Association Between Ergonomics Risk Factors And
RULA Scores Among The Students of Rajshahi
University of Engineering & Technology
Abstract— The purpose of this thesis is to assess the
ergonomic risk factors through the prevalence of
musculoskeletal disorder (MSD) among the students of
Rajshahi University of Engineering & Technology (RUET). The
online based questionnaires comprised of modified Standard
Nordic Questionnaires (SNQ), International Physical Activity
Questionnaires (short form) (IPAQ) and questionnaires for
RULA (Rapid Upper Limb Assessment) posture data. The
online questionnaires helped to collect 123 student data out of
total 5954 students where the majority was male (84%) and
average age of 22.75 (1.85). Data regarding 123 students’ body
site during their times in varsity revealed that forty-one students
(33%) faced MSD prevalence in their lifetime and during their
past year most cases include neck (31%), shoulder (23%) and
upper back (25%). About 101 of 123 students responded to
RULA posture questionnaire which returned the RULA score
of 101 students 5.90 on average. 5.90 indicates existence of
ergonomic risk. Difference of RULA score between academic
session 2018-19 (5.87) and 2015-16 (5.97) was less. RULA scores,
in comparison of MSD prevalence, gave p- value of neck (0.509),
trunk (0.470), wrist (0.225) and lower arm (0.9538). As for online
based survey, the data results in moderate MSD prevalence.
Though RULA scores implied ergonomic intervention,
association with MSD prevalence was not that significant. This
study result clarify that musculoskeletal disorder issues are
present in students of RUET and more cohort study should be
made on large sample size.
Keywords— Ergonomics Risk Factor, MSD, RULA, SNQ,
Cross-sectional, IPAQ.
I. INTRODUCTION
Numerous researchers have presumed that the abnormal
stance status, and absence of ergonomics mindfulness were
the central point that add to the advancement of
musculoskeletal problem (MSD) among students. Also,
several studies involve the anthropometry of sitting and
standing posture regarding students and their furniture. These
studies mostly highlight the mismatch between the student’s
posture and the furniture specially chair-desk ergonomically.
But if this mismatch resides for several years, in any posture
whether sitting or standing, ergonomic risk factors raised as
an issue.
Generally, ergonomic principles are not always a major
concern for students. There is a possibility that for the
continual exposure to ergonomic risk factors, musculoskeletal
disorder might evolve among students during their study years
in university. As ergonomic is less concerned among students,
the classroom organization and the furniture sometimes do not
support an ergonomic design. Even the sitting posture in many
cases does not fit ergonomic principle – neutral posture. Thus,
an ergonomic observation is necessary to assess the incidence
concerning posture, disorder of the students who are currently
is studying.
Concerning such issue to university students, a cross
sectional study has incurred on the Rajshahi University of
Engineering and Technology (RUET) to identify various
ergonomic risk factor and determine the prevalence of MSD
among the students. This thesis focusses on the student’s
musculoskeletal pain incidence that they faced in their
classroom environment using standard questionnaires and
observation tool. The study involved students of only RUET
and tried to generalize for RUET and its classroom
environment.
II. OBJECTIVES
The objectives are given below:
1. To determine MSD prevalence and RULA score
among students of RUET utilizing a modified version of
Standard Nordic Questionnaire (SNQ).
2. To determine MSD prevalence and RULA score
among students of RUET utilizing a modified version of
Standard Nordic Questionnaire (SNQ).
III. THEOROTICAL BACKGROUND
Ergonomics: Ergonomics is the study of the human-
machine relationship and the factors that shape it. It is a broad
science that covers a wide spectrum of working environments.
As a consequence, it is the analysis of man in relation to his
profession. Its purposes are:
• To boost the reliability and efficiency of the job such
that it is easier to use, eliminates mistakes, and improves
competitiveness.
• To enhance such desirable human qualities such as
protection, stress reduction, fatigue reduction, and overall
quality of life.
Ergonomics can improve workplace efficiency, wellbeing,
and minimize exhaustion by having a healthy work
environment [1]. As a consequence, instead of pressuring
individuals to conform to the job, it is important to concentrate
on eliminating obstacles to efficiency, competitiveness, and
personal protection by tailoring goods, tasks, and conditions
to the people. Staff are subject to ergonomic hazards such as
force, repetition, uncomfortable posture, repetitive sitting and
standing job, stagnant load, and touch tension in the
workplace. Both of these threats place employees' necks,
backs, hands, wrists, thighs, and waists at risk of
musculoskeletal disorders [2].
Ergonomic Risk Factors: An ergonomic risk factor is a
condition that occurs or has been developed, either
deliberately or inadvertently, that may or may not conform to
the values of ergonomics and, as a result, may or may not be
detrimental to employees' or users' health and well-being at
work or after work. Muscle, muscles, tendons, ligaments,
