Monday, 14 March 2011 20:39

Workers with Special Needs

Written by
Rate this item
(0 votes)

Designing for Disabled Persons is Designing for Everyone

There are so many products on the market that readily reveal their unfitness for the general population of users. What evaluation should one make of a doorway too narrow to comfortably accommodate a stout person or pregnant woman? Shall its physical design be faulted if it satisfies all relevant tests of mechanical function? Certainly such users cannot be regarded as disabled in any physical sense, since they may be in a state of perfect health. Some products need considerable handling before one can force them to perform as desired—certain inexpensive can openers come, not altogether trivially, to mind. Yet a healthy person who may experience difficulty operating such devices need not be considered disabled. A designer who successfully incorporates considerations of human interaction with the product enhances the functional utility of his or her design. In the absence of good functional design, people with a minor disability may find themselves in the position of being severely hampered. It is thus the user-machine interface that determines the value of design for all users.

It is a truism to remind oneself that technology exists to serve human beings; its use is to enlarge their own capabilities. For disabled persons, this enlargement has to be taken some steps further. For instance in the 1980s, a good deal of attention was paid to the design of kitchens for disabled people. The experience gained in this work penetrated design features for “normal” kitchens; the disabled person in this sense may be considered a pioneer. Occupationally-induced impairments and disabilities—one has but to consider the musculoskeletal and other complaints suffered by those confined to sedentary tasks so common in the new workplace—similarly call for design efforts aimed not only also preventing the recurrence of such conditions, but at the development of user-compatible technology adapted to the needs of workers already affected by work-related disorders.

The Broader Average Person

The designer should not focus on a small, unrepresentative population. Among certain groups it is most unwise to entertain assumptions concerning similarities among them. For example, a worker injured in a certain way as an adult may not necessarily be anthropometrically quite so different from an otherwise comparable, healthy person, and may be considered as part of the broad average. A young child so injured will display a considerably different anthropometry as an adult since his muscular and mechanical development will be steadily and sequentially influenced by preceding growth stages. (No conclusions as to comparability as adults ought to be ventured as regards the two cases. They must be regarded as two distinct, specific groups, only the one being included among the broad average.) But as one strives for a design suitable for, say, 90% of the population, one should exert fractionally greater pains to increase this margin to, say, 95%, the point being that in this way the need for design for specific groups can be reduced.

Another way to approach design for the broader average population is to produce two products, each one designed roughly to fit the two percentile extremes of human differences. Two sizes of chair, for instance, might be built, the one with brackets allowing it to be adjusted in height from 38 to 46 cm, and the other one from 46 to 54 cm; two sizes of pliers already exist, one fitting larger and average sizes of men’s hands and the other fitting average women’s hands and hands of smaller men.

It would be a well-advised company policy to reserve annually a modest amount of money to have worksites analysed and made more suitable for workers, a move that would prevent illness and disability due to excessive physical load. It also increases the motivation of workers when they understand that management is actively trying to improve their work environment, and more impressively so when elaborate measures sometimes have to be undertaken: thorough work analysis, the construction of mock-ups, anthropometrical measurements, and even the specific design of units for the workers. In a certain company, in fact, the conclusion was that the units should be redesigned at every worksite because they caused physical overload in the form of too much standing, there were unsuitable dimensions associated with the seated positions, and there were other deficiencies as well.

Costs, Benefits and Usability of Design

Cost/benefit analyses are developed by ergonomists in order to gain insight into the results of ergonomic policies other than those that are economic. In the present day, evaluation in the industrial and commercial realms includes the negative or positive impact of a policy on the worker.

Methods of evaluating quality and usability are currently the subject of active research. The Rehabilitation Technology Useability Model (RTUM), as shown in figure 1, can be utilized as a model for evaluating the usability of a product within rehabilitation technology and to illuminate the various aspects of the product which determine its usability.

Figure 1. The Rehabilitation Technology Useability Model (RTUM)

ERG300F1

From the strictly economic point of view, the costs of creating a system in which a given task can be performed or in which a certain product can be made can be specified; it scarcely needs mentioning that in these terms each company is interested in a maximum return on its investment. But how can the real costs of task performance and product manufacturing in relation to financial investment be determined when one takes into account the varying exertions of workers’ physical, cognitive and mental systems? In fact, the judging of human performance itself is, among other factors, based on the workers’ perception of what has to be done, their view of their own value in doing it, and their opinion of the company. It is actually the intrinsic satisfaction with work that is the norm of value in this context, and this satisfaction, together with the aims of the company, constitute one’s reason for performing. Worker well-being and performance are thus based on a wide spectrum of experiences, associations and perceptions that determine attitudes towards work and the ultimate quality of performance—an understanding upon which the RTUM model is predicated.

If one does not accept this view, it becomes necessary to regard investment only in relation to doubtful and unspecified results. If ergonomists and physicians wish to improve the work environment of disabled people—to produce more from machine operations and enhance the usability of the tools used—they will encounter difficulties in finding ways to justify the financial investment. Typically, such justification has been sought in savings realized by prevention of injury and illness due to work. But if the costs of illness have been borne not by the company but by the state, they become financially invisible, so to speak, and are not seen as work-related.

Nevertheless, the awareness that investment in a healthy working environment is money well spent has been growing with the recognition that the “social” costs of incapacities are translatable in terms of ultimate costs to a country’s economy, and that value is lost when a potential worker is sitting about at home making no contribution to society. Investing in a workplace (in terms of adapting a work station or providing special tools or perhaps even help in personal hygiene) can not only reward a person with job satisfaction but can help make him or her self-sufficient and independent of social assistance.

Cost/benefit analyses can be carried out in order to determine whether special intervention in the workplace is justified for disabled persons. The following factors represent sources of data that would form the object of such analyses:

1. Personnel

  • Absence. Will the disabled worker have a satisfactory attendance record?
  • Is it likely that extra costs may be incurred for special task instruction?
  • Are personnel changes called for? Their costs must be considered also.
  • Can accident compensation rates be expected to increase?

 

2. Safety

  • Will the job being considered for the disabled worker involve safety regulations?
  • Will special safety regulations be involved?
  • Is the work characterized by a considerable frequency of accidents or near accidents?

 

3. Medical

  • As regards the worker whose disability is being examined with a view to his or her re-entry into the workplace, the nature and seriousness of the incapacity must be assessed.
  • The extent of the disabled worker’s absence must also be taken into account.
  • What is the character and frequency of the worker’s “minor” symptoms, and how are they to be dealt with? Can the future development of related “minor” illnesses capable of hampering the worker’s efficiency be foreseen?

 

As concerns time lost from work, these calculations can be made in terms of wages, overhead, compensation and lost production. The sort of analyses just described represents a rational approach by which an organization can arrive at an informed decision as to whether a disabled worker is better off back on the job and whether the organization itself will gain by his or her return to work.

In the preceding discussion, designing for the broader population has received a focus of attention heightened by emphasis on specific design in relation to usability and the costs and benefits of such design. It is still a difficult task to make the needed calculations, including all relevant factors, but at present, research efforts are continuing that incorporate modelling methods in their techniques. In some countries, for example the Netherlands and Germany, government policy is making companies more responsible for job-related personal harm; fundamental changes in regulatory policies and insurance structures are, clearly, to be expected to result from trends of this sort. It has already become a more or less settled policy in these countries that a worker who suffers a disabling accident at work should be provided with an adapted work station or be able to perform other work within the company, a policy that has made the treatment of the disabled a genuine achievement in the humane treatment of the worker.

Workers with Limited Functional Capacity

Whether design is aimed at the disabled or at the broader average, it is hindered by a scarcity of research data. Handicapped people have been the subjects of virtually no research efforts. Therefore, in order to set up a product requirements document, or PRD, a specific empirical research study will have to be undertaken in order to gather that data by observation and measurement.

In gathering the information needed about the disabled worker or user it is necessary to consider not only the current functional status of the disabled person, but to make the attempt to foresee whatever changes might be the result of the progression of a chronic condition. This kind of information can, in fact, be elicited from the worker directly, or a medical specialist can supply it.

