See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/346653894

Determinants of Computer Ergonomic Hazards among Office Workers in Klang

Valley, Malaysia

Article  in  Asian Journal of Education and Social Studies · December 2020

DOI: 10.9734/AJESS/2020/v13i230325

CITATIONS READS
0 990

6 authors, including:

Halimi Poniran Noor Nasyikin Md. Zain

Universiti Selangor (UNISEL), Shah Alam, Malaysia UNISEL | Universiti Selangor
12 PUBLICATIONS   26 CITATIONS    8 PUBLICATIONS   7 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Noor Malinda Mohamed Mohan Fazilah Tamsir

UNISEL | Universiti Selangor UNISEL | Universiti Selangor
7 PUBLICATIONS   9 CITATIONS    9 PUBLICATIONS   7 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Determinants of Computer Ergonomic Hazards among Office Workers in Klang Valley, Malaysia View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Noor ayuernie Ibrahim on 06 December 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Asian Journal of Education and Social Studies

13(2): 1-11, 2020; Article no.AJESS.62593

ISSN: 2581-6268

Determinants of Computer Ergonomic Hazards

among Office Workers in Klang Valley, Malaysia
Halimi Poniran1*, Noor Nasyikin Md Zain1, Noor Malinda Mohamed Mohan1,
Fazilah Tamsir1 and Noor Ayuernie Ibrahim1
1
Faculty of Business & Accountancy, Universiti Selangor, 40000 Shah Alam, Selangor Malaysia.

Authors’ contributions

This work was done in collaboration among all the five authors. Each of the authors managed their
own parts as distributed in the earlier stage of research, but all the authors have proof read and
approved the final.

Article Information

DOI: 10.9734/AJESS/2020/v13i230325
Editor(s):
(1) Dr. M. Camino Escolar-Llamazares, University of Burgos, Spain.
Reviewers:
(1) Marluce Rodrigues Godinho, Federal University of Juiz de Fora, Brazil.
(2) Prof. Arup Barman, Assam University, India.
Complete Peer review History: http://www.sdiarticle4.com/review-history/62593

Received 08 September 2020

Accepted 13 November 2020
Original Research Article
Published 05 December 2020

ABSTRACT

Extent of computer usage in public and private sectors had been greatly increased in recent
decades carrying the risk of several health hazards. Due to the impact of computer ergonomic
hazards on office workers, this study is conducted to evaluate the awareness and determinants of
computer ergonomic hazards among office workers in Klang Valley. A total of 340 office workers
from 4 district areas were selected using online survey. Independent sample t-test and standard
multiple regression was used to analyse the data. The finding of this study reveals that the
respondents possess a high level of awareness of computer ergonomics hazards especially the
long hours of computer usage can affect their health conditions. Consistent with the Activity
Theory, this study suggests that the design of workstation has an impact on computer ergonomic
hazards. This study gives the office management as well as policy-makers the opportunity to take
necessary steps such as arranging training and development programmes, prepare guidelines on
the awareness of computer ergonomic hazards, and redesign the workstation’s furniture and setup
following worldwide prominent ergonomic standard and guidelines.

Keywords: Computer Ergonomic Hazards; workstation design; workplace environment; activity theory.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

*Corresponding author: Email: halimi_poniran@unisel.edu.my;

