Exposure Assessment for the Upper Extremity

1995 ◽  
Vol 37 (4) ◽  
pp. 513
Author(s):  
Philip I. Harber
Keyword(s):  
Exposure Assessment ◽  
Upper Extremity

The Revised Strain Index: an improved upper extremity exposure assessment model

Ergonomics ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 60 (7) ◽  
pp. 912-922 ◽  
Author(s):  
Arun Garg ◽  
J. Steven Moore ◽  
Jay M. Kapellusch
Keyword(s):  
Exposure Assessment ◽  
Upper Extremity ◽  
Assessment Model ◽  
Strain Index

Physical Exposure Assessment in a Large Prospective Upper Extremity Musculoskeletal Disorders Study

2002 ◽  
Vol 46 (13) ◽  
pp. 1017-1021
Author(s):  
Stephen Bao ◽  
Peregrin Spielholz ◽  
Ninica Howard ◽  
Barbara Silverstein ◽  
Caroline Smith ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Exposure Assessment ◽  
Upper Extremity ◽  
Musculoskeletal Disorders ◽  
Assessment Methods ◽  
First Year ◽  
Physical Exposure ◽  
Reduction Methods ◽  
Upper Extremity Musculoskeletal Disorders ◽  
Physical Exposures

This paper describes a battery of physical exposure assessment methods used in a large prospective upper extremity musculoskeletal disorders study. Different from some previous prospective studies, this study collects health and physical exposure data for each study subject rather than at a group level. Subjects are recruited from different job categories based on their hand activity exposure categories. Multiple exposure assessment methods are used to measure job physical exposures such as force, repetition, and work posture. This will allow us to compare the sensitivity of different exposure assessment methods in predicting the risk for upper extremity musculoskeletal disorders. Procedures have also been taken to monitor inter-observer reliability for some observational analyses. During the first year of the study, baseline exposure measurements have been collected from 607 volunteers at 11 different worksites. Follow-up measurements have also been collected in these worksites. Whenever a participant has a significant job change, a new exposure assessment is conducted at the new job. This paper will primarily discuss the various exposure assessment methods used in this study, and use some preliminary results to demonstrate some of the data reduction methods.

Exposure Assessment to Musculoskeletal Load of the Upper extremity in Repetitive Work Tasks

2020 ◽  
pp. 590-592
Author(s):  
Ulrike M. Hoehne-Hückstadt ◽  
Rolf P. Ellegast ◽  
Dirk M. Ditchen
Keyword(s):  
Exposure Assessment ◽  
Upper Extremity ◽  
Repetitive Work ◽  
Work Tasks

Measuring “Language Access Profiles” in Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing Children With the DHH Language Exposure Assessment Tool

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-25
Author(s):  
Matthew L. Hall ◽  
Stephanie De Anda
Keyword(s):  
Cluster Analysis ◽  
Exposure Assessment ◽  
Hard Of Hearing ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Communication Mode ◽  
Developmental Potential ◽  
Language Access ◽  
Retest Reliability ◽  
Language Exposure ◽  
Test Retest Reliability

Purpose The purposes of this study were (a) to introduce “language access profiles” as a viable alternative construct to “communication mode” for describing experience with language input during early childhood for deaf and hard-of-hearing (DHH) children; (b) to describe the development of a new tool for measuring DHH children's language access profiles during infancy and toddlerhood; and (c) to evaluate the novelty, reliability, and validity of this tool. Method We adapted an existing retrospective parent report measure of early language experience (the Language Exposure Assessment Tool) to make it suitable for use with DHH populations. We administered the adapted instrument (DHH Language Exposure Assessment Tool [D-LEAT]) to the caregivers of 105 DHH children aged 12 years and younger. To measure convergent validity, we also administered another novel instrument: the Language Access Profile Tool. To measure test–retest reliability, half of the participants were interviewed again after 1 month. We identified groups of children with similar language access profiles by using hierarchical cluster analysis. Results The D-LEAT revealed DHH children's diverse experiences with access to language during infancy and toddlerhood. Cluster analysis groupings were markedly different from those derived from more traditional grouping rules (e.g., communication modes). Test–retest reliability was good, especially for the same-interviewer condition. Content, convergent, and face validity were strong. Conclusions To optimize DHH children's developmental potential, stakeholders who work at the individual and population levels would benefit from replacing communication mode with language access profiles. The D-LEAT is the first tool that aims to measure this novel construct. Despite limitations that future work aims to address, the present results demonstrate that the D-LEAT represents progress over the status quo.