In designing, for instance, a work action to which data about the worker’s physical strength is relevant, the designer will not choose as a specification the maximum strength which the disabled person can exert, but will take into account any possible diminution in strength that a progression in the worker’s condition might bring about. Thus the worker will be enabled to continue to use the machines and tools adapted or designed for him or at the work station.

Furthermore, designers should avoid designs that involve manipulations of the human body at the far extremes of, say, the range of motion of a body part, but should accommodate their designs to the middle ranges. A simple but very common illustration of this principle follows. A very common part of the drawers of kitchen and office cabinets and desks is a handle that has the form of a little shelf under which one places the fingers, exerting upward and forward force to open the drawer. This manoeuvre requires 180 degrees of supination (with the palm of the hand up) in the wrist—the maximum point for the range of this sort of motion of the wrist. This state of affairs may present no difficulty for a healthy person, provided that the drawer can be opened with a light force and is not awkwardly situated, but makes for strain when the action of the drawer is tight or when the full 180-degree supination is not possible, and is a needless burden on a disabled person. A simple solution—a vertically placed handle—would be mechanically far more efficient and more easily manipulated by a larger portion of the population.

Physical Functioning Ability

In what follows, the three chief areas of limitation in physical functional ability, as defined by the locomotion system, the neurological system and the energy system, will be discussed. Designers will gain some insight into the nature of user/worker constraints in considering the following basic principles of bodily functions.

The locomotion system. This consists of the bones, joints, connective tissues and muscles. The nature of the joint structure determines the range of motion possible. A knee joint, for example, shows a different degree of movement and stability than the joint of the hip or the shoulder. These varying joint characteristics determine the actions possible to the arms, hands, feet, and so on. There are also different types of muscle; it is the type of muscle, whether the muscle passes over one or two joints, and the location of the muscle that determines, for a given body part, the direction of its movement, its speed, and the strength which it is capable of exerting.

The fact that this direction, speed and strength can be characterized and calculated is of great importance in design. For disabled people, one has to take it into account that the “normal” locations of muscles have been disturbed and that the range of motion in joints has been changed. In an amputation, for instance, a muscle may function only partly, or its location may have changed, so that one has to examine the physical ability of the patient carefully to establish what functions remain and how reliable they may be. A case history follows.

A 40-year-old carpenter lost his thumb and the third finger of his right hand in an accident. In an effort to restore the carpenter’s capacity for work, a surgeon removed one of the patient’s great toes and he replaced the missing thumb with it. After a period of rehabilitation, the carpenter returned to work but found it impossible to do sustained work for more than three to four hours. His tools were studied and found to be unfitted to the “abnormal” structure of his hand. The rehabilitation specialist, examining the “redesigned” hand from the point of view of its new functional ability and form was able to have new tools designed that were more appropriate and usable with respect to the altered hand. The load on the worker’s hand, previously too heavy, was now within a usable range, and he regained his ability to continue work for a longer time.

The neurological system. The neurological system can be compared to a very sophisticated control room, complete with data collectors, whose purpose it is to initiate and govern one’s movements and actions by interpreting information relating to those aspects of the body’s components relating to position and mechanical, chemical and other states. This system incorporates not only a feedback system (e.g., pain) that provides for corrective measures, but a “feed-forward” capability which expresses itself anticipatorily so as to maintain a state of equilibrium. Consider the case of a worker who reflexively acts so as to restore a posture in order to protect himself from a fall or from contact with dangerous machine parts.

In disabled persons, the physiological processing of information can be impaired. Both the feedback and the feed-forward mechanisms of visually impaired people are weakened or absent, and the same is true, on an acoustic level, among the hearing-impaired. Furthermore the important governing circuits are interactive. Sound signals have an effect on the equilibrium of a person in conjunction with proprioceptive circuits that situate our bodies in space, so to speak, via data gathered from muscles and joints, with the further help of visual signals. The brain can function to overcome quite drastic deficiencies in these systems, correcting for errors in the coding of information and “filling in” missing information. Beyond certain limits, to be sure, incapacity supervenes. Two case histories follow.

Case 1. A 36-year-old woman suffered a lesion of the spinal cord due to an automobile accident. She is able to sit up without assistance and can move a wheelchair manually. Her trunk is stable. The feeling in her legs is gone, however; this defect includes an inability to sense temperature changes.

She has a sitting workplace at home (the kitchen is designed to allow her to work in a seated position). The safety measure has been taken of installing a sink in a position sufficiently isolated that the risk of burning her legs with hot water is minimized, since her inability to process temperature information in the legs leaves her vulnerable to being unaware of being burned.

Case 2. A five-year-old boy whose left side was paralysed was being bathed by his mother. The doorbell rang, the mother left the boy alone to go to the front door, and the boy, turning on the hot-water tap, suffered burns. For safety reasons, the bath should have been equipped with a thermostat (preferably one that the boy could not have overridden).

The energy system. When the human body has to perform physical labour, physiological changes, notably in the form of interactions in the muscle cells, take place, albeit relatively inefficiently. The human “motor” converts only about 25% of its energy supply to mechanical activity, the remainder of the energy representing thermal losses. The human body is therefore not especially suited to heavy physical labour. Exhaustion sets in after a certain time, and if heavy labour has to be performed, reserve energy sources are drawn upon. These sources of reserve energy are always used whenever work is carried out very rapidly, is started suddenly (without a warm-up period) or involves heavy exertion.

The human organism obtains energy aerobically (via oxygen in the bloodstream) and anaerobically (after depleting aerobic oxygen, it calls upon small, but important reserve units of energy stored in muscle tissue). The need for fresh air supplies in the workplace naturally draws the focus of discussion of oxygen usage toward the aerobic side, working conditions that are strenuous enough to call forth anaerobic processes on a regular basis being extraordinarily uncommon in most workplaces, at least in the developed countries. The availability of atmospheric oxygen, which relates so directly to human aerobic functioning, is a function of several conditions:

  • Ambient air pressure (approximately 760 torr, or 21.33 kPa at sea level). High-altitude task performance can be profoundly affected by oxygen deficiency and is a prime consideration for workers in such conditions.
  • For workers doing heavy labour, ventilation is necessary to ensure refreshment of the air supply, allowing the volume of air respired per minute to be increased.
  • Ambient oxygen makes its way into the bloodstream via the alveoli by diffusion. At higher blood pressures, the diffusion surface is enlarged and thereby the oxygen capacity of the blood.
  • An increase in oxygen diffusion to the tissues causes an increase of the diffusion surface and consequently of the oxygen level.
  • People with certain heart problems suffer when, with increased cardiac output (together with the oxygen level), the blood circulation changes in favour of the muscles.
  • By contrast with oxygen, because of the large reserves of glucose, and especially fat, the energy source (“fuel”) need not be continuously delivered from the outside. In heavy labour, it is merely glucose, with its high energy value, that is used. With lighter work, fat is called upon, at a rate varying with the individual. A brief, general case history follows.

A person suffering from asthma or bronchitis, both of which are diseases affecting the lungs, causes the worker severe limitation in his or her work. The work assignment of this worker should be analysed with respect to factors such as physical load. The environment should be analysed as well: clean ambient air will contribute substantially to workers’ well-being. Furthermore, the workload should be balanced through the day, avoiding peak loads.

Specific Design

In some cases, however, there is still a need for specific design, or design for very small groups. Such a need arises when the tasks to be performed and the difficulties a disabled person is experiencing are excessively large. If the needed specific requirements cannot be made with the available products on the market (even with adaptations), specific design is the answer. Whether this sort of solution may be costly or cheap (and aside from humanitarian issues) it must be nonetheless regarded in the light of workability and support to the firm’s viability. A specially designed worksite is worthwhile economically only when the disabled worker can look forward to working there for years and when the work he or she does is, in production terms, an asset to the company. When this is not the case, although the worker may indeed insist upon his or her right to the job, a sense of realism should prevail. Such touchy problems should be approached in a spirit of seeking a solution by cooperative endeavours at communication.

