postures. The first step in establishing such a system was to rank each posture combination from the least to the greatest loading based on biomechanical and muscle function criteria2’. This process was conducted over some time by two ergonomists and an occupational physiotherapist. Each ranked the postures on a scale
from I to 9. A score of 1 was defined as the posture where the least musculoskeletal loading occurred. Where differences in the scores occurred the loads on the musculoskeletal system were discussed and a score agreed. This produced a table of consolidated body segment posture scores called posture score A and B
respectively.
The next step was to observe video recordings of ten subjects who performed one of five tasks. The tasks were data processing operations, sewing machine operations, production line packing, brick sorting and a wire-twisting task. The posture scores A and B were
calculated and ordered from the lowest to the highest. Then the videotaped postures were reviewed in order of their scoring so that the level of musculoskeleta! loading was compared for each posture score to reveal
any inconsistent scoring. The inconsistencies found were discussed and several adjustments to the scores were subsequently made. From’this process tables were
developed for groups A and B which were titled Table A (see Table 1) and Table B (see Table 2) and are presented below. When the posture scores for each
-“Body’ part are recorded in thef:olumns of boxes A’and !3 (Figure 3): they are used in Tables f and 2 to find the combined scores called score A and score B. This is usually done after the survey is completed.
Muscle use and force scores A scoring svstem was developed to include the additional loah on the