kth.sePublications KTH
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Standardizing upper arm movement definitions across observational and sensor-based methods: A Delphi consensus study among European ergonomics experts
KTH, School of Engineering Sciences in Chemistry, Biotechnology and Health (CBH), Biomedical Engineering and Health Systems, Ergonomics.ORCID iD: 0000-0001-5777-4232
Show others and affiliations
2026 (English)In: Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment and Health, ISSN 0355-3140, E-ISSN 1795-990X, Vol. 52, no 3, p. 231-240Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

OBJECTIVES: Musculoskeletal disorders from repetitive upper arm movements contribute substantially to sickness absence and productivity loss. Despite widespread use of observational and sensor-based assessments, inconsistent definitions hinder comparison across studies and translation to practice. This study explored threshold criteria for defining upper arm movements and static postures across observational and sensor-based approaches and examined conceptual differences between practical observability and biomechanical measurability.

METHODS: We conducted a two-round Delphi study following the ACCORD guidelines. We invited 35 European experts to rate agreement on proposed definitions. A consensus criterion was set to ≥75% agreement. A thematic analysis of free-text responses guided definition revisions between rounds.

RESULTS: Fifteen (43%) and fourteen (93% retention) completed rounds 1 and 2, respectively. Consensus defined a fast-paced movement as ≤1 second (80% agreement) and static posture as ≥4 seconds with ±5° movements (87% agreement). No agreement emerged regarding the minimum amplitude threshold for defining an arm movement (eg, 10° versus 20°; 53% agreement). Experts’ comments reflected a tension between observability, favoring higher amplitude thresholds, and biomechanical relevance, favoring lower thresholds, while highlighting velocity’s importance.

CONCLUSIONS: Expert consensus on time-based thresholds for fast-paced movements and static postures provides a starting point for standardized ergonomic assessment. The absence of consensus on amplitude thresholds highlights the need for field validation studies examining which thresholds capture measurement reliability and prediction of musculoskeletal health outcomes. These findings support efforts toward transparency and alignment in upper arm exposure definitions across research and practice, while acknowledging remaining conceptual and methodological challenges.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment and Health , 2026. Vol. 52, no 3, p. 231-240
National Category
Occupational Health and Environmental Health
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:kth:diva-382345DOI: 10.5271/sjweh.4288ISI: 001736188300001PubMedID: 41940884Scopus ID: 2-s2.0-105037640852OAI: oai:DiVA.org:kth-382345DiVA, id: diva2:2062567
Note

QC 20260526

Available from: 2026-05-26 Created: 2026-05-26 Last updated: 2026-05-26Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full textPubMedScopus

Authority records

Forsman, Mikael

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Forsman, Mikael
By organisation
Ergonomics
In the same journal
Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment and Health
Occupational Health and Environmental Health

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn
Total: 20 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf