Work sampling 기법을 이용한 자동차부품공장 근로자의 근골격계질환 위험수준 분석 = Analysis of the Risk Level of Musculoskeletal Disorders for Workers at Automative Component Factory Using Work Sampling

국문 초록 (Abstract)

본 연구는 work sampling 기법과 단면분석법을 이용하여 제조업 종사 근로자의 근골격계질환 노출 위험수준을 알아보고자 하였다.
이를 위해 자동차부품 제조업 종사 근로자 29명의 근골격계질환 증상을 자기기입식 설문지로 조사하여, 그 정도를 기준Ⅰ(KOSHA), 기준Ⅱ(NIOSH), 기준Ⅲ(인천대노동과학연구소)으로 구분하였다. 그리고 개별 근로자의 작업과정을 고성능카메라로 촬영한 후 OWAS, RULA, REBA를 사용하여 work sampling 기법(1초당 1컷)과 단면분석법으로 근골격계질환 위험수준을 분석하였다.
신체부위 중 1부위 이상 통증이 있다고 호소한 근로자는 기준Ⅰ- 24명(82.8%), 기준Ⅱ- 22명(75.9%), 그리고 기준Ⅲ- 19명(65.5%)이었다. 인간공학적 평가도구를 이용한 근골격계질환 노출위험수준 평가에서 OWAS는 단면분석-조치단계 4(근골격계에 매우 심한 해를 끼침), work sampling-조치단계 2(근골격계에 약간의 해를 끼침)인 근로자가 3명이었다. 또, RULA의 단면분석-조치단계 4(정밀조사와 즉각적인 개선필요)이고 work sampling-조치단계 3(계속적 관찰과 빠른 작업개선 요함)인 근로자가 2명이었고, REBA에서는 단면분석-조치단계 3(위험 높음)이고 work sampling-조치단계 2(위험 보통)인 근로자가 3명으로 분석되었다. work sampling 방법에서 평가도구간의 상관관계는 RULA와 REBA(r=.599, p<.01), OWAS와 REBA(r=.486, p<.01), OWAS와 RULA(r=.463, p<.05)는 양의 보통 상관관계를 나타내었다. 그리고 단면분석과 work sampling 기법에서 고위험군과 저위험군의 일치도는 OWAS(Kappa=.442), RULA(Kappa=.494), 그리고 REBA(Kappa=.519) 이었다.
본 연구를 통하여 work sampling 기법은 근로자의 근골격계질환 노출위험수준을 객관적으로 분석할 수 있었으며, 연구 결과를 토대로 근로자 작업환경의 개선이 우선적으로 필요한 작업자를 선정하는데 신뢰할만한 방법임이 확인되었다.[+]This study was carried out to investigate the risk level of musculoskeletal disorders for workers in the manufacturing industry utilizing a work sampling technique and cross-section analysis.
The study was conducted on 29 workers to survey their musculoskeletal disorders, using a self-administering questionnaire at an automotive component factory. The extent of the musculoskeletal disorders of the workers was classified according to the criterion 1 (KOSHA), criterion 2 (NIOSH), and criterion 3 (Labor Scientific Research Institute of Incheon University). To evaluate the risk level of the musculoskeletal disorders using the OWAS, RULA, REBA for each work posture, a work sampling technique (1 cut per 1 sec) was employed after having photographed the work processes of the individual workers with a high performance camera.
The number of the workers who complained of pain in one or more body areas was 24 persons (82.8%) based on criterion 1, 22 persons (75.9%) for criterion 2 and 19 persons (65.5%) for criterion 3. As a result of having analyzed the musculoskeletal disorders, the OWAS discovered 3 persons out of 29 who were classified as risk level 4 in the cross-section analysis (indicating severe harm on the musculoskeletal system), and risk level 2 in the work sampling technique (indicating mild harm on the musculoskeletal system). Also, the workers whose work sampling risk level was 3 based on RULA (continuous observation and prompt improvement of work environment necessary) and the cross-section analysis risk level was 4 (precise survey and immediate improvement of work environment required) were 2 persons. In the REBA, the workers whose work sampling risk level was 2 (risk was moderate) and their cross-section analysis risk level was 3 (risk was high) were 3 persons. Regarding the correlations among the ergonomic tools in the work sampling, moderate correlations were found; RULA and REBA (r=.599), OWAS and REBA (r=.486), OWAS and RULA (r=.463). The consistencies of the work sampling and cross-section analysis in the high-risk group and the low-risk group were as follows; OWAS (Kappa=.442), RULA (Kappa=.494) and REBA (Kappa=.519).
The results confirmed that the work sampling technique was a reliable method to analyze the risk level of musculoskeletal disorders in the industrial workers and identify the workers who require modification of their work environments.