 Poniran et al.; AJESS, 13(2): 1-11, 2020; Article no.AJESS.62593
1. INTRODUCTION
The advancement in information and
communication technology has brought about
increasingly innovative ways of doing business in
the workplace. According to [1], the need to use
computers increases as computer technology
advance, software, and computer packages are
being developed in this era. However, working on
computer for prolonged periods of time can
actually be harmful to the overall health.
Therefore, the presence of appropriate working
workstation and their compliance with standards
are the most important factors in exploring many
health concerns regards to occupational hazards
[2].
Computer ergonomic hazards linked to the usage
of technological equipment often go unnoticed
until the user experienced some discomfort [3].
This is because such hazards usually occur
gradually over a long period of time. According to
[4], there are certain percentage of the employee
workforce who made use of computers
experienced pain in the neck, by [5] who also
discovered that the largest increase in back-ache
was seen among computing back, hand, arm,
tingling, numbness and exhaustion. This was
supported professionals and technicians.
According to [6], working in an unpleasant and
distressed condition, can cause various
discomfort in the body organs. If people work for
a long time in such situations, they may suffer
from discomforts in the musculoskeletal system
and ultimately experience the occupational
burnout. Therefore, the presence of inappropriate
working environment conditions and their non-
compliance with standards are the most
important factors in exploring many health
concerns and occupational diseases [7].
It has been discovered that high performance
(requirements) with high technology can exercise
a dangerous influence on human personality and
that anyone who is constantly working or playing
with computers is at risk [8]. Among the key
issues related to optimal human interaction with
computers were the physical layout of the
computing environment, lighting levels and
sound levels, chair and table setting [9].
However, computer ergonomic hazards
experienced by office workers have not been
given much attention in Malaysia. The question
to be asked is, are the office workers aware of
ergonomics of computer uses? Due to the impact
of computer ergonomic hazards on office
workers, the present study aims at identifying the
2
determinants of computer ergonomic hazards.
Specifically, the study intends to examine the
influence of workstation design and workplace
environment towards computer ergonomic
hazards.
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
Ergonomic is a scientific study of people, their
work and their environment [10]. Ergonomics is
essentially about "fitting work to people" [11]. It is
the process of designing or arranging
workplaces, products and systems so that they fit
the people who use them [11]. Ergonomics is a
tool which business owners and managers can
use to help prevent the injuries in the office [12].
Ergonomics attempts to reduce the risk of injury
by adapting the work to fit the person instead of
giving the person to adapt to the work [13]. In
addition to injury prevention, ergonomics is also
concerned with enhancing work performance, by
removing the barriers that exist in many work
places that prevent employees from performing
to the best of their abilities. Therefore, another
benefit of applying ergonomics to office work
is that it helps people work more
effectively, efficiently and productively at their
jobs [14].
In recent years, the main focus of office
ergonomics has been on computer work due to
the rapid increase in computer use in the modern
office and the associated increase in injuries.
Computer ergonomics is a field of study which
aims to reduce the effects of working at a
computer for an extended period of time by
improving the placement of computer monitor,
desk, keyboard as well as accessories that can
be used [15]. Among the computers, laptop also
is found to be not ergonomically designed for
prolonged use because of the monitor and
keyboard that are close together where they
cannot both be in a good position at the same
time [16].
Principles of ergonomics suggests working with
natural postures, keep work element within easy
reach, work at proper heights, minimizing
pressure points, provide clearance, work with
comfortable weather [17]. Otherwise, it might
hazards to the employees. Computer ergonomic
hazards are associated with use of computer,
including improper posture, prolonged and
uninterrupted work, and poor design of computer
workstation [18]. Besides, computer ergonomic
hazards include repetitive and forceful
movements, vibration temperature extremes and
 Poniran et al.; AJESS, 13(2): 1-11, 2020; Article no.AJESS.62593
awkward postures that arise from improper work
methods and improperly designed work stations,
tools and equipment [19]. Ergonomic injuries
include strains which can be caused by
performing the same motion over and over again
such as eye lesions, headache, and
musculoskeletal diseases such as carpal tunnel
syndrome, tenosynovitis, tendinitis, and synovitis
[20].
To understand more about the determinants of
computer ergonomic hazards, this study focuses
on the perspective of workstation design and
workplace environment towards computer
ergonomic hazards. Fig. 1. shows the research
framework for this study. Building upon Activity
Theory [21],[22], this study attempt to sketch a
new framework for understanding how office
workers interact with computer with the aim to
reach specific outcomes related to their computer
usage. Activity Theory aimed at elucidating and
explaining the relationships between “subjects,”
“objects,” and “tools” used to transform these
objects [21],[22]. Subjects, objects and tools
constitute what can be termed “activity system.”
In plain words, every activity – which consists of
a set of intentionally performed goal-directed
actions [23] – can be captured as an interaction
between a subject and an object with the aim of
transforming the object through the use of
various tools [24].
2.1 Workstation Design towards
Computer Ergonomic Hazards
The term “workstation” has been used loosely to
refer to everything from a mainframe computer
terminal to a PC connected to a network [25].
Workstation should be designed in a form to
