Work performance measurement of visual inspectors in the automotive industry by considering ergonomic factors

Abstract

Background:

Visual inspection workers are always performing under various ergonomic factors and are more vulnerable to the effects of physical and organizational aspects, since their work deals highly with cognitive functions and the impact of ergonomic factors has to be identified in automotive industries to improve work performance.

Objective:

To study the combined effect of ergonomic factors that may have an impact on the performance of visual inspection workers in the automotive industry.

Methods:

In this experimental study combined factors such as postures (standing, sitting, Sit-stand) and work shifts (A shift, B shift, C Shift) have been studied at three levels. The study was conducted among selected employes (n = 10) in the automotive manufacturing industry in 2023. During the study, the visual inspectors’ work performance was measured using the error study, and the cognitive functions of visual inspectors’ were evaluated by taking the Digit Symbol Substitution Test (DSST).

Results:

The study established that postures significantly impact work performance at 40.08% and cognitive functions at 36.25%. Work shifts significantly impact work performance with 18.18% and cognitive functions with 26.62% of visual inspectors’ in the automotive industry. The combined effect of postures and work shifts has significantly impacted the visual inspectors’ performance with 13.29% on work performance and 10.12% on cognitive functions.

Conclusions:

This study draws the inference that individual and combined factors (Posture and Work shift) both possess a significant impact on the work performance and cognitive functions of visual inspectors’ in the automotive manufacturing industry.

Keywords

combined factors work performance error study cognitive functions digit symbol substitution test

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Schoonahd

Gould

Miller

. Studies of visual inspection. Ergonomics 1973; 16: 365–379.

See

Drury

Speed

, et al. The role of visual inspection in the 21st century. Proc Hum Factors Ergon Soc Annu Meet 2017; 61: 262–266.

Kujawinska

Vogt

. Human factors in visual quality control. Manag Prod Eng Rev 2015; 6: 25–31.

Megaw

. The ergonomics of visual inspection. Appl Ergon 1979; 10: 16.

Megaw

. Factors affecting visual inspection accuracy. Appl Ergon 1979; 10: 27–32.

Gallwey

Drury

. Task complexity in visual inspection. Hum Factors 1986; 28: 595–606.

Parsons

. Environmental ergonomics: a review of principles, methods and models. Appl Ergon 2000; 31: 581–594.

Berlin

Bergman

Chafi

, et al. A systemic overview of factors affecting the cognitive performance of industrial manual assembly workers. In: Proceeding of the 21st congress of international ergonomic association, Vol. 221, 2021, pp.371–381.

Hadi

Mahsa

Jafari

, et al. The analysis of harmful factors affecting on mental health and cognitive function among workers of steel industry (using the ISO 9612 approach). Indian J Psychiatr Nurs 2021; 18: 33–42.

10.

Nadri

Khavanin

Kim

, et al. Investigative study on cognitive decline among textile industry workers with occupational noise-induced hearing loss. Aud Vestib Res 2022; 31: 165–174.

11.

Vimalanathan

Babu

. The effect of indoor office environment on the work performance, health and well-being of office workers. J Environ Health Sci Eng 2014; 12: 113.

12.

Won

Singh

DKA

Din

, et al. An relationship between physical performance and cognitive performance measures among community- dwelling older adults. Clin Epidemiol 2014; 3: 343–350.

13.

Jaeger

Domingo

. The digit symbol substitution test (DSST): psychometric properties and clinical utility in major depressive disorder. Eur Neuropsychopharmacol 2016; 26: S341.

14.

Stone

Schnieders

Wei

, et al. The impact of inspector’s cognitve style on performance in various visual inspection display tasks. Proc Hum Factors Ergon Soc Annu Meet 2016; 60: 1379–1383.

15.

Jaeger

. Digit symbol substitution test: the case for sensitivity over specificity in neuropsychological testing. J Clin Psychopharmacol 2018; 38: 513–519.

16.