joints, cartilage, or the spinal disk are all affected by MSD.
The seven ergonomic risk factors are grouped into three
categories: biomechanical, neurological, and human risks.
Two more considerations, corporate and athletic, have been
added to the equation [3].
This review focuses specifically on uncomfortable
posture. The location of multiple parts of our body is referred
to as stance. Awkward pose happens when every joint of our
body twists unnecessarily, such as our wrist. Ranging, turning,
leaning, standing, squatting, working overhead with our hands
or limbs, or maintaining a set pose are all forms of awkward
stance.
Ergonomic Risk Factors Assessment Methods: Self-
reporting questionnaires, analytical approaches, and direct
assessment are used in the workplace to determine ergonomic
risk factors for job postures. We have used self-reporting
questionnaires and observational approaches in our analysis,
so these methods are listed here.
Standardized Nordic Questionnaires (SNQ):
Standardization has taken place by the Nordic Council of
Ministers in order to document musculoskeletal symptoms in
order to better identify the issue and its connection to job
causes. There are problems that are ordered, coerced, binary,
or multiple-choice. The key aims of these questionnaires are
to test applicants for musculoskeletal conditions in the sense
of ergonomics and to provide workplace health care services
to those who need it. It may also be used to analyze the work
environment, workstation, and tool configuration, among
other things [4].
International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ):
IPAQ is a ranking tool for measuring candidates' physical
fitness. It is suitable for people aged 15 to 69. IPAQ is
structured to monitor physical activity in the areas of leisure
time, domestic and gardening activities, work-related physical
activity, and transportation-related physical activity. In the
latter four realms, the short form of IPAQ includes ratings on
walking, moderate-intensity, and vigorous-intensity exercise
separately. IPAQ's long form is meant to provide more
information about those four realms [5].
Observational Methods: The most widely used approach
is observational methods, which can be used to determine
ergonomic risks at work, monitor ergonomic progress, and
perform ergonomic study. The observational approaches have
a very positive appearance in determining ergonomics hazards
in the workplace due to their low assessment cost and fast and
simple assessment process.
Tools Used in Observational Methods: There are several
tools for observing postural assessment which are listed
below:
 Ovako Working Posture Analysis System (OWAS)
 Rapid Upper Limb Assessment (RULA)
 Rapid Entire Body Assessment (REBA)
OWAS among the three tools mentioned above identifies
most habitual back postures, arms, legs, and weight of the
loads. OWAS has been applied mainly in two sectors:
“Manufacturing industries” and “Healthcare and Social
assistant activity”. It neglects evaluation of neck, elbows and
wrists and does not take into account repetition [6].
REBA and RULA, on contrary, are the two easiest
methods for postural risk assessment in the workplace. The
REBA method is applied to identify postural disorder of the
whole body in relation to muscular action and external loads
applied to the body. Whereas RULA method is suggested for
the identification of postural disorder of upper limb specially
neck, trunk, shoulder, upper and lower arm and wrists in
relation to the muscular action and externa loads applied to the
body [7]. Among these three RULA is more appropriate for
the study in sense that the student’s MSD prevalence is based
on their sitting posture.
Rapid Upper Limp Assessment (RULA): The Rapid
Upper Limb Assessment (RULA) is a survey tool for
analyzing occupational ergonomics where work-related upper
limb disabilities have been identified [8]. RULA was
developed by McAtamney and Corlett of the University of
Nottingham’s Institute of Occupational Ergonomics [9]. This
method needs no special equipment or preparation to provide
a simple evaluation of spine, trunk, and upper limb postures,
as well as muscle structure and external load. The RULA
scoring steps are seen as a block diagram depicted in the Fig.
1.
Fig. 1: Block diagram of RULA scoring step [8]
To use RULA software, no previous training or expertise
is needed [9]. Body pose, force, and repetition are all
measured using a scoring sheet in RULA. Posture Score 1 (for
upper arm, lower arm wrist, and wrist twist) and Posture Score
2 (for upper arm, lower arm wrist, and wrist twist) are given
numerical scores depending on the worker postures (for neck,
trunk and leg). Score 3 is determined by applying the muscle
and force scores to the Posture Score 1. Similarly, Score 4 is
calculated by applying the muscle and force scores to the
Posture Score 2. To calculate the grand final RULA score that
reflects the chance of MSD, both the Score 3 and the Score 4
are combined in a table to figure out the final score.
IV. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
As a cross-sectional study this research need a framework
so that the data regarding ergonomic risk factors and
musculoskeletal disorder can be gathered smoothly and
analyze afterward. Assessing work related musculoskeletal
disorder in workplace requires good observation and proper
use of tools. Hence, our work, risk assessment among