increase the comfort of a user working for long
periods at a computer [26]. According to
Occupational Safety and Health Academy
(OSHA) (2017), workstation design ergonomics
involves the designing of workstations, work
practices, and work flow to fit the employees’
capabilities. It also involves a design that
reduces risk factors that may contribute to
common work related injuries and illnesses, such
as sprains and strain and cumulative trauma
disorders (CTDs) [27]. These are common
employees’ safety issues that occur as a result of
accumulated strain on the employee for a period
of time [28]. For example, the design of work
spaces that make employees to work in awkward
postures some portion/all the time may result in
excessive effort, fatigue and discomfort of the
employee.
3
Discomfort and an improper position in the
workstation can negatively affect overall health
and productivity. Poor workstation design,
awkward and repetitive body movements and
other ergonomic hazards induce or contribute to
a staggering number of cumulative trauma
disorders (CTD) which affect hands, wrists,
elbows, arms, shoulder, the lower back and the
cervical spine area [29]. As a result, occupational
health and safety problems are continuously
increasing. This, obviously, can lead to reduced
and affect human performance and
dissatisfaction of employee in the organization
itself. Contrary, a good computer ergonomic
workplace design not only maximise the
capabilities of workers by increasing productivity
and job satisfaction, but also benefits the
employer by decreasing the cost for health [30].
In other word, ergonomics enables “fitting the task
to the worker” [31].
Based on these discussions, this study
conjectures that workstation design is one of the
important determinants in computer ergonomic
hazards. Therefore, this study conjectures the
following hypothesis.
H1: There is a significant relationship between
workstation design and computer ergonomic
hazards.
2.2 Workplace Environment towards
Computer Ergonomic Hazards
Workplace environment is one of the risk factors
for the computer ergonomic hazards [32].
Adverse workplace environmental conditions can
require more energy and time, which certainly
does not support obtaining an efficient and
productive work system design [33]. Workers
need a comfortable work environment to be able
to work optimally and productively; therefore the
work environment must handle and designed so
that it is conducive for workers to carry out
activities in a safe and comfortable atmosphere
[34]. The workplace environmental evaluation
carried out by measuring workplace conditions
and knowing workers' responses to exposure to
the work environment [35]. A working
environment said to be good if, under certain
conditions, humans can carry out their activities
optimally [36]. Contrary, incompatibility of the
work environment with humans who work in the
environment can see its impact within a specified
period. Work environment factors, tools, and
methods significantly affect productivity. To get
high productivity, these factors must be
compatible with the abilities, abilities, and limits
of human workers [37].
 Poniran et al.; AJESS, 13(2): 1-11, 2020; Article no.AJESS.62593
Fig. 1. Conceptual framework
According to [38], the physical workplace
environment, such as the office layout, shared
office space, as well as situational aspects, such
as ambient noise, lighting, room temperature and
air humidity, may also represent risk factors for
health and have an influence on the employees'
work performance and well-being. Similarly, [39]
agreed that the environment or visual of the work
that can affect the well-being of office works in
many ways such as, glare from luminaries or
windows may cause discomfort and reduced
performance in visually demanding work tasks.
Therefore, the organization should cover all
aspects of the workplace environment, such as
workstation arrangement, task demands, and the
worker’s perceived visual comfort [39].
Based on the discussions, this study assumes
that workplace environment is one of the
predictors in computer ergonomic hazards.
Therefore, this study predicts the following
hypothesis.
H2: There is a significant relationship between
workplace environment and computer ergonomic
hazards.
3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This study employs a cross-sectional research
design using quantitative approach [40]. Besides,
self-administered questionnaire has been
adopted to collect data about the underlying
constructs proposed in the theoretical model.
The cross-sectional is used since the data was
collected at one particular time across the
selected respondents [41]. The use of such
methods may gather accurate, less bias, and
high quality data.
4
3.1 Data Collection Procedure
The sampling frame of this study is office
workers in the area of Klang Valley. Specifically,
there are four districts area involved in this study
namely as Klang, Shah Alam, Subang Jaya, and
Petaling Jaya. This study follows decision model
table proposed by [42] to determine the
necessary sample size because their sample
decision model is claimed to be able to provide a
good sampling decision. Since the population of
the office workers in Klang Valley is more than
100 thousand, this study requires at least 384
sample size to establish as representatives of
this study’s population. The convenience
sampling method is used in collecting the data
based on who are conveniently available to
provide it [40]. A total of 342 valid questionnaires
were acquired from the online survey, making a
return rate of 89.1% out of 384 targeted
respondents. After checking all the survey
received, there are two (2) surveys were partially
completed and thus excluded from the total
returned eligible for analysis. The final number of
accepted surveys used in the data analysis was
340 surveys.
3.2 Survey Instruments
The survey questionnaire consists of four (4)
sections. Section A contains of five (5) personal
information questions that related to gender, age,
race, district, and daily computer usage. Section
B focused on dependent variable to be tested
which is the computer ergonomic hazards faced
by the respondents adapted from ergonomic
questionnaire developed by [43]. Further, Section
C and Section D consists of items regards to
 Poniran et al.; AJESS, 13(2): 1-11, 2020; Article no.AJESS.62593

