CastellucciH. I.ArezesP. M.MolenbroekJ. F. M. (2014). Applying different equations to evaluate the level of mismatch between students and school furniture. Applied Ergonomics, 45(4), 1123–1132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2014.01.012
2.
CastellucciH. I.ArezesP. M.MolenbroekJ. F. M. (2015). Analysis of the most relevant anthropometric dimensions for school furniture selection based on a study with students from one Chilean region. Applied Ergonomics, 46 Pt A, 201–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2014.08.005
3.
CastellucciH. I.ArezesP. M.MolenbroekJ. F. M.de BruinR.VivianiC. (2017). The influence of school furniture on students’ performance and physical responses: Results of a systematic review. Ergonomics, 60(1), 93–110. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2016.1170889
4.
CastellucciH. I.CatalánM.ArezesP. M.MolenbroekJ. F. M. (2016). Evaluation of the match between anthropometric measures and school furniture dimensions in Chile. Work, 53(3), 585–595. https://doi.org/10.3233/WOR-152233
5.
CastellucciH. I.VivianiC.ArezesP.MolenbroekJ. F. M.MartínezM.ApariciV. (2021). Application of mismatch equations in dynamic seating designs. Applied Ergonomics, 90, 103273. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2020.103273.
6.
CEN (European committee for standardization) (2015). PREN 1729-1: 2015: Furniture - chairs and tables for Educational Institutions - Part 1: Functional dimensions.
7.
ChaffinD.AndersonG. (1991). Occupational biomechanics (2nd ed.). John Wiley.
8.
ChambersA.J.RobertsonM.M.BakerN.A. (2019). The effect of sit-stand desks on office worker behavioral and health outcomes: A scoping review. Applied Ergonomics, 78(3), 37–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2019.01.015
9.
DainoffM.BallietJ.GoernertP. (1994). Anthropometry and advanced ergonomic chairs. In LeuderR.NoroK. (Eds), Hard facts about soft machines: The ergonomics of seating (pp. 101–118). Taylor & Francis.
10.
DulJ.BruderR.BuckleP.CarayonP.FalzonP.MarrasW.S.WilsonJ.R.van der DoelenB. (2012). A strategy for human factors/ergonomics: Developing the discipline and profession. Ergonomics, 55(4), 377–395. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2012.661087
LuederR.Berg RiceV. (2008). Ergonomics for children. Taylor & Francis.
13.
MandalA. C. (1982). The correct height of school furniture. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 24(3), 257–269. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872088202400301
14.
MINSAL (Ministerio de Salud) (2017). Encuesta nacional de Salud 2017. National Health Survey 2017.
15.
MolenbroekJ. F. M. (1994). Made to measure (Op maat gemaakt: Menselijke maten voor het ontwerpen en beoordelen van gebruiksgoederen). Series Physical Ergonomics 3, also published as dissertation, Delft University of Technology, Faculty Industrial Design. Delftse Universitaire Pers. http://resolver.tudelft.nl/uuid:375f6153-19db-4649-b5ca-969b4964132e
16.
MolenbroekJ. F. M.Kroon-RamaekersY. M. T.SnijdersC. J. (2003). Revision of the design of a standard for the dimensions of school furniture. Ergonomics, 46(7), 681–694. https://doi.org/10.1080/0014013031000085635
17.
NoroK.NaruseT.LuederR.Nao-iN.KozawaM. (2012). Application of Zen sitting principles to microscopic surgery seating. Applied Ergonomics, 43(2), 308–319. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2011.06.006
18.
RobinetteK. M. (2012). Anthropometry for product design. In SalvendyG. (Ed.), Handbook of human factors and ergonomics (pp. 330–346). Wiley.
19.
SavanurC. S.AltekarC. R.DeA. (2007). Lack of conformity between Indian classroom furniture and student dimensions: Proposed future seat/table dimensions. Ergonomics, 50(10), 1612–1625. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140130701587350
20.
StrandenE. (2000). Dynamic leg volume changes when sitting in a locked and free-floating tilt office chair. Ergonomics, 43(3), 421–433. https://doi.org/10.1080/001401300184503
WingratJ. K.ExnerC. E. (2005). The impact of school furniture on fourth grade children’s on-task and sitting behavior in the classroom: A pilot study. Work, 25, 263–272. PMID: 16179775.