university students of RUET, approaches an organized plan
which is mentioned in steps below briefly.
Step 1: The first step is subject recruiting for the study and
selection of the student sample of RUET. Subject and
selection required the students at present not historical.
 Step 2: This step is required for screening as well as for identification instead of person's name as we have collected
the information about MSD condition of the candidates. The sensitive information like age and weight.
questionnaires include criteria needed for the study for being
eligible, physical activity, body site related query & RULA
posture information query. V. RESULTS
Step 3: This step includes assessing the responses from Sample Size: To generalize the result, we need a
online based questionnaires to find the eligible candidates. reasonable sample size for the study. The study was done by
Step 4: After screening out ineligible candidates, RULA voluntary sampling the students of RUET. The sample size for
worksheet is used in this step to get the RULA score of the RUET was determine by following equation:
students, using RULA posture information in step 2. P
s=
Step 5: MSD related responses of the candidates from step 1+Pc2
2 and RULA score from step 4 are aggregated in this step-in Where, s = sample size, P = Population size, c = Margin of
order to determine the MSD prevalence of the selected error. Total student of RUET is 5954 and in general margin of
students through statistical analysis. error is 0.05. So, the expected the sample size is about 375
Step 6: Last step involves some quality control issues of students. From total 5954 students 142 responded to the online
the study. As survey is done and study represent a sample of survey questionnaires (response rate 2%).
RUET students, an overall quality control is needed fir Socio-Demographic Information
validity of the study.
The screening process is based on two criteria; one is
Subject Recruit & Selection: Students of Rajshahi declining every response about nine body parts (neck,
University of Engineering & Technology was selected and shoulder, elbow, wrist/hand, upper back, hips/thighs, knee,
recruited through voluntary sampling. The screening of ankle/feet) and second one is those who exceeded 2000 MET-
ineligible participants for this cross-sectional study based on minutes/week score from PAQ. After thorough screening by,
criteria include vigorous physical activity, decline inadequate 123 candidates were eligible for the study afterwards.
response to questions asked on the questionnaire. For the
selection in RULA evaluation, we approached to all the Table 1: Socio-demographic information
eligible candidate from all department of the university. This Frequency( Percentage
Criteria Variables
selection procedure mainly conducted via online survey n) (%)
within two-week duration.
2015-16 55 45%
Data Collection: The data collection is based on online Academic 2016-17 19 15%
questionnaires which are required to assess the condition of
the candidates. A web link of two set questionnaire was Session 2017-18 13 11%
distributed among the students, of all academic years. In the 2018-19 36 29%
first week, data for screening and to assess the condition of the
candidates. For this we use the modified version of Male 103 84%
Gender
Standardized Nordic questionnaires for the analysis of Female 20 16%
musculoskeletal symptoms [7] and the physical activity
Right 119 97%
questionnaire (PAQ) for the screening for athlete, sports and Main Hand
recreational issues. The resulted candidates after screening Left 4 3%
were selected for RULA observation. All candidates were Leisure Yes 106 86%
required to give their e-mail for the survey.
activity No 17 14%
Rapid Upper Limb Assessment (RULA): The posture
analysis among participants is going to be performed using Complain of Yes 64 52%
RULA. RULA is used to evaluate the awkward posture of Environment No 59 48%
students in their class activities when in sitting position. We Yes 71 58%
Complain of
used a questionnaire based on RULA worksheet given in Fig.
7 at the end. furniture No 52 42%
Statistical Analysis: For statistical analysis we have used History of Yes 61 50%
MS Excel 2016 to determine the desired analysis from Ache, Pain No 62 50%
Modified Standard Nordic Questionnaires as well as the &
questionnaire to assess the posture to determine RULA scores.
Analysis used by MS Excel are descriptive include frequency, Discomfort
mean, standard deviation and to assess the relationship
between the dependent variables and the categorical
independent variables, Chi-square test was conducted to Fig. 2(a) visualize our main demographic concerns where
determine the significant p-value. male respondents are in high number than female. Also
session wise distribution is given as well. The selected
Quality Control : As the study is done while being in candidates are male in majority about 84% and the mean age
quarantine and physical classes were off, so the QC has not of is 22.75 years. Fig. 2(b) Students in session 2015-16 is high
done according to plan. RULA is supposed to be assessed in number as they have stayed long period in university
physically, but we had to do it online via questionnaires. SNQ environment, there high response is required to determine
was done as it supposed to. We have included mails for MSD prevalence.
 One of both knees 28(23) 95(77)
One of both ankles / feet 32(26) 91(74)
MSD (Mean) 41(33) 82(67)