independent variables. Standard Nordic Further, the assessment of normality of the

questionnaire adapted from [44] is used to
evaluate workstation design. While workplace
environment which consists of room temperature,
visual, indoor air quality, acoustics, and lighting
were operationalized based on the work of [45].
All constructs is measured on a five-point Likert
scale with the anchors of (1) “strongly disagree”
to (5) “strongly agree”.
As a preliminary analysis of the data collected,
the reliability assessment of the scales was
carried out by calculating the values of the
Cronbach’s alpha for each subscale separately.
According to [40], reliability coefficient test
indicates how well the items in a set which
positively correlated from one another. Variables
can be considered as reliable if the Cronbach’s
alpha value was set to 0.7 and above [46],[47].
Table 1 depicts that all variables measuring
computer ergonomic hazards (workstation design
and workplace environment) ranging from values
0.937 to 0.955. Besides, the highest Cronbach’s
Alpha value is obtained for the subscales of
items in the workplace environment construct (α
= 0.983). Hence, the internal consistencies of all
constructs are considered acceptable since each
reliability testing exceeds the suggested
threshold.
metric variables in this study involves empirical
measures of a distribution’s shape characteristics
(skewness and kurtosis). Table 1 shows that the
normality assessment values for workstation
design, workplace environment, and computer
ergonomic hazards are between ±2.00 as
suggested by [46]. Therefore, this assessment
confirmed that the data of this study is normally
distributed.
Next, multicollinearity testing was done to
examine the relationships among the
independent variables. Multicollinearity exists
when the independent variables are highly
correlated, with r value of more than 0.9 [47]. The
correlation coefficient results between the
variables are indicated in Table 2. All the
independent variables show at least some
positive relationship with the dependent variable,
and the correlations between independent
variables are less than 0.7.
To further check for multicollinearity, a
collinearity diagnostics test (tolerance and VIF
values) was conducted. As shown in Table 3, the
tolerance values are greater than 0.10 and the
VIF values are lower than 10; hence, no
multicollinearity problem exists [47].

Table 1. Reliability and normality results

Variables Cronbach's Skewness Kurtosis Items

Alpha
Workstation Design 0.937 -0.018 0.015 10
Workplace Environment 0.983 0.168 -0.073 10
Computer Ergonomic Hazards 0.955 1.630 1.954 7

Table 2. Pearson correlation coefficient results

Workstation Workplace C. Ergonomic

Design Environment Hazards
Workstation Design 1 .528*** .197**
*
Workplace Environment 1 .156
C. Ergonomic Hazards 1
*** ** *
Note: Correlation is significant at 1% level, 5% level and 10% level, respectively, using two-tailed tests

