Previous research suggests inclinometers (INC) underestimate upper arm elevation. This study was designed to quantify possible bias in occupationally relevant postures, and test whether INC performance could be improved using calibration.

Participants were meticulously positioned in set arm flexion and abduction angles between 0° and 150°. Different subject-specific and group-level regression models comprising linear and quadratic components describing the relationship between set and INC-registered elevation were developed using subsets of data, and validated using additional data.

INC measured arm elevation showed a downward bias, particularly above 60°.  INC data adjusted using the regression models were superior to un-adjusted data; a subject-specific, two-point calibration based on measurements at 0° and 90° gave results closest to the ‘true’ set angles.

Thus, inclinometer measured arm elevation data required calibration to arrive at ‘true’ elevation angles. Calibration to a common measurement scale should be considered when comparing arm elevation data collected using different methods.

Selecting a suitable body posture measurement method requires performance indices of candidate tools. Such data are lacking for observational assessments made at a high degree of resolution. The aim of this study was to determine the performance (bias and between- and within-observer variance) of novice observers estimating upper arm elevation postures assisted by posture matching software to the nearest degree from still images taken under ideal conditions. Estimates were minimally biased from true angles: the mean error across observers was less than 2°. Variance between observers was minimal. Considerable variance within observers, however, underlined the risk of relying on single observations. Observers were more proficient at estimating 0°and 90° postures, and less proficient at 60°. Thus, under ideal visual conditions observers, on average, proved proficient at high resolution posture estimates; further investigation is required to determine how non-optimal image conditions, as would be expected from occupational data, impact proficiency.

Objectives: To quantify the variance introduced to trapezius electromyography (EMG) through normalization by submaximal reference voluntary exertions (RVE), and to investigate the effect of increased normalization efforts as compared to other changes in data collection strategy on the precision of occupational EMG estimates. Methods: Women performed four RVE contractions followed by 30 minutes of light, cyclic assembly work on each of two days. Work cycle EMG was normalized to each of the RVE trials and seven exposure parameters calculated. The proportions of exposure variance attributable to subject, day within subject, and cycle and normalization trial within day were determined. Using this data, the effect on the precision of the exposure mean of altering the number of subjects, days, cycles and RVEs during data collection was simulated. Results: For all exposure parameters a unique component of variance due to normalization was present, yet small: less than 4.4% of the total variance. The resource allocation simulations indicated that marginal improvements in the precision of a group exposure mean would occur above three RVE repeats for EMG collected on one day, or beyond two RVEs for EMG collected on two or more days.

Aim: The object of this study was to quantify the contribution of sub-maximal normalisation to the overall variance of exposure parameters describing erector spinae (ES) activity, and to provide guidelines for task selection which minimize methodological variance. Methods: ES EMG was measured from three locations (T9, L1 and L5 levels) on fifteen men performing a manual materials handling task in the laboratory on three separate days. Four repeats of each of eleven sub-maximal normalisation tasks (eight static, three dynamic) were collected, work data were normalised to each task and repeat, and exposure parameters calculated. The unique contribution of normalisation to the overall variance was determined for each task and exposure parameter using variance component analyses. Normalisation tasks were scored according to their relative contributions to the overall variance and coefficients of variation.

Results: A prone task, similar to the Biering-Sørensen test posture, was the most repeatable for all electrode locations and across all exposure parameters. Thoracic level normalisation typically showed poorer repeatability than lumbar normalisation.

Discussion: We recommend that future ES EMG studies employing sub-maximal normalisation utilise said prone task. An alternate normalisation task specific to thoracic level ES muscles may be warranted.