The advantages of specific design are as follows:

  • The design is custom made: it fits the problems to be solved to perfection.
  • The worker so served can return to work and a life of social participation.
  • The worker can be self-sufficient, independent of welfare.
  • The costs of any personnel changes that the alternative might involve are avoided.

 

The disadvantages of specific design are:

  • The design is unlikely to be used for even one other person, let alone a larger group.
  • Specific design is often costly.
  • Specifically designed products must often be handmade; savings owing to mass methods are most often not realizable.

Case 1. For example, there is the case of a receptionist in a wheelchair who had a speech problem. Her speech difficulty made for rather slow conversations. While the firm remained small, no problems arose and she continued to work there for years. But when the firm enlarged, her disabilities began to make themselves problematic. She had to speak more rapidly and to move about considerably faster; she could not cope with the new demands. However, solutions to her troubles were sought and reduced themselves to two alternatives: special technical equipment might be installed so that the deficiencies that degraded the quality of some of her tasks could be compensated for, or she could simply choose a set of tasks involving a more desk-bound workload. She chose the latter course and still works for the same company.

Case 2. A young man, whose profession was the production of technical drawings, suffered a high level spinal cord lesion due to diving in shallow waters. His injury is severe enough for him to require help with all his daily activities. Nevertheless, with the help of a computer-aided design (CAD) software, he continues to be able make his living at technical drawing and lives, financially independent, with his partner. His work space is a study adapted for his needs and he works for a firm with which he communicates by computer, phone and fax. To operate his personal computer, he had to have certain adaptations made to the keyboard. But with these technical assets he can earn a living and provide for himself.

The approach for specific design is not different from other design as described above. The only insurmountable problem that may arise during a design project is that the design objective cannot be achieved on purely technical grounds—in other words, it can’t be done. For example, a person suffering from Parkinson’s disease is prone, at a certain stage in the progression of his or her condition, to fall over backwards. An aid which would prevent such an eventuality would of course represent the desired solution, but the state of the art is not such that such a device can yet be built.

System Ergonomic Design and Workers with Special Physical Needs

One can treat bodily impairment by medically intervening to restore the damaged function, but the treatment of a disability, or deficiency in the ability to perform tasks, can involve measures far less developed in comparison with medical expertise. As far as the necessity of treating a disability is concerned, the severity of the handicap strongly influences such a decision. But given that treatment is called for, however, the following means, taken singly or in combination, form the choices available to the designer or manager:

  • leaving out a task
  • compensating for a worker’s deficiency in performing a task element by using a machine or another person’s help
  • differentiation of the task order, that is, dividing the task into more manageable subtasks
  • modification of the tools used in the task
  • special design of tools and machines.

 

From the specific ergonomic point of view, treatment of a disability includes the following:

  • modification of the task
  • modification of a tool
  • design of new tools or new machines.

 

The issue of efficacy is always the point of departure in the modification of tools or machines, and is often related to the costs devoted to the modification in question, the technical features to be addressed, and the functional changes to be embodied in the new design. Comfort and attractiveness are qualities that by no means deserve to be neglected among these other characteristics.

The next consideration relating to design changes to be made to a tool or machine is whether the device is one already designed for general use (in which case, modifications will be made to a pre-existing product) or is to be designed with an individual type of disability in mind. In the latter case, specific ergonomic considerations must be devoted to each aspect of the worker’s disability. For example, given a worker suffering from limitations in brain function after a stroke, impairments such as aphasia (difficulty in communication), a paralysed right arm, and a spastic paresis of the leg preventing its being moved upwards might require the following adjustments:

  • a personal computer or other device enabling the worker to communicate
  • tools that can be operated with the remaining useful arm
  • a prosthetic system that would serve to restore the function of the impaired foot as well as to compensate for the patient’s loss of ability to walk.

 

Is there any general answer to the question of how to design for the disabled worker? The system ergonomic design (SED) approach is an eminently suitable one for this task. Research related to the work situation or to the kind of product at issue requires a design team for the purpose of gathering special information relating either to a special group of disabled workers or to the unique case of an individual user disabled in a particular way. The design team will, by virtue of including a diversity of qualified people, be in possession of expertise beyond the technical sort expected of a designer alone; the medical and ergonomic knowledge shared among them will be as fully applicable as the strictly technical.

Design constraints determined by assembling data related to disabled users are treated with the same objectivity and in the same analytical spirit as are counterpart data relating to healthy users. Just as for the latter, one has to determine for disabled persons their personal patterns of behavioural response, their anthropometrical profiles, biomechanical data (as to reach, strength, range of motion, handling space used, physical load and so forth), ergonomic standards and safety regulations. But one is most regretfully obliged to concede that very little research indeed is done on behalf of disabled workers. There exist a few studies on anthropometry, somewhat more on biomechanics in the field of prostheses and orthoses, but hardly any studies have been carried on physical load capabilities. (The reader will find references to such material in the “Other relevant reading” list at the end of this chapter.) And while it is sometimes easy to gather and apply such data, frequently enough the task is difficult, and in fact, impossible. To be sure, one must obtain objective data, however strenuous the effort and unlikely the chances of doing so, given that the numbers of disabled persons available for research is small. But they are quite often more than willing to participate in whatever research they are offered the opportunity of sharing in, since there is great consciousness of the importance of such a contribution towards design and research in this field. It thus represents an investment not only for themselves but for the larger community of disabled people.

 

Back

Read 2633 times Last modified on Friday, 15 November 2019 16:39
More in this category: « Elderly Workers

" DISCLAIMER: The ILO does not take responsibility for content presented on this web portal that is presented in any language other than English, which is the language used for the initial production and peer-review of original content. Certain statistics have not been updated since the production of the 4th edition of the Encyclopaedia (1998)."

Contents

Preface
Part I. The Body
Part II. Health Care
Part III. Management & Policy
Part IV. Tools and Approaches
Biological Monitoring
Epidemiology and Statistics
Ergonomics
Goals, Principles and Methods
Physical and Physiological Aspects
Organizational Aspects of Work
Work Systems Design
Designing for Everyone
Diversity and Importance of Ergonomics
Occupational Hygiene
Personal Protection
Record Systems and Surveillance
Toxicology
Part V. Psychosocial and Organizational Factors
Part VI. General Hazards
Part VII. The Environment
Part VIII. Accidents and Safety Management
Part IX. Chemicals
Part X. Industries Based on Biological Resources
Part XI. Industries Based on Natural Resources
Part XII. Chemical Industries
Part XIII. Manufacturing Industries
Part XIV. Textile and Apparel Industries
Part XV. Transport Industries
Part XVI. Construction
Part XVII. Services and Trade
Part XVIII. Guides

Ergonomics References

Abeysekera, JDA, H Shahnavaz, and LJ Chapman. 1990. Ergonomics in developing countries. In Advances in Industrial Ergonomics and Safety, edited by B Das. London: Taylor & Francis.

Ahonen, M, M Launis, and T Kuorinka. 1989. Ergonomic Workplace Analysis. Helsinki: Finnish Institute of Occupational Health.

Alvares, C. 1980. Homo Faber: Technology and Culture in India, China and the West from 1500 to Present Day. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.

Amalberti, R. 1991. Savoir-faire de l’opérateur: aspects théoriques et pratiques en ergonomie. In Modèle en analyse du travail, edited by R Amalberti, M de Montmollin, and J Thereau. Liège: Mardaga.

Amalberti, R, M Bataille, G Deblon, A Guengant, JM Paquay, C Valot, and JP Menu. 1989. Développement d’aides intelligentes au pilotage: Formalisation psychologique et informatique d’un modèle de comportement du pologage de combat engagé en mission de pènètration. Paris: Rapport CERMA.

Åstrand, I. 1960. Aerobic work capacity in men and women with special reference to age. Acta Physiol Scand 49 Suppl. 169:1-92.

Bainbridge, L. 1981. Le contrôleur de processus. B Psychol XXXIV:813-832.

