Search results
1 – 2 of 2Akinwale Okunola, Abiola Abosede Akanmu and Anthony Olukayode Yusuf
Low back disorders are more predominant among construction trade workers than their counterparts in other industry sectors. Floor layers are among the top artisans that are…
Abstract
Purpose
Low back disorders are more predominant among construction trade workers than their counterparts in other industry sectors. Floor layers are among the top artisans that are severely affected by low back disorders. Exoskeletons are increasingly being perceived as ergonomic solutions. This study aims to compare the efficacy of passive and active back-support exoskeletons by measuring range of motion, perceived discomfort, usability, perceived rate of exertion and cognitive load during a simulated flooring task experiment.
Design/methodology/approach
In this study eight participants were engaged in a repetitive timber flooring task performed with passive and active back-support exoskeletons. Subjective and objective data were collected to assess the risks associated with using both exoskeletons. Descriptive statistics were used for analysis. Scheirer-Ray-Hare test and Wilcoxon signed-rank test were adopted to compare the exoskeleton conditions.
Findings
The results show no significant differences in the range of motion (except for a lifting cycle), perceived level of discomfort and perceived level of exertion between the two exoskeletons. Significant difference in overall cognitive load was observed. The usability results show that the active back-support exoskeleton made task execution easier with less restriction on movement.
Research limitations/implications
The flooring task is simulated in a laboratory environment with only eight male participants.
Originality/value
This study contributes to the scarce body of knowledge on the usage comparison of passive and active exoskeletons for construction work.
Details
Keywords
Anthony Olukayode Yusuf, Adedeji Afolabi, Abiola Akanmu, Homero Murzi, Andres Nieto Leal, Sheryl Ball and Andrea Ofori-Boadu
There is a growing mismatch between the skill demands of the industry and the offerings of academia. One way of reducing this mismatch is by improving collaborations between…
Abstract
Purpose
There is a growing mismatch between the skill demands of the industry and the offerings of academia. One way of reducing this mismatch is by improving collaborations between practitioners and instructors using web-networking platforms. However, it is important to understand practitioners’ considerations while collaborating with instructors. Therefore, this study identified these considerations in order to infer inputs for the design of the graphical user interface (GUI) of a web-based platform for connecting instructors and practitioners.
Design/methodology/approach
A mixed method was adopted through a survey and focus group. A survey was used to capture practitioners’ considerations while collaborating with instructors for student development, and a focus group helped uncover an in-depth understanding of the study phenomena. The data were analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistics and thematic analysis.
Findings
The results show the willingness of practitioners to collaborate with instructors for student development, the ways by which practitioners are willing to meet instructors' course-support needs and their considerations in deciding to do so. Slight differences were observed between the results of the survey and the focus group regarding the ranking of the practitioners’ considerations. The study highlighted demographic differences in practitioners’ considerations when deciding on meeting instructors' course-support needs. The results provide a basis to deduce the GUI inputs of web-networking platforms for connecting instructors and practitioners.
Originality/value
This study revealed practitioners’ design needs and GUI inputs to facilitate the design of web-networking platforms for connecting instructors and practitioners. This study also contributes to user interface design principles, theories on individual differences and practitioners’ involvement in student professional development.
Details