Objective: The purpose of this study was to perform an in situ assessment of office seating habits that influence chair testing and design.
Background: Many chair testing parameters were derived decades ago when the average weight of people within the United States was dramatically lower and the office work tasks less computer based.
Method: For the study, 51 participants were randomly selected from Brazos Valley, Texas, businesses to participate in 8-hr assessments of office seating habits. Overall results were compared with current chair testing and design assumptions. Data were collected through written survey and through data logging of seat and back contact pressure and duration with the use of the X-SENSOR™ pressure mapping device and software. Additionally, 1 day per participant of caster roll distance was recorded with the use of a caster mounted digital encoder. Participants were grouped by body mass index (BMI) and weight (BMI <35 and weight <102 kg or BMI >35 and weight >102 kg).
Results: It was determined that a significant difference did exist between the groups in mean seat time per shift (p < .001), back cycles per shift (p < .002), seat cycles per shift (p < .01), and caster distance rolled per shift (p < .001).
Conclusion: Several key parameters and assumptions of current chair test methods and design specifications may no longer be valid for the upper quartile of weight range of the current U.S. population.
Application: The data collected in this study will enable engineers to determine whether revision of design standards for testing office seating for both normal weight and extremely obese workers is indicated.
AlexanderN. B.KoesterD. J.GrunawaltJ. A. (1996). Chair design affects how older adults rise from a chair. Journal of American Geriatric Society, 44, 356–362.
2.
American National Standards Institute/Business and Institutional Furniture Manufacturers Association. (2003). ANSI/BIFMA X5.1-2002: American national standard for office furnishings–General purpose office chairs. Grand Rapids, MI: BIFMA International.
3.
BoonstraM. C.van der SlikkeR. M.KeijsersN. L.van LummelR. C.de Waal MalefijtM. C.VerdonschotN. (2006). The accuracy of measuring the kinematics of rising from a chair with accelerometers and gyroscopes. Journal of Biomechanics, 39, 354–358.
4.
BossenD. (2005). The issue: Obesity. Addressing the needs of today’s call center workers. Atlas Ergonomics. Retrieved from http://www.atlasergo.com
5.
ColemanN.HullB. P.EllittG. (1998). An empirical study of the preferred settings for lumbar support on adjustable office chairs. Ergonomics, 41, 401–419.
6.
CooperR.O’ConnorT. (1999). Augmentation of the 100kg ISO wheelchair test dummy to accommodate a higher mass. Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development, 36, 45–54.
7.
FenetyP. A.PutnamC.WalkerJ. (2000). In-chair movement: Validity, reliability and implications for measuring sitting discomfort. Applied Ergonomics, 31, 383–393.
8.
FinlayO. E.BaylesT. B.RosenC.MillingJ. (1983). Effects of chair design, age and cognitive status on mobility. Age and Ageing, 12, 329–335.
9.
FontaineK. R.GadburyG.HeymsfieldS. B.KralJ.AlbuJ. B.AllisonD. (2002). Quantitative prediction of body diameter in severely obese individuals. Ergonomics, 45, 49–60.
10.
GurrK.StrakerL.MooreP. (1998). Cultural hazards in the transfer of ergonomics technology: Sitting, standing, chair design and exercise. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 22, 397–404.
11.
HjelmE. W.KarlkvistL.HagbergM.HagmanM.RisbergE. H.IsakssonA.ToomingasA. (2000). Working conditions and musculoskeletal disorders amongst male and female computer operators. In Proceedings of the IEA 2000/HFES 2000 Congress (pp. 675–677). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
12.
International Organization for Standardization. (1992). ISO 7176-11: International standard, wheelchairs. Part 11: Test dummies. Geneva, Switzerland: Author.
13.
JamesP. (2003). Call for obesity review as overweight numbers reach 1.7 billion [Press release]. Monte Carlo: International Obesity Task Force. Retrieved from http://www.iotf.org/media/iotfmar17.pdf
14.
KawagoeS.TajimaN.ChosaE. (2000). Biomechanical analysis of effects of foot placement with varying chair height on the motion of standing up. Journal of Orthopaedic Science, 5, 124–133.
15.
KernozekT. W.WilderP. A.AmundsonA.HummerJ. (2002). The effects of BMI on peak seat interface pressure of institutionalized elderly. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 83, 868–871.
National Institutes of Health. (1998). Clinical guidelines on the identification, evaluation, and treatment of overweight and obesity in adults: The evidence report. Bethesda, MD: National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Retrieved from http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/guidelines/obesity/ob_gdlns.htm
18.
RobinetteK.BlackwellS.DaanenH.BoehmerM.FlemingS. S.BrillT.HoeferlinD.BurnsidesD. (2002). Civilian American and European Surface Anthropometry Resource (CAESAR), final report: Vol. 1. Summary(AFRL-HE-WP-TR-2002-0169). Air Force Research Laboratory, Human Effectiveness Directorate, Crew System Interface Division, 2255 H Street, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, OH 45433-7022, and Society of Automotive Engineers International, 400 Common wealth Drive, Warrendale, PA 15096.
19.
SibellaF.GalliM.RomeiM.MontesanoA.CrivelliniM. (2003). Biomechanical analysis of sit to stand movement in normal and obese subjects. Clinical Biomechanics, 18, 745–750.
20.
StinsonM. D.PorterA. P.EakinP. A. (2003a). Pressure mapping systems: Reliability of pressure map interpretation. Clinical Rehabilitation, 17, 504–511.
21.
StinsonM. D.PorterA. P.EakinP. A. (2003b). Seat-interface pressure: A pilot study of the relationship to gender, body mass index and seating position. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 84, 405–409.
22.
VosG. A.CongletonJ. J.MooreS.AmendolaA.RingerL. (2006). Postural versus chair design impacts upon interface pressure. Applied Ergonomics, 37, 619–628.