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

This study was carried out to investigate the risk level of musculoskeletal disorders for workers in the manufacturing industry utilizing a work sampling technique and cross-section analysis.
The study was conducted on 29 workers to survey their musculoskeletal disorders, using a self-administering questionnaire at an automotive component factory. The extent of the musculoskeletal disorders of the workers was classified according to the criterion 1 (KOSHA), criterion 2 (NIOSH), and criterion 3 (Labor Scientific Research Institute of Incheon University). To evaluate the risk level of the musculoskeletal disorders using the OWAS, RULA, REBA for each work posture, a work sampling technique (1 cut per 1 sec) was employed after having photographed the work processes of the individual workers with a high performance camera.
The number of the workers who complained of pain in one or more body areas was 24 persons (82.8%) based on criterion 1, 22 persons (75.9%) for criterion 2 and 19 persons (65.5%) for criterion 3. As a result of having analyzed the musculoskeletal disorders, the OWAS discovered 3 persons out of 29 who were classified as risk level 4 in the cross-section analysis (indicating severe harm on the musculoskeletal system), and risk level 2 in the work sampling technique (indicating mild harm on the musculoskeletal system). Also, the workers whose work sampling risk level was 3 based on RULA (continuous observation and prompt improvement of work environment necessary) and the cross-section analysis risk level was 4 (precise survey and immediate improvement of work environment required) were 2 persons. In the REBA, the workers whose work sampling risk level was 2 (risk was moderate) and their cross-section analysis risk level was 3 (risk was high) were 3 persons. Regarding the correlations among the ergonomic tools in the work sampling, moderate correlations were found; RULA and REBA (r=.599), OWAS and REBA (r=.486), OWAS and RULA (r=.463). The consistencies of the work sampling and cross-section analysis in the high-risk group and the low-risk group were as follows; OWAS (Kappa=.442), RULA (Kappa=.494) and REBA (Kappa=.519).
The results confirmed that the work sampling technique was a reliable method to analyze the risk level of musculoskeletal disorders in the industrial workers and identify the workers who require modification of their work environments.
A thesis submitted to Committee of the Graduate School of Hanseo University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master in February, 2009

목차 (Table of Contents)

• Ⅰ. 서론 = 1
• Ⅱ. 연구 방법 = 4
• 1. 연구 대상 = 4
• 2. 연구 과정 = 5
• 3. 측정 도구 = 7
• 1) 근골격계증상 조사 설문지 = 7
• 2) 근골격계증상의 분류 기준 = 7
• 3) 작업자세 측정도구 = 8
• 4) 인간공학적 평가도구 = 9
• (1) Ovako Working-posture Analysis System(OWAS) = 9
• (2) RapidUpper Limb Assessment(RULA) = 10
• (3) Rapid Entire Body Assessment(REBA) = 10
• 4. Work sampling 기법과 단면분석법 = 11
• 5. 자료 분석 = 13
• Ⅲ. 연구 결과 = 14
• 1. 연구대상자의 일반적 특성 = 14
• 2. 근골격계질환 통증호소율 = 16
• 3. 인간공학적 평가도구 근골격계질환 위험수준 = 17
• 4. 일반적 특성 및 평가도구별 근골격계질환 통증호소자 비율 = 22
• 5. 평가도구간 상관관계 및 평가방법 일치도 검정 = 24
• Ⅳ. 고찰 = 26
• Ⅴ. 결론 = 29
• 참고문헌 = 30
• (Abstract) = 36
• 근골격계증상 설문조사 = 39