Table 3. Collinearity diagnostics results

Variables Collinearity Statistics

Tolerance VIF
Workstation Design 0.792 1.262
Workplace Environment 0.976 1.025

5
 Poniran et al.; AJESS, 13(2): 1-11, 2020; Article no.AJESS.62593
4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Fig. 2a depicts unsurprisingly that female are
more than the male as 62.7% of the study’s
participants were female as compared to 37.3%
males. Further, Fig. 2b shows that majority of the
respondents are between 22 and 24 years old.
They make up more than half (57.3%) of the total
responses to the survey given. The race status of
the respondents as depicted in Fig. 2c shows
that 188 (55.3%) of respondents are Malay, while
Chinese make up the second largest
respondents in this study with 26% of
participation. Indian respondents are the least
participate in this study (18.7%). In terms of
district area of working (Fig. 2d), majority of the
respondents (30.7%) currently worked in Shah
Alam, followed by Subang Jaya (28.6%). There
are almost equal participation from respondents
worked in Klang and Petaling Jaya. Finally, Fig.
2e shows that majority of the respondents in this
study have been used computer between 4 to 6
hours on a daily basis (67.3%). While there are
18.7% of respondents worked using computer
between 7 to 9 hours. Respondents with daily
usage of computer are only 6.7%. This group of
respondent can be considered as heavy usage of
computer in their daily work.
4.1 The Awareness of Computer
Ergonomic Hazards
This section reports and discusses the findings of
the study which relate to the awareness of
computer ergonomics hazards by the office
workers in Klang Valley. One sample t-test was
conducted to test whether the mean of overall
perceived awareness of computer ergonomic
hazards is significantly equal to or different from
a specified constant. Table 4 shows the mean
result of 4.065 for computer ergonomic hazards
which indicates that respondents considered
themselves as aware of the hazards from
computer ergonomic and it is statistically
significant at 1% level. Overall, majority of the
respondents were aware that the long hours of
computer usage can affect their health condition.
Besides, respondents also revealed they know
that staying in the same position and using the
same muscle for hours at a time is not good for
their back and neck. In addition, respondents
also strongly agreed that poor ergonomic
position can cause ergonomic pain.
An independent samples t-test was conducted to
compare the awareness of computer ergonomics
hazards among office workers in different
6
gender. Table 5 shows that there is a significant
difference in the level of awareness of computer
ergonomics hazards between male and female
office workers in Klang Valley (T(2, 340)=
89.773, p value >.10). This result indicates that
the awareness on computer ergonomic hazards
between male and female is different. The mean
value result shows that female officer workers
had slightly higher awareness on computer
ergonomic hazards than male office workers.
This result is consistent with [48] who found that
females were more exposed to the knowledge of
computer ergonomic hazards as compare to
males.
4.2 Determinants of Computer Ergonomic
Hazards
This section reports and discusses the findings of
the study which is to identify the determinants of
computer ergonomic hazards among office
workers in Klang Valley. The results in Table 6
shows that the regression model (F (2, 340) =
30.193, p value = 0.000) is significant at the 1%
level, but the overall fit of the model is moderare
2
with R value of 29.1% of the variation in the
computer ergonomic hazards. Approximately,
29.1% of the total variability in the computer
ergonomic hazards is accounted for by the
predictor variables collectively in the model. The
other 70.9% may be due to other factors which
not explained by the model.
With reference to Table 6, result shows that the
relationship between workstation design and
computer ergonomic hazards is positive (t =
7.234; p =.000) and it is statistically significant at
1% level. Therefore, this finding leads to the
acceptance of H1. This signifies that when the
design of workstation has an impact on computer
ergonomic hazards. Perhaps, inappropriate
design, poor computer facilities, repetitive work,
and close distance of the monitor screen cause
ergonomic hazards such as shoulder and neck
pain, musculoskeletal disorder problems, and
body posture. This result is consistent with
previous studies where they suggested that poor
workstation design, awkward and repetitive body
movements and other ergonomic hazards induce
or contribute to a staggering number of hazards
which affect hands, wrists, elbows, arms,
shoulder, the lower back and the cervical spine
area [27,28,29].
Further, as it can be observed from the results in
Table 6, workplace environment were positively
related to computer ergonomic hazards (t =
 Poniran et al.; AJESS, 13(2): 1-11, 2020;; Article no.AJESS.62593
no.

1.676; p >.05), but it is not significant. Therefore,
H2 was not supported. This result indicates that
workplace environment does not contribute to the
computer ergonomic hazards. Perhaps, the
respondents are able to work in whatever
condition of workplace environment and it is not
an important factortor for ergonomic in the
workplace. This result is contradicted with
previous studies as majority of works suggested
that environment can affect the well
well-being of
office workers in many ways such as discomfort
and reduced performance [39].

57.3%
60

50
37.3%
40
62.7% 30
20.7%
20 11.3% 10%
10
0.7%
Male
0
Female 18-21 yrs 22-24 yrs 25-28 yrs 29-32
32 yrs > 33 yrs

Fig. 2a. Gender of respondents

espondents Fig. 2b. Age group of respondents

35 30.7%
28.6%
30
18.7%
25 20.7% 20%
20
55.3% 15
26.0%
10
5
Malay 0
Chinese Shah Subang Klang Petaling
Alam Jaya Jaya
Indian

Fig. 2c. Race of respondents

espondents Fig. 2d. District area of respondents

> 10 hrs 6.7%

7-9 hrs 18.7%

4-6 hrs 67.3%

1-3 hrs 7.3%

0 20 40 60 80

Fig. 2e. Daily computer usage

Table 4. Awareness of computer ergonomic hazards perceived by the office workers

n Mean One Sample T-Test

T
t-statistic p value
Computer Ergonomic Hazards 340 4.065 89.773 .000***
Note: Result is significantly different at *** 1% level and ** 5% level, respectively, using two-tailed
tailed tests

