新版關鍵指標法分析與使用建議

Analysis and Usage Advice of the New Key Indicator Methods

杜珮君(Pei-Chun Tu)；陳協慶(Hsieh-Ching Chen)；劉永平(Yong-Ping Liu)

肌肉骨骼傷病 ； 風險評估工具 ； 關鍵指標法 ； Musculoskeletal disorders ； Physical workload ； Key Indicator Methods

勞動及職業安全衛生研究季刊

31卷3期（2023 / 09 / 20）

48 - 60

繁體中文;英文

關鍵指標評估法（Key Indicator Methods, KIM）評估工具是近年國內推動「人因性危害預防計畫」時，最常被使用之危害風險評估工具。然而隨著研究的進展，早期的評估工具有些已經改版，而新的評估工具也陸續地推陳出新。按理來說，新開發的工具必然改善了先前工具的某些不足，而選用適當及正確的評估工具攸關肌肉骨骼危害預防工作之執行，因此新舊工具之間的差異以及其適用性值得做進一步的資料收集與探討。本研究之目的在於比較最新版關鍵指標與初版之間的差異，探討其對本土重複性肌肉骨骼傷病預防之可用性。研究採用模擬方式組合之各種作業條件，再分別使用新、舊KIM工具計算其風險值與危害等級並進行比較。本研究針對20個風險評估教學案例，分別使用新、舊KIM工具進行危害評估與差異分析。結果顯示新增的KIM-ABP（Awkward Body Posture, ABP）、BF（Whole-Body Force, BF）、BM（Body Movement, BM）工具及其延伸工具（Extended KIM, KIM-E）增加了KIM的涵蓋面及應用範圍，而新版KIM-MHO的評估風險明顯高於舊版KIM-MHO（Manual Handling Operations, MHO），估計MHO的新版修正應更能符合過去MHO與理學檢查相關研究之調查結果。新版關鍵指標法新增ABP、BF與BM三項評估工具，新版關鍵指標法的涵蓋面（可評估的作業項目及複雜度）比舊版更大，分類更細，也因此新版關鍵指標法在工具的選擇與使用上比舊版複雜，因而可能影響其使用性及業界的接受度。本研究提出新版KIM的選用建議，並建議於未來開發適合的應用工具來搭配，以促進人因危害防治的教育、訓練與推廣。

In recent years, the Key Indicator Methods is one of the most frequently used ergonomic tool for assessing risk of repetitive strain injuries when conducting "MSDs prevention plan" in Taiwan. However, with the progress of research, some of the early assessment tools have been revised and new tools have been introduced one after another. Logically speaking, the newly developed tools will improve some of the shortcomings of the previous tools. The selection of appropriate and correct assessment tools is critical to preventing musculoskeletal hazards. Therefore, the differences between the use of old and new tools and their applicability are worth further validation and discussion after a decade. The purpose of this study is to compare the difference between the latest version of the key indicator method and the first version and to explore its applicability for the prevention of local repetitive musculoskeletal injuries. This study uses simulation methods to analyze and compare the risk value, and risk level, determined using the new and old KIM tools. The new and old version KIM tools were then used to analyze the hazards of 20 teaching cases. The results show that the newly-added KIM-ABP (Awkward Body Posture, ABP), BF (Whole-Body Force, BF), BM (Body Movement, BM) tools, and the KIM extension tool (KIM-E) can ensure an increase in the coverage of working type and application range. Furthermore, the task risk of the new version KIM-MHO (Manual Handling Operations, MHO) is significantly higher than that of the old version. It is estimated that the new revision should be more in line with the survey results of past NMQ and physical examination related research. The new version of KIM introduces three new assessment tools: ABP, BF, and BM. The coverage of the new version of KIM, including assessable tasks and complexity, is greater than the old version, with more detailed classifications. Consequently, the selection and use of tools in the new version of KIM are more complex than the old version, which may affect its usability and industry acceptance. This study puts forward suggestions for the selection of the new version of KIM, and it is necessary to develop suitable application tools to facilitate education, training, and promotion in ergonomic hazard prevention in the future.