—. 1986. Asking questions and accessing knowledge. Future Comput Sys 1:143-149.

Baitsch, C. 1985. Kompetenzentwicklung und partizipative Arbeitsgestaltung. Bern: Huber.

Banks, MH and RL Miller. 1984. Reliability and convergent validity of the job component inventory. J Occup Psychol 57:181-184.

Baranson, J. 1969. Industrial Technology for Developing Economies. New York: Praeger.

Bartenwerfer, H. 1970. Psychische Beanspruchung und Erdmüdung. In Handbuch der Psychologie, edited by A Mayer and B Herwig. Göttingen: Hogrefe.

Bartlem, CS and E Locke. 1981. The Coch and French study: A critique and reinterpretation. Hum Relat 34:555-566.

Blumberg, M. 1988. Towards a new theory of job design. In Ergonomics of Hybrid Automated Systems, edited by W Karwowski, HR Parsaei, and MR Wilhelm. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Bourdon, F and A Weill Fassina. 1994. Réseau et processus de coopération dans la gestion du trafic ferroviaire. Travail Hum. Numéro spécial consacré au travail collectif.

Brehmer, B. 1990. Towards a taxonomy for microworlds. In Taxonomy for an Analysis of Work Domains. Proceedings of the First MOHAWC Workshop, edited by B Brehmer, M de Montmollin and J Leplat. Roskilde: Riso National Laboratory.

Brown DA and R Mitchell. 1986. The Pocket Ergonomist. Sydney: Group Occupational Health Centre.

Bruder. 1993. Entwicklung eines wissensbusierten Systems zur belastungsanalytisch unterscheidbaren Erholungszeit. Düsseldorf: VDI-Verlag.

Caverni, JP. 1988. La verbalisation comme source d’observables pour l’étude du fonctionnnement cognitif. In Psychologie cognitive: Modèles et méthodes, edited by JP
Caverni, C Bastien, P Mendelson, and G Tiberghien. Grenoble: Presses Univ. de Grenoble.

Campion, MA. 1988. Interdisciplinary approaches to job design: A constructive replication with extensions. J Appl Psychol 73:467-481.

Campion, MA and PW Thayer. 1985. Development and field evaluation of an inter-disciplinary measure of job design. J Appl Psychol 70:29-43.

Carter, RC and RJ Biersner. 1987. Job requirements derived from the Position Analysis Questionnaire and validity using military aptitude test scores. J Occup Psychol 60:311-321.

Chaffin, DB. 1969. A computerized biomechanical model-development of and use in studying gross body actions. J Biomech 2:429-441.

Chaffin, DB and G Andersson. 1984. Occupational Biomechanics. New York: Wiley.

Chapanis, A. 1975. Ethnic Variables in Human Factors Engineering. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University.

Coch, L and JRP French. 1948. Overcoming resistance to change. Hum Relat 1:512-532.

Corlett, EN and RP Bishop. 1976. A technique for assessing postural discomfort. Ergonomics 19:175-182.

Corlett, N. 1988. The investigation and evaluation of work and workplaces. Ergonomics 31:727-734.

Costa, G, G Cesana, K Kogi, and A Wedderburn. 1990. Shiftwork: health, sleep and performance. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.

Cotton, JL, DA Vollrath, KL Froggatt, ML Lengnick-Hall, and KR Jennings. 1988. Employee participation: Diverse forms and different outcomes. Acad Manage Rev 13:8-22.

Cushman, WH and DJ Rosenberg. 1991. Human Factors in Product Design. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Dachler, HP and B Wilpert. 1978. Conceptual dimensions and boundaries of participation in organizations: A critical evaluation. Adm Sci Q 23:1-39.

Daftuar, CN. 1975. The role of human factors in underdeveloped countries, with special reference to India. In Ethnic Variable in Human Factor Engineering, edited by Chapanis. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University.

Das, B and RM Grady. 1983a. Industrial workplace layout design. An application of engineering anthropometry. Ergonomics 26:433-447.

—. 1983b. The normal working area in the horizontal plane. A comparative study between Farley’s and Squire’s concepts. Ergonomics 26:449-459.

Deci, EL. 1975. Intrinsic Motivation. New York: Plenum Press.

Decortis, F and PC Cacciabue. 1990. Modèlisation cognitive et analyse de l’activité. In Modèles et pratiques de l’analyse du travail, edited by R Amalberti, M Montmollin, and J Theureau. Brussels: Mardaga.

DeGreve, TB and MM Ayoub. 1987. A workplace design expert system. Int J Ind Erg 2:37-48.

De Keyser, V. 1986. De l’évolution des métiers. In Traité de psychologie du travail, edited by C Levy- Leboyer and JC Sperandio. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.

—. 1992. Man within the Production Line. Proceedings of the Fourth Brite-EuRam Conference, 25-27 May, Séville, Spain. Brussels: EEC.

De Keyser, V and A Housiaux. 1989. The Nature of Human Expertise. Rapport Intermédiaire Politique Scientifique. Liège: Université de Liège.

De Keyser, V and AS Nyssen. 1993. Les erreurs humaines en anesthésie. Travail Hum 56:243-266.

De Lisi, PS. 1990. Lesson from the steel axe: Culture, technology and organizational change. Sloan Manage Rev 32:83-93.

Dillon, A. 1992. Reading from paper versus screen: A critical review of the empirical literature. Ergonomics 35:1297-1326.

Dinges, DF. 1992. Probing the limits of functional capacity: The effects of sleep loss on short-duration tasks. In Sleep, Arousal, and Performance, edited by RJ Broughton and RD Ogilvie. Boston: Birkhäuser.

Drury, CG. 1987. A biomechanical evaluation of the repetitive motion injury potential of industrial jobs. Sem Occup Med 2:41-49.

Edholm, OG. 1966. The assessment of habitual activity. In Physical Activity in Health and Disease, edited by K Evang and K Lange-Andersen. Oslo: Universitetterlaget.

Eilers, K, F Nachreiner, and K Hänicke. 1986. Entwicklung und Überprüfung einer Skala zur Erfassung subjektiv erlebter Anstrengung. Zeitschrift für Arbeitswissenschaft 40:215-224.

Elias, R. 1978. A medicobiological approach to workload. Note No. 1118-9178 in Cahiers De Notes Documentaires—Sécurité Et Hygiène Du Travail. Paris: INRS.

Elzinga, A and A Jamison. 1981. Cultural Components in the Scientific Attitude to Nature: Eastern and Western Mode. Discussion paper No. 146. Lund: Univ. of Lund, Research Policy Institute.

Emery, FE. 1959. Characteristics of Socio-Technical Systems. Document No. 527. London: Tavistock.

Empson, J. 1993. Sleep and Dreaming. New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf.

Ericson, KA and HA Simon. 1984. Protocol Analysis: Verbal Reports As Data. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

European Committee for Standardization (CEN). 1990. Ergonomic Principles of the Design of Work Systems. EEC Council Directive 90/269/EEC, The Minimum Health and Safety Requirements for the Manual Handling of Loads. Brussels: CEN.

—. 1991. CEN Catalogue 1991: Catalogue of European Standards. Brussels: CEN.

—. 1994. Safety of Machinery: Ergonomic Design Principles. Part 1: Terminology and General Principles. Brussels: CEN.

Fadier, E. 1990. Fiabilité humaine: méthodes d’analyse et domaines d’application. In Les facteurs humains de la fiabilité dans les systèmes complexes, edited by J Leplat and G De Terssac. Marseilles: Octares.

Falzon, P. 1991. Cooperative dialogues. In Distributed Decision Making. Cognitive Models for Cooperative Works, edited by J Rasmussen, B Brehmer, and J Leplat. Chichester: Wiley.

Faverge, JM. 1972. L’analyse du travail. In Traité de psychologie appliqueé, edited by M Reuchlin. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.

Fisher, S. 1986. Stress and Strategy. London: Erlbaum.

Flanagan, JL. 1954. The critical incident technique. Psychol Bull 51:327-358.