Vieira

Kumar

. Working postures: a literature review. J Occup Rehabil 2004; 14: 143–159.

17.

Liebl

Haller

Jodicke

, et al. Combined effect of acoustic and visual distraction on cognitive performance and well-being. Appl Ergon 2012; 43: 424–434.

18.

Daneshmandi

Choobineh

Ghaem

, et al. Adverse effects of prolonged sitting behavior on the general health of office workers. J Lifestyle Med 2017; 7: 69–75.

19.

Noor

SNAM

Ahmad

Wahab

, et al. A review of studies concerning prolonged standing working posture. Adv Eng Forum 2013; 10: 131–136.

20.

Karakolis

Callaghan

. The impact of Sit-stand office workstations on worker discomfort and productivity. Appl Ergon 2014; 45: 799–806.

21.

Kazemi

Haidarimoghadam

Motamedzadeh

, et al. Effects of shift work on cognitive performance, sleep quality, and sleepiness among petrochemical control room operators. J Circadian Rhythms 2016; 14: 1–8.

22.

Dehghani

Golbabaei

Omidi

, et al. Investigation of the effect of unusual work shifts and sleeps deprivation on cognitive performance in workers in an automotive industry. Iran Occup Health 2019; 16: 26–35.

23.

Ravindran

. Ergonomic impact on employee’s work performance. Int J Adv Innov Res 2019; 6: 231–236.

24.

See

(ed). Visual inspection. A review of the literature. SAND2012-8590. Sandia National Laboraties, Albuquerque, NM, 2012.

25.

Fernandez

. Ergonomics in the workplace. J Facil 1995; 13: 20–27.

26.

Drury

(ed). Good practices in visual inspection. Willimasville, NY: Applied Ergonomics Group Inc, 2002.

27.

Podrekar

Kozinc

Sarabon

. The effects of cycle and treadmill desks on work performance and cognitive function in sedentary workers: a review and meta-analysis. Work 2020; 65: 537–545.

28.

Zehr

Noguchi

Fok

, et al. Mechanical work and energy of sit-to-stand and stand-to-sit transitions performed with traditional and dynamic office chair designs. Work 2023; 76: 303–313.

29.

Knop

Olejarz

Ulewicz

. Evaluating and improving the effectiveness of visual inspection of products from the automotive industry. In: Advances in manufacturing II, 2019, pp.231–243. (3).

30.

Lamarche

Marchand

Saade

. Psychological distress in the workplace: the indirect contribution of work organization conditions to work performance. Work 2022; 72: 1469–1480.

31.

Lam

Bergquist

Lee

, et al. Exploring the use of an under-desk leg swing device during employee aptitude testing and implications on work performance and productivity. Work 2023; 75: 567–576.

32.

Chau

Sukula

Fedel

, et al. More standing and just as productive: effects of a Sit-stand desk intervention on call center workers’ sitting, standing, and productivity at work in the Opt to Stand pilot study. Prev Med Rep 2016; 3: 68–74.

33.

Lin

Bao

. The effect of Sit-stand schedules on office work productivity: a pilot study. Work 2019; 64: 563–568.

34.

Ojo

Bailey

Chater

, et al. The impact of active workstations on workplace productivity and performance: a systematic review. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2018; 15: 417.

35.

Mokhtarinia

Alimohammadi

Yarandi

, et al. Investigating the relationship between physical, cognitive, and environmental factors of ergonomics with the prevalence of musculoskeletal disorders: a case study in a car-parts manufacturing industry. Work 2024; 79: 215–229.

36.

Yeow

PHP

Sen

. Ergonomics improvements of the visual inspection process in a printed circuit assembly factory. Int J Occup Saf Ergon 2004; 10: 369–385.

37.

Narvaez

Norona

. A workplace design improvement for visual inspection in a Philippine-based aircraft parts company: a cognitive ergonomic approach. In: Proceedings of the international conference of industrial engineering and operations management, 2021, pp.1511–1520. (2).