As in Fig. 3 is shown it is understandable that disorder in

neck is common as its highest in prevalence about 73 (59%)
among 123 students. Other parts to be considered are shoulder
with 49 (40%) and Upper back with 57 (46%) of total 123
candidates. About 41 (33%) students were assured that a body
site undergone musculoskeletal disorder.

Fig. 2: Demographic distribution of gender & session [a-b]

Table 2 visualize the anthropometric analysis of 123
candidates. The overall BMI is 23.88 kg/m2 which is in the
range of normal or healthy weight. This screened out 123 Fig. 3: Lifetime MSD prevalence of 123 students
candidates was then evaluated for work-related
musculoskeletal disorder by modified SQN for university
students. Table 4: Prevalence of MSD during past years and past
Table 2: Anthropometric characteristics week.
Variables Mean Past 12
SD () Past 7 days
MSD Body site
months
Age 22.75 1.58
Variables
N % N %
Weight(kg) 68.28 12
Yes 38 31% 42 34%
Height(m) 1.69 0.08
Neck No 67 54% 63 51%
BMI (kg/m2) 23.88 3.56
Yes 28 23% 33 27%
Hours spent in walking/week 1.0 1.1
Shoulder No 76 62% 71 58%
Hours spent in sitting/week 2.9 1.8
Yes 12 10% 10 8%
Elbow No 89 72% 90 73%
MSD Prevalence in Different Time Range
As university student spent a 4-5 years in same Yes 12 10% 23 19%
environment, disorder developed in this period and can be Wrist/hand No 90 73% 80 65%
previously affected. The data provided from the SNQ online
survey, gives us the relation of the responds against the Yes 31 25% 33 27%
disorder associated is summaries in Table 3 of all the 123 Upper back No 75 61% 71 58%
candidates.
Table 3: Lifetime experience of MSD prevalence of all Yes 9 7% 12 10%
candidates (n=123) Hips/Thighs No 92 75% 90 73%
MSD Body site Yes (%) No (%)
Yes 20 16% 16 13%
Neck 73(59) 50(41) Knee No 85 69% 87 71%
Shoulder 49(40) 74(60)
Yes 18 15% 19 15%
Elbows 17(14) 106(86) Leg No 86 70% 83 67%
Wrist/hands 41(33) 82(67)
Upper back 57(46) 66(54)
Table 4 summarized the MSD during past years and past week
One of both hips/thighs 30(24) 93(76) including other body site. During past 7 days as well as past
12 months the neck pain is relatively intense about 34% and
31% respectively. The second most disorder mentioned by the Less
students that they face are the shoulder & upper-back. 23% than 26 14
faced pain or discomfort during their past 12 years in varsity 25
and 27% students experienced disorder or discomfort during Hours
last week of their response time. Fig. 4 depicts the prevalence 25-30 26 23
spent in
of this two duration side by side. 1.625 0.654
classes per 30-35 13 7
week
More
than 8 6
35
* Significant at p<0.05
In the academic session of 2015-16 student spent
about 5 years and 2018-19 only 2 years and so there are more
student in 2015-16 than 2018-19 related to neck pain.
Response of students of 2017-18 & 2016-17 are low.

Table 6: Association between risk factor and shoulder

disorder prevalence
Fig. 4: Prevalence of MSD during past years and past week With Without
p-
MSD MSD
Risk Variables 2 value
VI. RISK FACTOR ASSOCIATED WITH MSD (Should (Should
PREVALANCE AND THEIR ASSESSMENT *
er) er)
As neck, shoulder and upper-back has given a larger 2018-19 14 22
frequency in MSD prevalence so the risk factors also
associated with these. The risk assessment is defined by Academic 2017-18 5 8
1.598 0.660
Academic Session of 2015-16 and 2018-19, gender, leisure Session 2016-17 10 9
activity, classroom environment, existing workstation
furniture and hours spent in classes per week which is 2015-16 20 35
considered 5 days with significant level less than 0.05. Leisure Male 39 64
activities is mainly defined non-profit activities besides Gender 1.029 0.310
studies and PC usage. Female 10 10