Fleishman, EA and MK Quaintance. 1984. Toxonomies of Human Performance: The Description of Human Tasks. New York: Academic Press.

Flügel, B, H Greil, and K Sommer. 1986. Anthropologischer Atlas. Grundlagen und Daten. Deutsche Demokratische Republik. Berlin: Verlag tribüne.

Folkard, S and T Akerstedt. 1992. A three-process model of the regulation of alertness sleepiness. In Sleep, Arousal and Performance, edited by RJ Broughton and BD Ogilvie. Boston: Birkhäuser.

Folkard, S and TH Monk. 1985.  Hours of work: Temporal factors in work scheduling . Chichester: Wiley.

Folkard, S, TH Monk, and MC Lobban. 1978. Short and long-term adjustment of circadian rhythms in “permanent” night nurses. Ergonomics 21:785-799.

Folkard, S, P Totterdell, D Minors and J Waterhouse. 1993. Dissecting circadian performance rhythms: Implications for shiftwork.  Ergonomics  36(1-3):283-88.

Fröberg, JE. 1985. Sleep deprivation and prolonged working hours. In Hours of Work: Temporal Factors in Work Scheduling, edited by S Folkard and TH Monk. Chichester: Wiley.

Fuglesang, A. 1982. About Understanding Ideas and Observations on Cross-Cultural
Communication. Uppsala: Dag Hammarskjöld Foundation.

Geertz, C. 1973. The Interpretation of Cultures. New York: Basic Books.

Gilad, I. 1993. Methodology for functional ergonomic evaluation of repetitive operations. In Advances in Industrial Egonomics and Safety, edited by Nielsen and Jorgensen. London: Taylor & Francis.

Gilad, I and E Messer. 1992. Biomechanics considerations and ergonomic design in diamond polishing. In Advances in Industrial Ergonomics and Safety, edited by Kumar. London: Taylor & Francis.

Glenn, ES and CG Glenn. 1981. Man and Mankind: Conflict and Communication between Cultures. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Gopher, D and E Donchin. 1986. Workload—An examination of the concept. In Handbook of Perception and Human Performance, edited by K Boff, L Kaufman, and JP Thomas. New York: Wiley.

Gould, JD. 1988. How to design usable systems. In Handbook of Human Computer Interaction, edited by M Helander. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Gould, JD and C Lewis. 1985. Designing for usability: Key principles and what designers think. Commun ACM 28:300-311.

Gould, JD, SJ Boies, S Levy, JT Richards, and J Schoonard. 1987. The 1984 Olympic message system: A test of behavioral principles of the design. Commun ACM 30:758-769.

Gowler, D and K Legge. 1978. Participation in context: Towards a synthesis of the theory and practice of organizational change, part I. J Manage Stud 16:150-175.

Grady, JK and J de Vries. 1994. RAM: The Rehabilitation Technology Acceptance Model as a Base for an Integral Product Evaluation. Instituut voor Research, Ontwikkeling en Nascholing in de Gezondheidszorg (IRON) and University Twente, Department of Biomedical Engineering.

Grandjean, E. 1988. Fitting the Task to the Man. London: Taylor & Francis.

Grant, S and T Mayes. 1991. Cognitive task analysis? In Human-Computer Interactionand Complex Systems, edited by GS Weir and J Alty. London: Academic Press.

Greenbaum, J and M Kyng. 1991. Design At Work: Cooperative Design of Computer Systems. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Greuter, MA and JA Algera. 1989. Criterion development and job analysis. In Assessment and Selection in Organizations, edited by P Herlot. Chichester: Wiley.

Grote, G. 1994. A participatory approach to the complementary design of highly automated work systems. In Human Factors in Organizational Design and Management, edited by G Bradley and HW Hendrick. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Guelaud, F, M-N Beauchesne, J Gautrat, and G Roustang. 1977. Pour une analyse des conditions du travail ouvrier dans l’entreprise. Paris: A. Colin.

Guillerm, R, E Radziszewski, and A Reinberg. 1975. Circadian rhythms of six healthy young men over a 4-week period with night-work every 48 h and a 2 per cent Co2 atmosphere. In Experimental Studies of Shiftwork, edited by P Colquhoun, S Folkard, P Knauth, and J Rutenfranz. Opladen: Westdeutscher Werlag.

Hacker, W. 1986. Arbeitspsychologie. In Schriften zur Arbeitpsychologie, edited by E Ulich. Bern: Huber.

Hacker, W and P Richter. 1994. Psychische Fehlbeanspruchung. Ermüdung, Monotonie, Sättigung, Stress. Heidelberg: Springer.

Hackman, JR and GR Oldham. 1975. Development of the job diagnostic survey. J Appl Psychol 60:159-170.

Hancock, PA and MH Chignell. 1986. Toward a Theory of Mental Work Load: Stress and Adaptability in Human-Machine Systems. Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference On Systems, Man, and Cybernetics. New York: IEEE Society.

Hancock, PA and N Meshkati. 1988. Human Mental Workload. Amsterdam: North Holland.

Hanna, A (ed.). 1990. Annual Design Review ID. 37 (4).

Härmä, M. 1993. Individual differences in tolerance to shiftwork: a review.  Ergonomics  36:101-109.

Hart, S and LE Staveland. 1988. Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of empirical and theoretical research. In Human Mental Work Load, edited by PA Hancock and N Meshkati. Amsterdam: North Holland.

Hirschheim, R and HK Klein. 1989. Four paradigms of information systems development. Commun ACM 32:1199-1216.

Hoc, JM. 1989. Cognitive approaches to process control. In Advances in Cognitive Science, edited by G Tiberghein. Chichester: Horwood.

Hofstede, G. 1980. Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage Univ. Press.

—. 1983. The cultural relativity of organizational practices and theories. J Int Stud :75-89.

Hornby, P and C Clegg. 1992. User participation in context: A case study in a UK bank. Behav Inf Technol 11:293-307.

Hosni, DE. 1988. The transfer of microelectronics technology to the third world. Tech Manage Pub TM 1:391-3997.

Hsu, S-H and Y Peng. 1993. Control/display relationship of the four-burner stove: A reexamination. Hum Factors 35:745-749.

International Labour Organization (ILO). 1990.The hours we work: new work schedules in policy and practice. Cond Wor Dig 9.

International Organization for Standardization (ISO). 1980. Draft Proposal for Core List of Anthropometric Measurements ISO/TC 159/SC 3 N 28 DP 7250. Geneva: ISO.

—. 1996. ISO/DIS 7250 Basic Human Body Measurements for Technological Design. Geneva: ISO.
Japan Industrial Design Promotion Organization (JIDPO). 1990. Good Design Products 1989. Tokyo: JIDPO.

Jastrzebowski, W. 1857. Rys ergonomiji czyli Nauki o Pracy, opartej naprawdach poczerpnietych z Nauki Przyrody. Przyoda i Przemysl 29:227-231.

Jeanneret, PR. 1980. Equitable job evaluation and classification with the Position Analysis Questionnaire. Compens Rev 1:32-42.

Jürgens, HW, IA Aune, and U Pieper. 1990. International data on anthropometry. Occupational Safety and Health Series. Geneva: ILO.

Kadefors, R. 1993. A model for assessment and design of workplaces for manual welding. In The Ergonomics of Manual Work, edited by WS Marras, W Karwowski, and L Pacholski. London: Taylor & Francis.

Kahneman, D. 1973. Attention and Effort. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Karhu, O, P Kansi, and I Kuorinka. 1977. Correcting working postures in industry: A practical method for analysis. Appl Ergon 8:199-201.

Karhu, O, R Harkonen, P Sorvali, and P Vepsalainen. 1981. Observing working postures in industry: Examples of OWAS application. Appl Ergon 12:13-17.

Kedia, BL and RS Bhagat. 1988. Cultural constraints on transfer of technology across nations: Implications for research in international and comparative management. Acad Manage Rev 13:559-571.

Keesing, RM. 1974. Theories of culture. Annu Rev Anthropol 3:73-79.