7
 Poniran et al.; AJESS, 13(2): 1-11, 2020; Article no.AJESS.62593

Table 5. The Awareness of computer ergonomic hazards among office workers in different
gender

Gender n Computer Ergonomic Independent

Hazards Samples t-test
Mean SD t-statistic p value
Male 127 3.982 0.524 3.175 .077*
Female 213 4.112 0.568
Note: Result is significantly different between mean at the *** 1% level and ** 5% level, respectively, using two-
tailed tests

Table 6. Determinants of computer ergonomic hazards

Hypotheses Std. Beta t-statistic p value

Coefficient
Intercept 4.175 .000***
***
Workstation Design H1 0.509 7.234 .000
Workplace Environment H2 0.118 1.676 .096ns
Model Summary
R2 value 29.1%
Anova Results
F-value 30.193
Sig. value .000***
Obs. 340
Note: Association is significant at *** 1% level, ** 5% level, respectively, using two-tailed tests

5. CONCLUSION awareness level of their workers and take

When a worker understands and learns about
ergonomics, it helps to improve the working
environment. Consequently, the workers can
work comfortably and use a minimum amount of
energy effectively. This study highlighted the
awareness of computer ergonomics hazards
among office workers in Klang Valley, and the
results showed that they possess a high level of
awareness of computer ergonomics hazards in
which the mean score is 4.065. Further, this
study clearly shows that female officer workers
had slightly higher awareness on computer
ergonomic hazards than male office workers.
Further, this study discovers that workstation
design has an impact on computer ergonomic
hazards. This signifies that inappropriate design,
poor computer facilities, repetitive work, and
close distance of the monitor screen cause
ergonomic hazards such as shoulder and neck
pain, musculoskeletal disorder problems, and
body posture. The influence of workplace design
towards computer ergonomic hazards is
consistent with the Activity Theory [21],[22] that
argued the interaction of office workers with
computer and poor workstation design caused
ergonomic hazards.
The findings of the study will be helpful for the
office management in order to know the
necessary steps such as arranging training and
development programmes. The management
should hence design and implement training
curricula that will empower their workers with the
skills and abilities to make them cope with
computer ergonomic. In addition, the
management also may prepare guidelines to
make awareness about computer ergonomic
hazards and improve them. The redesign of
workstation’s furniture and setup could also
advised to the management whereby the
workstation furniture (chair and desk) could be
based on user’s anthropometric measurements
and following various ergonomic guidelines and
suggestions. Placement of monitor and other
accessories should be adjusted in order to
maintain postural guideline following worldwide
prominent ergonomic standard and guidelines for
computer workstation setup.
However, the findings need to be interpreted with
consideration for its limitations. First, the
responses of this survey are representative of
office workers in four district areas of Klang
Valley only. One area for further research might
be to conduct the study using a larger sample
and a broader geographical base. Second, the
selection for the determinants of computer
ergonomic hazards is not exhaustive. There may
be other predictors that may contribute or be a