Table 5: Association between risk factor and neck disorder Leisure Yes 39 73 13.14 0.000
prevalence Activity No 10 1 7 3
Risk Variables With Without
p- Complain
MSD MSD 2 Yes 30 34
value* t of class
(Neck) (Neck) 2.757 0.097
2018- environm
20 16 No 19 40
19 ent
2017- Complain
8 5 Yes 34 37
Academic 18
0.365 0.947 t of
Session 2016- 4.541 0.033
12 7 existing
17 No 15 37
2015- furniture
33 22
16
Less
Male 56 47 10 30
Gender 6.513 0.011 Hours than 25
Female 17 3
Leisure Yes 54 47 spent in
25-30 23 26 6.455 0.654
8.104 0.004
Activity No 19 3 classes
30-35 8 12
Complaint Yes per week
43 21 More
of class 8 6
3.397 0.065 than 35
environme No
30 29
nt * Significant at p<0.05.
Complaint Yes 51 20 Student with difference in academic year is not really
10.84
of existing 0.001 significant for MSD prevalence (p- value 0.947) as leisure
4
furniture No 22 30 activity of the students (p- value 0.004) and the furniture i.e.,
their chair and desk (p-vale 0.001) contribute to disorder
dominance. Similarly, remaining sites shoulder and upper
back association in MSD incidence is captured in Table 6 and in Table 8. RULA score 2 indicates that sitting posture is
Table 7 respectively. neutral and acceptable. So, considering RULA score 2 as
In shoulder, leisure activity (p: 0.0003) and furniture critical limit posture of neck, trunk, wrist and lower arm was
complaint (0.033) are largely responsible for the MSD selected for assessment as these parts are in occupation while
exposure relate to shoulder. Table 5.6 also highlights that attending a class.
academic session (p: 0.660), class environment (p: 0.097) and
class hour per week (p: 0.654) do not affect the MSD exposure Table 8: Association between RULA and MSD prevalence
in shoulder. Posture score from p-
Table 7: Association between risk factor and upper back Body Part in
RULA 2 value
disorder prevalence Discomfort
With ≤2 >2 *
Without
MSD p-
MSD No 13 29 0.43
Risk Variables (Uppe 2 value Neck 0.509
(Upper
r * Yes 22 37 49
Back)
back)
No 23 32 0.52
2018- Trunk 0.470
19 17
19 Yes 16 30 31
2017- No 48 18
7 6 1.29
Academic 18 1.745 Wrist 0.255
0.629 Yes 29 6 55
Session 2016- 5
7 12
17 No 75 13 0.00
2015- Lower Arm 0.954
24 31 Yes 11 2 34
16
Male 44 59 *Significant at p<0.05
Gender Femal 3.344 0.068
13 7
e
VIII. DISCUSSION
Leisure Yes 46 58
1.206 0.272 The risk variables given in result for the MSD prevalence
Activity No 11 8
and ergonomic issues not all of them directly evolve in
Complaint Yes 33 31 ergonomic risk and workplace musculoskeletal disorder.
of class Some of them are significant and some of them are not. Also,
1.463 0.227
environme No 24 35 RULA score should verify that the workplace has contributed
nt for such discomfort or vice versa. So, the analysis on student’s
Complaint Yes 40 31 data give us two aspects, first the impact of MSD and second
of existing 6.749 0.009 its relation to RULA score.
furniture No 17 35
Impact of MSD: Estimation of students having incidence of
Less musculoskeletal disorder and determination of risk associated
than 17 23 with pain or discomfort was the primary objective. Variables
Hours 25 such as gender, awkward position, leisure activity and
spent in 25-30 24 25 furniture complaint are considered for prevalence of MSD.
1.613 0.654 On average 41 students reported having MSD in their
classes per 30-35 11 9
week lifetime. In lifetime, MSD in respect to neck 59% students
More