Kepenne, P. 1984. La charge de travail dans une unité de soins de médecine. Mémoire. Liège: Université de Liège.

Kerguelen, A. 1986. L’observation systématique en ergonomie: Élaboration d’un logiciel d’aide au recueil et à l’analyse des données. Diploma in Ergonomics Thesis, Conservatoire National des Arts et Métiers, Paris.

Ketchum, L. 1984. Sociotechnical design in a third world country: The railway maintenance depot at Sennar in Sudan. Hum Relat 37:135-154.

Keyserling, WM. 1986. A computer-aided system to evaluate postural stress in the workplace. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J 47:641-649.

Kingsley, PR. 1983. Technological development: Issues, roles and orientation for social psychology. In Social Psychology and Developing Countries, edited by Blacker. New York: Wiley.

Kinney, JS and BM Huey. 1990. Application Principles for Multicolored Displays. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Kivi, P and M Mattila. 1991. Analysis and improvement of work postures in building industry: Application of the computerized OWAS method. Appl Ergon 22:43-48.

Knauth, P, W Rohmert and J Rutenfranz. 1979. Systemic selection of shift plans for continuous production with the aid of work-physiological criteria. Appl Ergon 10(1):9-15.

Knauth, P. and J Rutenfranz. 1981. Duration of sleep related to the type of shift work, in  Night and shiftwork: biological and social aspects , edited by A Reinberg, N Vieux, and P Andlauer. Oxford Pergamon Press.

Kogi, K. 1982. Sleep problems in night and shift work. II. Shiftwork: Its practice and improvement . J Hum Ergol:217-231.

—. 1981. Comparison of resting conditions between various shift rotation systems for industrial workers, in  Night and shift work. Biological and social aspects , edited by A Reinberg, N Vieux, and P Andlauer. Oxford: Pergamon.

—. 1985. Introduction to the problems of shiftwork. In Hours of Work: Temporal Factors in Work-Scheduling, edited by S Folkard and TH Monk. Chichester: Wiley.

—. 1991. Job content and working time: The scope for joint change. Ergonomics 34:757-773.

Kogi, K and JE Thurman. 1993. Trends in approaches to night and shiftwork and new international standards. Ergonomics 36:3-13.

Köhler, C, M von Behr, H Hirsch-Kreinsen, B Lutz, C Nuber, and R Schultz-Wild. 1989. Alternativen der Gestaltung von Arbeits- und Personalstrukturen bei rechnerintegrierter Fertigung. In Strategische Optionen der Organisations- und Personalentwicklung bei CIM Forschungsbericht KfK-PFT 148, edited by Institut für Sozialwissenschaftliche Forschung. Karlsruhe: Projektträgerschaft Fertigungstechnik.

Koller, M. 1983. Health risks related to shift work. An example of time-contingent effects of long-term stress. Int Arch Occ Env Health 53:59-75.

Konz, S. 1990. Workstation organization and design. Ergonomics 32:795-811.

Kroeber, AL and C Kluckhohn. 1952. Culture, a critical review of concepts and definitions. In Papers of the Peabody Museum. Boston: Harvard Univ.

Kroemer, KHE. 1993. Operation of ternary chorded keys. Int J Hum Comput Interact 5:267-288.

—. 1994a. Locating the computer screen: How high, how far? Ergonomics in Design (January):40.

—. 1994b. Alternative keyboards. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Scientific Conference WWDU ‘94. Milan: Univ. of Milan.

—. 1995. Ergonomics. In Fundamentals of Industrial Hygiene, edited by BA Ploog. Chicago: National Safety Council.

Kroemer, KHE, HB Kroemer, and KE Kroemer-Elbert. 1994. Ergonomics: How to Design for Ease and Efficiency. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Kwon, KS, SY Lee, and BH Ahn. 1993. An approach to fuzzy expert systems for product colour design. In The Ergonomics of Manual Work, edited by Maras, Karwowski, Smith, and Pacholski. London: Taylor & Francis.

Lacoste, M. 1983. Des situations de parole aux activités interprétives. Psychol Franç 28:231-238.

Landau, K and W Rohmert. 1981. AET-A New Job Analysis Method. Detroit, Mich.: AIIE Annual Conference.

Laurig, W. 1970. Elektromyographie als arbeitswissenschaftliche Untersuchungsmethode zur Beurteilung von statischer Muskelarbeit. Berlin: Beuth.

—. 1974. Beurteilung einseitig dynamischer Muskelarbeit. Berlin: Beuth.

—. 1981. Belastung, Beanspruchung und Erholungszeit bei energetisch-muskulärer Arbeit—Literaturexpertise. In Forschungsbericht Nr. 272 der Bundesanstalt für Arbeitsschutz und Unfallforschung Dortmund. Bremerhaven: Wirtschaftsverlag NW.

—. 1992. Grundzüge der Ergonomie. Erkenntnisse und Prinzipien. Berlin, Köln: Beuth Verlag.

Laurig, W and V Rombach. 1989. Expert systems in ergonomics: Requirements and an approach. Ergonomics 32:795-811.

Leach, ER. 1965. Culture and social cohesion: An anthropologist’s view. In Science and Culture, edited by Holten. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Leana, CR, EA Locke, and DM Schweiger. 1990. Fact and fiction in analyzing research on participative decision making: A critique of Cotton, Vollrath, Froggatt, Lengnick-Hall, and Jennings. Acad Manage Rev 15:137-146.

Lewin, K. 1951. Field Theory in Social Science. New York: Harper.

Liker, JK, M Nagamachi, and YR Lifshitz. 1988. A Comparitive Analysis of Participatory Programs in US and Japan Manufacturing Plants. Ann Arbor, Mich.: Univ. of Michigan, Center for Ergonomics, Industrial and Operational Engineering.

Lillrank, B and N Kano. 1989. Continuous Improvement: Quality Control Circles in Japanese Industries. Ann Arbor, Mich.: Univ. of Michigan, Center for Japanese Studies.

Locke, EA and DM Schweiger. 1979. Participation in decision making: One more look. In Research in Organizational Behavior, edited by BM Staw. Greenwich, Conn.: JAI Press.

Louhevaara, V, T Hakola, and H Ollila. 1990. Physical work and strain involved in manual sorting of postal parcels. Ergonomics 33:1115-1130.

Luczak, H. 1982.  Belastung, Beanspruchung und Erholungszeit bei informatorisch- mentaler Arbeit — Literaturexpertise. Forschungsbericht der Bundesanstalt für Arbeitsschutz und Unfallforschung Dortmund . Bremerhaven: Wirtschaftsverlag NW.

—. 1983. Ermüdung. In Praktische Arbeitsphysiologie, edited by W Rohmert and J Rutenfranz. Stuttgart: Georg Thieme Verlag.

—. 1993. Arbeitswissenschaft. Berlin: Springer Verlag.

Majchrzak, A. 1988. The Human Side of Factory Automation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Martin, T, J Kivinen, JE Rijnsdorp, MG Rodd, and WB Rouse. 1991. Appropriate automation-integrating technical, human, organization, economic and cultural factors. Automatica 27:901-917.

Matsumoto, K and M Harada. 1994. The effect of night-time naps on recovery from fatigue following night work. Ergonomics 37:899-907.

Matthews, R. 1982. Divergent conditions in the technological development of India and Japan. Lund Letters on Technology and Culture, No. 4. Lund: Univ. of Lund, Research Policy Institute.

McCormick, EJ. 1979. Job Analysis: Methods and Applications. New York: American Management Association.

McIntosh, DJ. 1994. Integration of VDUs into the US office work environment. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Scientific Conference WWDU ‘94. Milan: Univ. of Milan.

McWhinney. 1990. The Power of Myth in Planning and Organizational Change, 1989 IEEE Technics, Culture and Consequences. Torrence, Calif.: IEEE Los Angeles Council.

Meshkati, N. 1989. An etiological investigation of micro and macroergonomics factors in the Bhopal disaster: Lessons for industries of both industrialized and developing countries. Int J Ind Erg 4:161-175.

