CRC
Press, 1239–1252.
Straker, L. and Mathiassen, S.E., 2009. Increased
physical work loads in modern work – a necessity for
better health and performance? Ergonomics, 52 (10),
1215–1225.
Sullivan, C., 2003. What’s in a name? Definitions and
conceptualisations of teleworking and homeworking.
New Technology, Work and Employment, 18 (3), 158–165.
Szeto, G., Straker, L., and O’sullivan, P., 2005. A
comparison of symptomatic and asymptomatic office
workers performing monotonous keyboard work-2:
neck and shoulder kinematics. Manual Therapy, 10 (4),
281–291.
 1028 M. Ciccarelli et al.
Tornqvist, E., et al., 2009. The influence of working
conditions and individual factors on the incidence of
neck and upper limb symptoms among professional
computer users. International Archives of Occupational
and Environmental Health, 82, 689–702.
Unge, J., et al., 2005. Validity of self-assessed reports of
occurrence and duration of occupational tasks. Ergo-
nomics, 48 (1), 12–24.
Van Den Heuvel, S., et al., 2005. The effect of physical
activity in leisure time on neck and upper limb
symptoms. Preventive Medicine, 41 (1), 260–267.
Van Eerd, D., et al., 2009. Task exposures in an office
environment: a comparison of methods. Ergonomics, 52
(10), 1248–1258.
Veiersted, K., Westgaard, R., and Andersen, P., 1993.
Electromyographic evaluation of muscular work pattern
as a predictor of trapezius myalgia. Scandinavian Journal
of Work Environment and Health, 19 (4), 284–290.
Village, J., 2005. Musculoskeletal disorders of the upper
Downloaded by [Kungliga Tekniska Hogskola] at 05:49 07 October 2014
extremity associated with computer work: a systematic
review. Occupational Ergonomics, 5 (4), 205.
Wahlström, J., 2005. Ergonomics, musculoskeletal disorders
and computer work. Occupational Medicine, 55 (3),
168–176.
Wahlström, J., et al., 2010. Upper arm postures and
movements in female hairdressers across four full
working days. Annals of Occupational Hygiene, 54 (5),
584–594. doi:10.1093/annhyg/meq028.
Westgaard, R. and Winkel, J., 1996. Guidelines for
occupational musculoskeletal load as a basis for
intervention: a critical review. Applied Ergonomics, 27 (2),
79–88.
Winkel, J. and Mathiassen, S., 1994. Assessment of physical
work load in epidemiologic studies: concepts, issues
and operational considerations. Ergonomics, 37 (6),
979–988.
Youngstrom, M., et al., 2002. Occupational therapy practice
framework: domain and process. American Journal of
Occupational Therapy, 56 (6), 609–639.