reported but in past 12 months and 7 days report the incidence
than 5 9
drop to 31% and 34% respectively. So the discomfort does
35
not continue in several cases. Physical activities were
*Significant at p<0.05. considered based on the extremeness. Students’ participation
In case of upper back, Table 7 provides that one risk variable on vigorous physical activity were not accepted in this study
contributes to discomfort. Furniture complaint has higher as their MSD does not relate with university classroom.
significance with p: 0.009.
From statistical analysis it is clear that furniture, students that
VII. RELATION BETWEEN MSD PREVALANCE & are using currently contribute in MSD prevalence for neck
RULA SCORE (2: 10.844, p-value: 0.001), shoulder ( 2: 4.54, p-
Sitting postures were obtained by online questionnaires value:0.0331), upper back (2: 6.749, p-value: 0.0094).
and RULA score was assigned according to that. The mean Leisure activities such as PC use, watching TV add in
value of RULA score was obtained 5.90. And The average disorder incidence significantly by neck (2: 8.104, p-value:
RULA score for 2015-16 session is 5.86 and for 2018-19 0.004), shoulder (2: 13.147, p-value: 0.0003), upper back
session is 5.97. RULA score more than 5 is indication of (2: 1.206, p-value: 0.272). The neck and upper back p-value
awkward posture and ergonomic risk present. Association is more significant as students sit for the classes for hours and
between the RULA score obtained from online survey and the mostly leaned forward.
MSD sites mainly neck, trunk, wrist and lower arm is shown
RULA Score and MSD Prevalence: Our obtained mean
RULA score is 5.90 which in case represent ergonomic risk
and the posture is awkward. RULA score is consistence more
than 5 in both 2015-16 and 2018-19 session. But there is no
significant relation between MSD occurrences and RULA
score. Ultimately, this study suggests that there is some
substantial MSD prevalence of neck, shoulder and upper back
among students regardless of academic year and age. RULA
score is above normal situation and close to ergonomic risk.
IX. FUTURE WORK
This study cannot be generalized for the MSD prevalence
of university students of Bangladesh rather in RUET. Though
RULA assessment is done via online questionnaires, physical
assessment is needed for better result. RULA scoring can be
done via machine learning from video sample collected from
candidates. Cohort study can be done with school and college
students with larger sample size. be developed to calculate the
capacity of cranes rather assuming it.
[7] C.M. Micheletti, A. Giustetto, F. Caffaro, A. Colantoni, E. Cavallo and
S. Grigolato, “Risk Assessment for Musculoskeletal Disorders in
Forestry: A Comparison between RULA and REBA in the Manual
Feeding of a Wood-Chipper.” International Journal of Environmental
Research and Public Health. 16. 793, 2019.
[8] L. McAtamney and EN. Corlett, “RULA: a survey method for the
investigation of work-related upper limb disorders.” Appl. Ergon., vol.
24, no. 2, pp. 91–99, 1993.
[9] S. Dockrell, E. O'Grady, K. Bennett, C. Mullarkey, R. Connell, R.
Ruddy, S. Twomey and C. Flannery, “An investigation of the reliability
of Rapid Upper Limb Assessment (RULA) as a method of assessment
of children's computing posture.” Applied ergonomics. 43. 632-6,
2012.
[10] RULA-A-Step-by-Step-Guide [Online]. Available: https://ergo-
plus.com/wp-content/uploads/RULA-A-Step-by-Step-Guide1.p