Minors, DS and JM Waterhouse. 1981. Anchor sleep as a synchronizer of rhythms on abnormal routines.  Int J Chronobiology : 165-188.

Mital, A and W Karwowski. 1991. Advances in Human Factors/Ergonomics. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Monk, TH. 1991.  Sleep, Sleepiness and Performance . Chichester: Wiley.

Moray, N, PM Sanderson, and K Vincente. 1989. Cognitive task analysis for a team in a complex work domain: A case study. Proceedings of the Second European Meeting On Cognitive Science Approaches to Process Control, Siena, Italy.

Morgan, CT, A Chapanis, JS III Cork, and MW Lund. 1963. Human Engineering Guide to Equipment Design. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Mossholder, KW and RD Arvey. 1984. Synthetic validity: A conceptual and comparative review. J Appl Psychol 69:322-333.

Mumford, E and Henshall. 1979. A Participative Approach to Computer Systems Design. London: Associated Business Press.

Nagamachi, M. 1992. Pleasantness and Kansei engineering. In Measurement Standards. Taejon, Korea: Korean Research Institute of Standards and Science Publishing.

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). 1981. Work Practices Guide for Manual Lifting. Cincinnati, Ohio: US Department of Health and Human Services.

—. 1990. OSHA Instruction CPL 2.85: Directorate of Compliance Programs: Appendix C, Guidelines Auggested By NIOSH for Videotape Evaluation of Work Station for Upper Extremities Cumulative Trauma Disorders. Washington, DC: US Department of Health and Human Services.

Navarro, C. 1990. Functional communication and problem-solving in a bus traffic-regulation task. Psychol Rep 67:403-409.

Negandhi, ART. 1975. Modern Organizational Behaviour. Kent: Kent Univ..

Nisbett, RE and TD De Camp Wilson. 1977. Telling more than we know. Psychol Rev 84:231-259.

Norman, DA. 1993. Things That Make Us Smart. Reading: Addison-Wesley.

Noro, K and AS Imada. 1991. Participatory Ergonomics. London: Taylor & Francis.

O’Donnell, RD and FT Eggemeier. 1986. Work load assessment methodology. In Handbook of Perception and Human Performance. Cognitive Processes and Performance, edited by K Boff, L Kaufman, and JP Thomas. New York: Wiley.

Pagels, HR. 1984. Computer culture: The scientific, intellectual and social impact of the computer. Ann NY Acad Sci :426.

Persson, J and Å Kilbom. 1983. VIRA—En Enkel Videofilmteknik För Registrering OchAnalys Av Arbetsställningar Och—Rörelser. Solna, Sweden: Undersökningsrapport,Arbetraskyddsstyrelsen.

Pham, DT and HH Onder. 1992. A knowledge-based system for optimizing workplace layouts using a genetic algorithm. Ergonomics 35:1479-1487.

Pheasant, S. 1986. Bodyspace, Anthropometry, Ergonomics and Design. London: Taylor & Francis.

Poole, CJM. 1993. Seamstress’ finger. Brit J Ind Med 50:668-669.

Putz-Anderson, V. 1988. Cumulative Trauma Disorders. A Manual for Musculoskeletal Diseases of the Upper Limbs. London: Taylor & Francis.

Rasmussen, J. 1983. Skills, rules, and knowledge: Sinds, signs, symbols and other distinctions in human performance models. IEEE T Syst Man Cyb 13:257-266.

—. 1986. A framework for cognitive task analysis in systems design. In Intelligent Decision Support in Process Environments, edited by E Hollnagel, G Mancini, and DD Woods. Berlin: Springer.

Rasmussen, J, A Pejtersen, and K Schmidts. 1990. In Taxonomy for Analysis of Work Domains. Proceedings of the First MOHAWC Workshop, edited by B Brehmer, M de Montmollin and J Leplat. Roskilde: Riso National Laboratory.

Reason, J. 1989. Human Error. Cambridge: CUP.

Rebiffé, R, O Zayana, and C Tarrière. 1969. Détermination des zones optimales pour l’emplacement des commandes manuelles dans l’espace de travail. Ergonomics 12:913-924.

Régie nationale des usines Renault (RNUR). 1976. Les profils de poste: Methode d’analyse des conditions de travail. Paris: Masson-Sirtes.

Rogalski, J. 1991. Distributed decision making in emergency management: Using a method as a framework for analysing cooperative work and as a decision aid. In Distributed Decision Making. Cognitive Models for Cooperative Work, edited by J Rasmussen, B Brehmer, and J Leplat. Chichester: Wiley.

Rohmert, W. 1962. Untersuchungen über Muskelermüdung und Arbeitsgestaltung. Bern: Beuth-Vertrieb.

—. 1973. Problems in determining rest allowances. Part I: Use of modern methods to evaluate stress and strain in static muscular work. Appl Ergon 4(2):91-95.

—. 1984. Das Belastungs-Beanspruchungs-Konzept. Z Arb wiss 38:193-200.

Rohmert, W and K Landau. 1985. A New Technique of Job Analysis. London: Taylor & Francis.

Rolland, C. 1986. Introduction à la conception des systèmes d’information et panorama des méthodes disponibles. Génie Logiciel 4:6-11.

Roth, EM and DD Woods. 1988. Aiding human performance. I. Cognitive analysis. Travail Hum 51:39-54.

Rudolph, E, E Schönfelder, and W Hacker. 1987. Tätigkeitsbewertungssystem für geistige arbeit mit und ohne Rechnerunterstützung (TBS-GA). Berlin: Psychodiagnostisches Zentrum der Humboldt-Universität.

Rutenfranz, J. 1982. Occupational health measures for night- and shiftworkers. II. Shiftwork: Its practice and improvement. J Hum Ergol:67-86.

Rutenfranz, J, J Ilmarinen, F Klimmer, and H Kylian. 1990. Work load and demanded physical performance capacity under different industrial working conditions. In Fitness for Aged, Disabled, and Industrial Workers, edited by M Kaneko. Champaign, Ill.: Human Kinetics Books.

Rutenfranz, J, P Knauth, and D Angersbach. 1981. Shift work research issues. In  Biological Rhythms, Sleep and Shift Work , edited by LC Johnson, DI Tepas, WP Colquhoun, and MJ Colligan. New York: Spectrum Publications Medical and Scientific Books.

Saito, Y. and K Matsumoto. 1988. Variations of physiological functions and psychological measures and their relationship on delayed shift of sleeping time.  Jap J Ind Health  30:196-205.

Sakai, K, A Watanabe, N Onishi, H Shindo, K Kimotsuki, H Saito, and K Kogl. 1984. Conditions of night naps effective to facilitate recovery from night work fatigue.  J Sci  Lab 60: 451-478.

Savage, CM and D Appleton. 1988. CIM and Fifth Generation Management. Dearborn: CASA/SME Technical Council.

Savoyant, A and J Leplat. 1983. Statut et fonction des communications dans l’activité des équipes de travail. Psychol Franç 28:247-253.

Scarbrough, H and JM Corbett. 1992. Technology and Organization. London: Routledge.

Schmidtke, H. 1965. Die Ermüdung. Bern: Huber.

—. 1971. Untersuchungen über den Erholunggszeitbedarf bei verschiedenen Arten gewerblicher Tätigkeit. Berlin: Beuth-Vertrieb.

Sen, RN. 1984. Application of ergonomics to industrially developing countries. Ergonomics 27:1021-1032.

Sergean, R. 1971. Managing Shiftwork. London: Gower Press.

Sethi, AA, DHJ Caro, and RS Schuler. 1987. Strategic Management of Technostress in an Information Society. Lewiston: Hogrefe.

Shackel, B. 1986. Ergonomics in design for usability. In People and Computer: Design for Usability, edited by MD Harrison and AF Monk. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.

Shahnavaz, H. 1991. Transfer of Technology to Industrially Developing Countries and Human Factors Consideration TULEÅ 1991: 22, 23024. Luleå Univ., Luleå, Sweden: Center for Ergonomics of Developing Countries.