Combining Values

2002 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 1-4, 12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher R. Brigham
Keyword(s):  
Lower Extremity ◽  
Upper Extremity ◽  
Evaluation Method ◽  
Proximal Phalanx ◽  
Common Error ◽  
The Third ◽  
Whole Person ◽  
Impairment Ratings ◽  
Upper Extremity Impairment ◽  
The Individual

Abstract To account for the effects of multiple impairments, evaluating physicians must provide a summary value that combines multiple impairments so the whole person impairment is equal to or less than the sum of all the individual impairment values. A common error is to add values that should be combined and typically results in an inflated rating. The Combined Values Chart in the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, Fifth Edition, includes instructions that guide physicians about combining impairment ratings. For example, impairment values within a region generally are combined and converted to a whole person permanent impairment before combination with the results from other regions (exceptions include certain impairments of the spine and extremities). When they combine three or more values, physicians should select and combine the two lowest values; this value is combined with the third value to yield the total value. Upper extremity impairment ratings are combined based on the principle that a second and each succeeding impairment applies not to the whole unit (eg, whole finger) but only to the part that remains (eg, proximal phalanx). Physicians who combine lower extremity impairments usually use only one evaluation method, but, if more than one method is used, the physician should use the Combined Values Chart.

Impairment Tutorial: Functionally Limiting Upper Extremity Pain: Controversies in Impairment Rating

2003 ◽  
Vol 8 (5) ◽  
pp. 4-12
Author(s):  
Lorne Direnfeld ◽  
James Talmage ◽  
Christopher Brigham
Keyword(s):  
Upper Extremity ◽  
Radicular Pain ◽  
Illness Behavior ◽  
Orthopedic Surgeon ◽  
First Case ◽  
Clinical Presentations ◽  
Whole Person ◽  
Physical Examinations ◽  
Upper Extremity Impairment ◽  
The Individual

Abstract This article was prompted by the submission of two challenging cases that exemplify the decision processes involved in using the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides). In both cases, the physical examinations were normal with no evidence of illness behavior, but, based on their histories and clinical presentations, the patients reported credible symptoms attributable to specific significant injuries. The dilemma for evaluators was whether to adhere to the AMA Guides, as written, or to attempt to rate impairment in these rare cases. In the first case, the evaluating neurologist used alternative approaches to define impairment based on the presence of thoracic outlet syndrome and upper extremity pain, as if there were a nerve injury. An orthopedic surgeon who evaluated the case did not base impairment on pain and used the upper extremity chapters in the AMA Guides. The impairment ratings determined using either the nervous system or upper extremity chapters of the AMA Guides resulted in almost the same rating (9% vs 8% upper extremity impairment), and either value converted to 5% whole person permanent impairment. In the second case, the neurologist evaluated the individual for neuropathic pain (9% WPI), and the orthopedic surgeon rated the patient as Diagnosis-related estimates Cervical Category II for nonverifiable radicular pain (5% to 8% WPI).

Spinal Impairment Evaluation: Fifth Edition Changes

2001 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-3
Author(s):  
Robert H. Haralson
Keyword(s):  
Spinal Cord ◽  
Lower Extremity ◽  
Range Of Motion ◽  
Upper Extremity ◽  
Spinal Cord Injuries ◽  
Clinical Findings ◽  
Fourth Edition ◽  
Treatment Results ◽  
Standard Terminology ◽  
Made In

Abstract The AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides), Fifth Edition, was published in November 2000 and contains major changes from its predecessor. In the Fourth Edition, all musculoskeletal evaluation and rating was described in a single chapter. In the Fifth Edition, this information has been divided into three separate chapters: Upper Extremity (13), Lower Extremity (14), and Spine (15). This article discusses changes in the spine chapter. The Models for rating spinal impairment now are called Methods. The AMA Guides, Fifth Edition, has reverted to standard terminology for spinal regions in the Diagnosis-related estimates (DRE) Method, and both it and the Range of Motion (ROM) Method now reference cervical, thoracic, and lumbar. Also, the language requiring the use of the DRE, rather than the ROM Method has been strengthened. The biggest change in the DRE Method is that evaluation should include the treatment results. Unfortunately, the Fourth Edition's philosophy regarding when and how to rate impairment using the DRE Model led to a number of problems, including the same rating of all patients with radiculopathy despite some true differences in outcomes. The term differentiator was abandoned and replaced with clinical findings. Significant changes were made in evaluation of patients with spinal cord injuries, and evaluators should become familiar with these and other changes in the Fifth Edition.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document