Evidence for the adoption and acceptance of assistive devices for ladder lifting tasks by workers is scarce.
OBJECTIVE:
This study aims to investigate the technology acceptance and usability of a powered and automated cargo management system (RazerLift®) used by workers who need to lift ladders as part of their daily duties, as compared to mechanical cargo management systems (traditional).
METHODS:
We used a one-way repeated measures design in this study. Our primary outcome variable was a usability performance measurement measured as time (in seconds) for unloading and loading ladders using both systems. Our secondary outcome was technology acceptance, measured using questionnaires with a 5-point Likert scale: “strongly disagree (1)” to “strongly agree (5)”.
RESULTS:
The participants conducted the combined unloading and loading time using the powered and automated system (RazerLift®) 20.85 seconds faster than the traditional system (p-value = 0.000, t-value (df) = –5.730 (6), d = 2.713). Overall, the RazerLift® system (mean = 44.28, SD 5.58) had a higher technology acceptance compared to the traditional system (mean = 30.00, SD 7.91), (p = 0.041, t-value (df) = 6.589 (6), d = 4.60).
CONCLUSIONS:
The RazerLift® was more time efficient compared with the traditional system, and (2) the RazerLift® was superior in terms of technology acceptance compared to the traditional system.
Benyamina-DoumaN, CôtéC, LacasseA. Occupational and Ergonomic Factors AssociatedWith LowBack Pain Among Car-patrol Police Officers: Findings From the Quebec Serve and Protect Low Back Pain Study. The Clinical Journal of Pain. 2017;960-6.
YazdaniABPT, CarlanN, WellsR. Lifting Height as the Dominant Risk Factor for Low-Back Pain and Loading During Manual Materials Handling: A Scoping Review. IISE Transactions on Occupational Ergonomics and Human Factors. 2017;158-71.
7.
Sengupta DasguptaP, FulmerS, JingX, PunnettL, KuhnS, BuchholzB. Assessing the ergonomic exposures for drywall workers. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics. 2014;307-15.
8.
BarronPJ, BurgessK, CooperK, StewartAD. The physiological effect of a ‘climb assist’ device on vertical ladder climbing. Ergonomics. 2017;1008-13.
9.
LedgerD, McCaffreyDInside wearables: how the science of human behavior change offers the secret to long-term engagement. Endeavour Partners. 2014;200(93), 1.
10.
RickettB, OrbellS, SheeranP. Social-Cognitive Determinants of Hoist Usage among Health Care Workers. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology. 2006;182-96.
11.
ParkS, LavenderSA, SommerichCM, PattersonES. Barriers and facilitators affecting the adoption of ceiling lift interventions in nursing homes. In 58th International Annual Meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, HFES 2014; Hyatt Regency Chicago; United States; 27 October 2014 through 31 October 2014; Code 112852; 2014; Chicago. pp. 1405-1409.
12.
SchoenfischAL, MyersDJ, PompeiiLA, LipscombHJ. Implementation and adoption of mechanical patient lift equipment in the hospital setting: The importance of organizational and cultural factors. American Journal of Industrial Medicine. 2011;946-54.
13.
LiuL, Miguel CruzA, Rios RinconA, ButtarV, RansonQ, GoertzenD. What factors determine therapists’ acceptance of new technologies for rehabilitation-a study using the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT). Disability and Rehabilitation. 2015;5(1):447–55.
14.
Radin UmarRZ, SommerichCM, LavenderSA, SandersE, EvansK. Conceptual frameworks for the workplace change adoption process: elements integration from decision making and learning cycle process. Ergonomics. 2018;1173-86.
PortneyLG, WatkinsMP. Foundations of clinical research: Application to practice. 3rd ed. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall. Inc.; 2008.
21.
FaulknerL. Beyond the Five-User Assumption: Benefits of Increased Sample Sizes in Usability Testing.. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers. 2003; 379-83.
22.
VirziRA. Refining the Test Phase of Usability Evaluation: How Many Subjects Is Enough?. Human Factors. 1992; 457-68s.
23.
NielsenJ. What is Usability. In Nielsen J. Usability Engineering. Mountain View, California: AP PROFESSIONAL; 1993.
24.
BaxterK, CourageC, CaineK. Understanding your Users A Practical Guide to User Research Methods: A volume in Interactive Technologies Burlington, Massachusetts: Morgan Kaufmann; 2015.
25.
CohenJ. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.: Hillsdale; 1988.
26.
FaulF, ErdfelderE, LangAG, BuchnerA. G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods. 2007;75-191.
27.
PortneyLG, WatkinsMP. Foundations of clinical research: Applications to practice. 3rd ed. Upper Saddle River. N.J: Pearson/Prentice Hall.; 2009.
28.
WilliamsMD, RanaNP, DwivediYK. The unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT): A literature review. Journal of Enterprise Information Management. 2015;28(3):443–8.
29.
TaiwoAA, DowneAG. The theory of user acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT): A meta-analytic review of empirical findings. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Information Technology. 2013;49(1):48–58.
30.
ThompsonR, HigginsC, HowellJ. Personal Computing: Toward a Conceptual Model of Utilization.. MIS Quarterly. 1991;124-43.
31.
DavisF. Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology. MIS Quarterly. 1989;319-39.
32.
LiuL, Miguel-CruzA, RuptashT, BarnardS, JuzwishinD. Acceptance of Global Positioning System (GPS) Technology Among Dementia Clients and Family Caregivers. Journal of Technology in Human Services. 2017;99-119.
