This study aimed to verify ALLA, a lower limb posture assessment tool for agriculture, by comparing

ALLA and existing widely used ergonomic assessment tools (OWAS, RULA, and REBA) to direct expert
assessment using identified working postures occurring in agricultural tasks. ALLA reflects the expert
assessed risk level better than the other ergonomic assessment tools considered. The other
assessment tools largely evaluated the risk level of most agricultural tasks as 1 or 2, regardless of the
expert assessment. Hence they tended to produce high hit rate for expert assessed risk level 1 or 2
groups, but, poor hit rates for expert assessed risk level 2 or higher groups. This outcome is a result
of lower limb posture assessment being largely underestimated in the OWAS, RULA, and REBA
systems, whereas ALLA was specifically developed to address that limitation [9]. Quadratic weighted
κ analysis was used to examine consistency between each assessment tool and expert assessment.
ALLA was quite consistent with expert assessment, and significantly superior to the other
assessment tools. The one-way ANOVA also showed ALLA had the highest assessed risk level across
all expert assessed groups, whereas REBA had the lowest. Although REBA does include load
assessment on lower limb postures, compared to RULA, REBA’s hit rate was the lowest because only
four risk levels (1, 1, 2 or 3) were achieved upon evaluation of all postures, setting them as basis
except lower limb postures. On the other hand, RULA provided only two risk levels (1 or 3).
Therefore, REBA mean assessment was smaller than RULA, even though there was no significant
difference. This study also analyzed differences between expert assessment and each assessment
tool. For the expert assessed risk level 1 group, no significant differences were shown except for
ALLA. For expert assessed risk levels 2 and 3 groups, only ALLA assessment showed no significant
difference from expert assessment. Finally, for the expert assessed risk level 4 group, all assessment
tools were significantly different from expert assessment, although ALLA was the closest outcome to
expert assessment. Lee et al. [20] evaluated load change according to the height of a support and
duration of the squatting posture using a psychophysical method. Lee et al. [20] assessed 31 lower
limb loads using subjective discomfort, similar to ALLA. This study analyzed and selected lower limb
postures frequently occurring in farming work in Korea, based on postures from the studies
discussed above that showed significant differences in subjective discomfort.

Previous studies compared tasks using various assessment tools. Lee et al. [20] compared the most
widely used three tools, OWAS, RULA, and REBA, and analyzed the features from the work posture
loads. They determined that waist postures played a pivotal role in deciding overall load level in
OWAS, compared to shoulder postures. Since the current study evaluated various lower limb
postures, and unified upper limb postures as basic postures, OWAS assessment risk levels 1 and 2
were mainly shown. Lee et al. [20] also reported differences in cognitive discomfort, because RULA
did not discriminate lower limb postures sufficiently, which is similar to the current study which has
shown consistency is low between expert and RULA assessment for lower limb postures. Lee et al.
[20] showed REBA was more suitable for evaluating whole body working postures than other
assessment tools. However, the current study shows that the consistency between REBA and expert
assessment was relatively lower than the other assessment tools. This is because OWAS, RULA, and
REBA do not reflect various lower limb postures occurring in farming work. Lee et al. [21] reported
that the OCRA assessment tool correlation with labor intensity in the automobile industry was
higher than that of RULA, and suggested the reason for this was OCRA’s evaluation ratio on
repetitiveness, a characteristic of the car assembly process, was relatively higher. They argued that
the use of a proper tool suitable for specific work characteristics was required. Similarly, the current
study shows that ALLA, which focuses on lower limb postures frequently occurring in farming work,
is more suitable than assessment tools that largely ignore lower limb posture. Lee et al. [22]
analyzed specific body parts for specific work using OWAS, RULA, REBA, and QEC. They compared
waist bending when working with weights, waist bending, squatting, neck extension, and neck
bending for assembly work, and acquired different results for each situation. They also concluded
that an appropriate assessment tool should be used according to posture. Therefore, the current
study recommends using ALLA, as this lower limb assessment tool has shown superior agreement
with expert assessment of risk levels for lower limb postures.