Inter- and intra- observer reliability of risk assessment of repetitive work without an explicit method

- Ergonomists often performs risk assessments of work without an explicit method.
- Ergonomists assessed upper body risks into 3 levels from 10 video-recorded tasks.
- The average pairwise agreement in general risk level was 53%.
- Kappa statistics showed a non-acceptable inter- and intra-reliability.
- It is recommended to use systematic risk assessment methods to a higher degree.

A common way to conduct practical risk assessments is to observe a job and report the observed long term risks for musculoskeletal disorders. The aim of this study was to evaluate the inter- and intra-observer reliability of ergonomists' risk assessments without the support of an explicit risk assessment method. Twenty-one experienced ergonomists assessed the risk level (low, moderate, high risk) of eight upper body regions, as well as the global risk of 10 video recorded work tasks. Intra-observer reliability was assessed by having nine of the ergonomists repeat the procedure at least three weeks after the first assessment. The ergonomists made their risk assessment based on his/her experience and knowledge. The statistical parameters of reliability included agreement in %, kappa, linearly weighted kappa, intraclass correlation and Kendall's coefficient of concordance. The average inter-observer agreement of the global risk was 53% and the corresponding weighted kappa (Kw) was 0.32, indicating fair reliability. The intra-observer agreement was 61% and 0.41 (Kw). This study indicates that risk assessments of the upper body, without the use of an explicit observational method, have non-acceptable reliability. It is therefore recommended to use systematic risk assessment methods to a higher degree.