8
 Poniran et al.; AJESS, 13(2): 1-11, 2020; Article no.AJESS.62593
reason of ergonomic hazards which might
provide more insight. Thus, further research may
consider to include other predictors such as
human factor, knowledge, or attitude towards
computer ergonomic safety to enrich findings in
various perspectives. Third, the self-reported
behavior on which this study relied are
vulnerable to response bias. There is an
uncertainty regarding the accuracy of responses
because self-reports of computer ergonomic
hazards and their awareness may be less
accurate. To reduce response bias, it is
suggested for future research to use in-depth
techniques applied to secondary data sources
such as interviews or observations. This might
help researcher to explore certain aspects that
cannot be discover using survey questionnaire.
CONSENT
As per international standard or university
standard, participant’s written consent has been
collected and preserved by the author(s).
COMPETING INTERESTS
Authors have declared that no competing
interests exist.
REFERENCES
1. Shikdar AA, Al-Kind MA. Office
ergonomics: Deficiencies in computer
workstation design. International Journal of
Occupational Safety and Ergonomics.
2015;13(2):215-223.
2. Krystosik-Gromadzińska A. Ergonomic
assessment of selected workstations on a
merchant ship. International Journal of
Occupational Safety and Ergonomics.
2018;24(1):91-99.
3. Olasanmi OO. Effect of ergonomic
hazards on job performance of auditors in
Nigeria. American Journal of Industrial and
Business Management. 2016;6(1):33-44.
4. Sirajudeen MS, Siddik SSM. Knowledge of
computer ergonomics among computer
science engineering and information
technology employees in Karnataka, India.
Asian Journal of Pharmaceutical Research
and Health Care. 2017;9(2):64-70.
5. Wahlström J. Ergonomics,
musculoskeletal disorders and computer
work. Occupational Medicine. 2005;55(3):
168-176.
6. Bagheri S, Ghaljahi M. Ergonomic
evaluation of musculoskeletal disorders
9
with rapid office strain assessment and its
association with occupational burnout
among computer users at Zabol University
of Medical Sciences. Asian Journal of
Water, Environment and Pollution. 2017;
91-96.
7. Pavlovic-Veselinovic S, Hedge A,
Veselinovic M. An ergonomic expert
system for risk assessment of work-related
musculo-skeletal disorders. International
Journal of Industrial Ergonomics. 2016;53:
130-139.
8. Olabode SO, Adesanya AR, Bakare AA.
Ergonomics awareness and employee
performance: An exploratory
study. Economic and Environmental
Studies. 2017;17(44):813-829.
9. Chinedu OO, Henry AT, Nene JJ, Okwudili
JD. Work-related musculoskeletal
disorders among office workers in higher
education institutions: A cross-sectional
study. Ethiopia Journal of Health
Science. 2020;30(5):715-721.
10. Kroemer AD, Kroemer KH. Office
ergonomics: Ease and efficiency at work.
CRC Press; 2016.
11. Stack T, Ostrom LT, Wilhelmsen CA.
Occupational ergonomics: A practical
approach. John Wiley & Sons; 2016.
12. Burgess-Limerick R. Participatory
ergonomics: Evidence and implementation
lessons. Applied Ergonomics. 2018;68:
289-293.
13. Zunjic A. A new definition of
ergonomics. IETI transactions on
ergonomics and safety. 2017;1(1):1-6.
14. DeRango K. Office workers' productivity
enhanced by ergonomics. Employment
Research Newsletter. 2003;10(1):1-7.
15. Chenga D, Kinley K, Sonam R. Current
practice of computer and related health
problems: A study of Samtse College of
Education (SCE) office staff based on
ergonomics. DEStech Transactions on
social science, education and human
science. 2019;77-86.
16. Chavda E, Parmar S, Parmar M. Current
practice of laptop computer and related
health problems. International Journal of
Medical and Public Health. 2013;2(4):
1024- 1026.
17. Serina ER, Tal R, Rempel D. Wrist and
forearm postures and motions during
typing. Ergonomics. 2019;42(7):938-951.
18. Bommisetty U, Rajamane M. Impact of
recent advances in ergonomic design and
digital human models in industrial