CONCLUSION
The study shows that there is moderate prevalence of MSD
in students of RUET. Though the RULA assessment is done
by questionnaires rather than physical assessment, the score is
relatively higher than normal. Also, the complaint of existing
furniture and MSD have a moderate prevalence between them.
So, we cannot say for certain that university environment is
causing MSD in students, but the matter should be look into
with other perspective in mind. Because in early age of
students' life they seem to neglect minor pain here and there
but after the age of 50 this problem causes a great deal of
trouble in day-to-day life. MSD can also cause absenteeism of
students. We all know prevention is always better then cure.
This study results give a clear message that musculoskeletal
disorder issues are present in the students of Rajshahi
University of Engineering & Technology.
REFERENCES
[1] T. Martand, Ergonomics, in Industrial Engineering and Production
Management, 12th ed., New Dheli: Chand & Son Publisher, pp. 157–
174, 2011.

[2] R.S. Bridger, Anatomy Posture and Body Mechanics. In Introduction

to Ergonomics, 2nd ed. London: Taylor & Francis, pp. 31–57, 2003.

[3] S. Kolgiri, R. Hiremath and S. Bansode. “Literature Review on

Ergonomics Risk Aspects Association to the Power Loom Industry.”
IOSR J. Mech. Civ. Eng. Ver. III, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 2278–1684, 2016.

[4] S. Kourinka, B. Jonsson, A. Kilbom Et al., “Standardized Nordic

Questionnaires for the Analysis of Musculoskeletal Symptoms.”
Applied Ergonomics; I8 (3): 233-237, 1987

[5] Guidelines for Data Processing and Analysis of the International

Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ)- Short and Long Forms,
Revised November 2005. [Online]. Available:
https://www.researchgate.net/file.PostFileLoader.html?id=5641f4c36
143250eac8b45b7&assetKey=AS%3A294237418606593%40144716
3075131

[6] M. Gómez-Galán, J. Pérez-Alonso, A.J. Callejon-Ferre and J. López-

Martínez, “Musculoskeletal disorders: OWAS review.” Industrial
health. 55, 2017.
Fig. 7: RULA Worksheet [10].