Shahnavaz, H, J Abeysekera, and A Johansson. 1993. Solving multi-factorial work-environment problems through participatory ergonomics: Case study: VDT operators. In Ergonomics of Manual Work, edited by E Williams, S Marrs, W Karwowski, JL Smith, and L Pacholski. London: Taylor & Francis.

Shaw, JB and JH Riskind. 1983. Predicting job stress using data from the Position Analysis Questionnaire (PAQ). J Appl Psychol 68:253-261.

Shugaar, A. 1990. Ecodesign: New products for a greener culture. Int Herald Trib, 17.

Sinaiko, WH. 1975. Verbal factors in human engineering: Some cultural and psychological data. In Ethnic Variables in Human Factors Engineering, edited by A Chapanis. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Univ..

Singleton, WT. 1982. The Body At Work. Cambridge: CUP.

Snyder, HL. 1985a. Image quality: Measures and visual performance. In Flat Panel Displays and CRTs, edited by LE Tannas. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.

—. 1985b. The visual system: Capabilities and limitations. In Flat Panel Displays and CRTs, edited by LE Tannas. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.

Solomon, CM. 1989. The corporate response to work force diversity. Pers J 68:42-53.

Sparke, P. 1987. Modern Japanese Design. New York: EP Dutton.

Sperandio, JC. 1972. Charge de travail et régulation des processus opératoires. Travail Hum 35:85-98.

Sperling, L, S Dahlman, L Wikström, A Kilbom, and R Kadefors. 1993. A cube model for the classification of work with hand tools and the formulation of functional requirements. Appl Ergon 34:203-211.

Spinas, P. 1989. User oriented software development and dialogue design. In Work With Computers: Organizational, Management, Stress and Health Aspects, edited by MJ Smith and G Salvendy. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Staramler, JH. 1993. The Dictionary of Human Factors Ergonomics. Boca Raton: CRC Press.

Strohm, O, JK Kuark, and A Schilling. 1993. Integrierte Produktion: Arbeitspsychologische Konzepte und empirische Befunde, Schriftenreihe Mensch, Technik, Organisation. In CIM—Herausforderung an Mensch, Technik, Organisation, edited by G Cyranek and E Ulich. Stuttgart, Zürich: Verlag der Fachvereine.

Strohm, O, P Troxler and E Ulich. 1994. Vorschlag für die Restrukturierung eines
Produktionsbetriebes. Zürich: Institut für Arbietspsychologie der ETH.

Sullivan, LP. 1986. Quality function deployment: A system to assure that customer needs drive the product design and production process. Quality Progr :39-50.

Sundin, A, J Laring, J Bäck, G Nengtsson, and R Kadefors. 1994. An Ambulatory Workplace for Manual Welding: Productivity through Ergonomics. Manuscript. Göteborg: Lindholmen Development.

Tardieu, H, D Nanci, and D Pascot. 1985. Conception d’un système d’information. Paris: Editions d’Organisation.

Teiger, C, A Laville, and J Durafourg. 1974. Taches répétitives sous contrainte de temps et charge de travail. Rapport no 39. Laboratoire de physiologie du travail et d’ergonomie du CNAM.

Torsvall, L, T Akerstedt, and M. Gillberg. 1981. Age, sleep and irregular workhours: a field study with EEG recording, catecholamine excretion and self-ratings.  Scand J Wor Env Health  7:196-203.

Ulich, E. 1994. Arbeitspsychologie 3. Auflage. Zürich: Verlag der Fachvereine and Schäffer-Poeschel.

Ulich, E, M Rauterberg, T Moll, T Greutmann, and O Strohm. 1991. Task orientation and user-oriented dialogue design. In  Int J Human-Computer Interaction  3:117-144.

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). 1992. Ergonomics Impact of Science on Society. Vol. 165. London: Taylor & Francis.

Van Daele, A. 1988. L’écran de visualisation ou la communication verbale? Analyse comparative de leur utilisation par des opérateurs de salle de contrôle en sidérurgie. Travail Hum 51(1):65-80.

—. 1992. La réduction de la complexité par les opérateurs dans le contrôle de processus continus. contribution à l’étude du contrôle par anticipation et de ses conditions de mise en œuvre. Liège: Université de Liège.

Van der Beek, AJ, LC Van Gaalen, and MHW Frings-Dresen. 1992. Working postures and activities of lorry drivers: A reliability study of on-site observation and recording on a pocket computer. Appl Ergon 23:331-336.

Vleeschdrager, E. 1986.  Hardness 10: diamonds . Paris.

Volpert, W. 1987. Psychische Regulation von Arbeitstätigkeiten. In Arbeitspsychologie. Enzklopüdie der Psychologie, edited by U Kleinbeck and J Rutenfranz. Göttingen: Hogrefe.

Wagner, R. 1985. Job analysis at ARBED. Ergonomics 28:255-273.

Wagner, JA and RZ Gooding. 1987. Effects of societal trends on participation research. Adm Sci Q 32:241-262.

Wall, TD and JA Lischeron. 1977. Worker Participation: A Critique of the Literature and Some Fresh Evidence. London: McGraw-Hill.

Wang, WM-Y. 1992. Usability Evaluation for Human-Computer Interaction (HCI). Luleå, Sweden: Luleå Univ. of Technology.

Waters, TR, V Putz-Anderson, A Garg, and LJ Fine. 1993. Revised NIOSH equation for the design and evaluation of manual handling tasks. Ergonomics 36:749-776.

Wedderburn, A. 1991. Guidelines for shiftworkers. Bulletin of European Shiftwork Topics (BEST) No. 3. Dublin: European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions.

Welford, AT. 1986. Mental workload as a function of demand, capacity, strategy and skill. Ergonomics 21:151-176.

White, PA. 1988. Knowing more about what we tell: ‘Introspective access’ and causal report accuracy, 10 years later. Brit J Psychol 79:13-45.

Wickens, C. 1992. Engineering Psychology and Human Performance. New York: Harper Collins.

Wickens, CD and YY Yeh. 1983. The dissociation between subjective work load and performance: A multiple resources approach. In Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 27th Annual Meeting. Santa Monica, Calif.: Human Factors Society.

Wieland-Eckelmann, R. 1992. Kognition, Emotion und Psychische Beanspruchung. Göttingen: Hogrefe.

Wikström.L, S Byström, S Dahlman, C Fransson, R Kadefors, Å Kilbom, E Landervik, L Lieberg, L Sperling, and J Öster. 1991. Criterion for Selection and Development of Hand Tools. Stockholm: National Institute of Occupational Health.

Wilkinson, RT. 1964. Effects of up to 60 hours sleep deprivation on different types of work. Ergonomics 7:63-72.

Williams, R. 1976. Keywords: A Vocabulary of Culture and Society. Glasgow: Fontana.

Wilpert, B. 1989. Mitbestimmung. In Arbeits- und Organisationspsychologie. Internationales Handbuch in Schlüsselbegriffen, edited by S Greif, H Holling, and N Nicholson. Munich: Psychologie Verlags Union.

Wilson, JR. 1991. Participation: A framework and foundation for ergonomics. J Occup Psychol 64:67-80.

Wilson, JR and EN Corlett. 1990. Evaluation of Human Work: A Practical Ergonomics Methodology. London: Taylor & Francis.

Wisner, A. 1983. Ergonomics or anthropology: A limited or wide approach to working condition in technology transfer. In Proceedings of the First International Conference On Ergonomics of Developing Countries, edited by Shahnavaz and Babri. Luleå, Sweden: Luleå Univ. of Technology.

Womack, J, T Jones, and D Roos. 1990. The Machine That Changed the World. New York: Macmillan.

Woodson, WE, B Tillman, and P Tillman. 1991. Human Factors Design Handbook. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Zhang, YK and JS Tyler. 1990. The establishment of a modern telephone cable production facility in a developing country. A case study. In International Wire and Cable Symposium Proceedings. Illinois.

Zinchenko, V and V Munipov. 1989. Fundamentals of Ergonomics. Moscow: Progress.