environment. International Journal
Science and Management Studies. 2018;
1(2):14-19.
19. Khandan M, Arab Z, Koohpaei A. High
ergonomic risk of computer work postures
among Iranian hospital staff: Evidence
from a cross-sectional study. International
Journal of Hospital Research. 2016;5(1):
29-34.
20. Koohpaei A, Zahra MK. High ergonomic
risk of computer work postures among
iranian hospital staff: Evidence from a
cross-sectional study. International Journal
of Hospital Research. 2016;29-35.
21. Leontyev AN. Activity, consciousness, and
personality. Englewood cliffs: Prentice
hall;1978.
22. Vygotsky LS. Mind in Society. The
development of the higher psychological
processes. Cambridge: harvard university
press; 1978.
23. Roth WM. Emotion at work: A contribution
to third-generation cultural-historical
activity theory. Journal of Mind, Culture &
Activity. 2007;14:40-63.
24. Sannino A. Activity theory as an activist
and interventionist theory. Group Dynamic.
2011;21:571-597.
25. Woo EHC, White P, Lai CWK. Ergonomics
standards and guidelines for computer
workstation design and the impact on
users’ health–A review. Ergonomics.
2016;59(3):464-475.
26. Workineh SA, Yamaura H. Multi-position
ergonomic computer workstation design to
increase comfort of computer
work. International Journal of Industrial
Ergonomics. 2016;53:1-9.
27. Hofmann DA, Burke MJ, Zohar D. 100
years of occupational safety research:
From basic protections and work analysis
to a multilevel view of workplace safety
and risk. Journal of Applied Psychology.
2017;102(3):375-389.
28. Curcuruto M, Strauss K, Axtell C, Griffin
MA. Voicing for safety in the workplace: A
proactive goal-regulation
perspective. Safety Science. 2020;131:
104-112.
29. Stanam A, Golla V, Vasa SJ, Taylor RD.
Exposure to computer work and
prevalence of musculoskeletal symptoms
among university employees: A cross-
sectional study. Journal of Environmental
Health. 2019;81(7):104-117.
30. Hadgraft NT, Brakenridge CL, La
Montagne AD, Fjeldsoe BS, Lynch BM,
Poniran et al.; AJESS, 13(2): 1-11, 2020; Article no.AJESS.62593
of Dunsta DW et al. Feasibility and
acceptability of reducing workplace sitting
time: A study with Australian office
workers. BMC Public Health. 2016;16(1):
933-945.
31. Khan R, Surti A, Rehman R, Ali U.
Knowledge and practices of ergonomics in
computer users. Journal of the Pakistan
Medical Association. 2012;62(3):213-224.
32. Kang JH, Park RY, Lee SJ, Kim JY, Yoon
SR, Jung KI. The effect of the forward
head posture on postural balance in long
time computer based worker. Annals of
Rehabilitation Medicine. 2012;36(1):98-
112.
33. Jilcha K, Kitaw D, & Beshah B. Workplace
innovation influence on occupational
safety and health. African Journal of
Science, Technology, Innovation and
Development. 2016; 8(1):33-42.
34. Chafi MB, Harder M, Danielsson CB.
Workspace preferences and non-
preferences in activity-based flexible
offices: Two case studies. Applied
Ergonomics. 2020;83(1):102-114.
35. Tahir N, Aljunid SM, Hashim JH, Begum J.
Burden of noise induced hearing loss
among manufacturing industrial workers in
Malaysia. Iranian Journal of Public Health.
2014;43(3):148-153.
36. Idkhan AM, Baharuddi FR. Comfort
temperature and lighting intensity:
Ergonomics of laboratory room machine
tools. International Journal of Environment,
Engineering and Education. 2019;1(2):53-
58.
37. Alimohammadi I, Sandrock S, Gohari MR.
The effects of low frequency noise on
mental performance and
annoyance. Environmental Monitoring and
Assessment. 2013;185(8):7043-7051.
38. Meidert U, Neumann S, Ehrensberger-
Dow M, Becker H. Physical ergonomics at
translators’ workplaces: Findings from
ergonomic workplace assessments and
interviews. ILCEA. Revue de l’Institut des
langues et cultures d'Europe, Amérique,
Afrique, Asie et Australie. 2016;27(1):65-
78.
39. Heiden M, Zetterberg C, Lindberg P, Nylén
P, Hemphälä H. Validity of a computer-
based risk assessment method for visual
ergonomics. International Journal of
Industrial Ergonomics. 2019;72:180-187.
40. Sekaran U, Bougie R. Research methods
for business: A skill building approach.
John Wiley & Sons; 2016.
10
 Poniran et al.; AJESS, 13(2): 1-11, 2020; Article no.AJESS.62593

41. Creswell JW, Creswell JD. Research 45. Makhbul ZM. Workplace environment
design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed towards emotional health. International
methods approaches. Sage Publications; Journal of Academic Research in Business
2017. and Social Sciences. 2013;3(1):183-197.
42. Krejcie RV, Morgan DW. Determining 46. Hair Jr JF, Wolfinbarger M, Money AH,
sample size for research activities. Samouel P, Page MJ. Essentials of
Educational and Psychology business research methods. Routledge;
Measurement. 1970;30(3):76-91. 2015.
43. Sotoyama M, Bergqvist U, Jonai H, Saito 47. Pallant J. SPSS survival manual: A step by
S. An ergonomic questionnaire survey on step guide to data analysis Using IBM
the use of computers in schools. Industrial SPSS. (6th Ed.). Crows Nest, NSW: Allen
Health. 2002;40(2):135-141. & Unwin; 2016.
44. Kuorinka I, Jonsson B, Kilbom A, 48. Sadaf J, Yaqoob T. Gender based
Vinterberg H, Biering-Sørensen F, occupational health hazards among
Andersson G, Jørgensen K. Standardised paramedical staff in public hospitals of
Nordic questionnaires for the analysis of Jhelum. International Journal of
musculoskeletal symptoms. Applied Humanities and Social Science. 2011;
Ergonomics. 1987;18(3):233-237. 1(3):175-180.

© 2020 Poniran et al.; This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,
provided the original work is properly cited.

Peer-review history:
The peer review history for this paper can be accessed here:
http://www.sdiarticle4.com/review-history/62593

11

View publication stats