1. (2001).American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists. Hand activity level. In TLVs and BEIS - Threshold Limit Values for Chemical Substances and Physical Agents; 2001. p. 110-2 (Cincinnati, Ohio: ACGIH)..
2. (2001).Assessment of Manual Handling Tasks Based on Key Indicators, Version 2001..
3. 德國聯邦職業安全與健康研究所（BAuA）的官方網站：https://www.baua.de/EN/Topics/Work-design/Physical-workload/Key-indicator method/Key-indicator-method_node.html
4. (2002).Assessment of Pulling and Pushing Based on Key Indicators, Version 2002..
5. (2007).OHSCO's Musculoskeletal Disorders Prevention Series Part 3: MSD Prevention Toolbox - Final Draft, 2007..
6. (1995).Human Factor Guide Book.Taiwan:Council of Labor Affairs Executive Yuan.
7. Health and Safety Executive. Manual Handling Assessment Chart (MAC) Tool, UK. Source: http://www.Hse. Gov.Uk/Msd/Mac/Pubns/Indg383.Pdf
8. Hignett, S,Mcatamney, L(2000).Rapid Entire Body Assessment (REBA).Applied Ergonomics,31(2),201-205.
9. Karhu, O,Harkonen, R,Sorvali, P,Vepsalainen, P(1981).Observing Working Postures In Industry: Examples of OWAS Application.Applied Ergonomics,12(1),13-17.
10. Karhu, O,Kansi, P,Kuorinka, I(1977).Correcting working postures in industry: a practical method for analysis.Applied Ergonomics,8(4),199-201.
11. Klussmann, A,Liebers, F,Brandstädt, F(2016).Validation of newly developed and redesigned key indicator methods for assessment of different working conditions with physical workloads based on mixed-methods design: a study protocol.BMJ Online,8(7)
12. Klussmann, A,Steinberg, U,Liebers, F,Gebhardt, H,Rieger, M(2010).The Key Indicator Method for Manual Handling Operations (KIM-MHO) - Evaluation of A New Method for the Assessment of Working Conditions Within a Cross-Sectional Study.BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders,11,272.
13. Marras, WS(ed.),Karwowski, W(ed.)(2006).Fundamentals and assessment tools for occupational ergonomics.Boca Raton, Florida:CRC Press.
14. Mcatamney, L,Corlett, EN(1993).RULA: A survey method for the investigation of related upper limb disorders.Applied Ergonomics,24(2),91-99.
15. Occhipinti, E(1998).OCRA: a concise index for the assessment of exposure to repetitive movements of the upper limbs.Ergonomics,41(9),1290-311.
16. Schaub, K,Caragnano, G,Britzke, B,Bruder, R(2012).The European Assembly Worksheet.Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science,1-23.
17. Schaub, K,Ghezel-Ahmadi, K.(2007).Vom AAWS zum EAWS-ein erweitertes Screening-Verfahren für körperliche Belastungen.Berichtzum 53. Arbeitswissenschaftlichen Kongress vom 28.2.-2.3.2007,Dortmund:
18. Schaub, K,Wakula, J,Berg, K,Kaiser, B.(2014).the Assembly Specific Force Atlas.Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries,25(3),329-339.
19. Stanton, N.(ed.)(2004).Handbook of Human Factors and Ergonomics Methods.Boca Raton, FL:
20. Steinberg, U,Behrendt, S,Caffier, G,Schultz, K,Jakob, M(2008).Key Indicator Method manual handling operations - Design and testing of a practical aid for assessing working conditions.Germany:Bundesanstalt für Arbeitsschutz Und Arbeitsmedizin.
21. Waters, TR,Baron, SL,Kemmlert, K(1998).Accuracy of measurements for the Revised NIOSH Lifting Equation.Applied Ergonomics,29(6),433-438.
22. Waters, TR,Putz-Anderson, V,Garg, A,Fine, LJ(1993).Revised NIOSH Equation for the Design and Evaluation of Manual Lifting Tasks.Ergonomics,36(7),749-776.
23. 勞動部職業安全衛生署：人因性危害預防計畫指引。初版，https://www.osha.gov.tw/media/7186523/ 人因性危害預防計畫指引.pdf；2014。