本研究之目的是以模擬實際工作來檢驗KIM LHC及EAWS 檢核表法的適用性及合理性，KIM LHC與EAWS是為晚近提出的檢核表法，是目前較為普遍應用的全身性職業肌肉骨骼傷害評估方法。整體而言，KIM LHC使用起來較為簡便，其評估結果可合理反映潛在肌肉骨骼傷害風險，而EAWS則可針對多種姿勢、施力大小等危害因子進行十分細膩的評估，且亦適用於評估複合性作業之風險，應用範圍較廣泛。由於此兩種檢核方式風險等級判定範圍十分相仿，故選擇此兩種檢核方式以實驗來驗證其風險值是否合理反映實際作業的疲勞程度。
本研究方法是挑選出不同體力負荷的工作，內容包含IC入庫作業、大理石補膠、打石作業、紗綑上架、機台操作、掛架操作、油漆裝箱、水泥搬運等八項，以10位作業人員模擬作業後進行主觀評估負荷的排序。以這排序做為標準，來檢驗KIM LHC與EAWS的評估風險值與風險等級之適用性。
實驗結果顯示，在風險值評估結果方面，由於 EAWS 在需長時間維持站立姿勢的掛架操作項目中反映了姿勢評級的風險等級，造成EAWS的評估結果與主觀疲勞程度排序差異兩個序位，所以就實驗結果來看，KIM LHC所評估之風險值結果之合理性相較於EAWS來的高。而在風險等級判定的結果上，KIM LHC與EAWS於此實驗中之判定結果則十分相似，能夠有效區別出不同工作之間的風險等級，顯示此兩種檢核表之風險等級判定皆有相當高的參考價值。
本次研究為此兩種檢核方式之初探，研究方法則為較概略之比較，僅針對EAWS及KIM LHC之風險值及風險等級結果相互比較。結果說明了兩種評估方式皆能準確反映作業之風險等級，但在應用EAWS時需留意複合評估風險值之合理性，才能使風險值更能符合主觀疲勞感受，提高其風險值評估之可靠度。

The purpose of this study is to simulate the actual work to verify KIM LHC and EAWS checklist applicability and rationality. KIM LHC and EAWS are recent proposed assessment checklist, they are currently more common WMSD(Work-Related Musculoskeletal Disorders) assessment checklist. Summarized the comparison, KIM LHC is a simple tool for WMSD risk assessment and the evaluation results can reasonably reflect the potential risk of musculoskeletal injury.And EAWS assessment can be very exquisite for a variety of posture, force and other hazard factors. It is also applies to the assessment of the risks of composite jobs and have a wider range of applications. Because of these two assessment tools risk level determining range is very similar, so choose these two checklists to experiment to validate its rating point is a reasonable reflection of the degree of fatigue.
This research method is to pick out the different load of work, these eight jobs contains IC warehousing operation、fill the marble gap with glue、stone destroy job、yarn material added、machine operation、rack operation、paint packing、bagged cement transport.After the 10 personnel simulate the these jobs then sorting the degree of fatigue. This sort regarded as the standard to test the applicability of the rating point and risk level of KIM LHC and EAWS.
Experimental results show that the rating point of EAWS of some prolonged standing jobs is higher than KIM LHC because of postures rating point, and it makes the EAWS risk sorting have a difference of two order bits.Therefore, according to the results, the risk scores of KIM LHC seems more reasonable than EAWS. However, the determination of risk level of KIM LHC and EAWS are very similar. It means that the two checklists can effectively distinguish jobs of different risk levels and the results has a very high reference value.
This study is the initial investigate of KIM LHC and EAWS, and the research methods is a roughly comparison.Only compare the KIM LHC and EAWS risk scores and risk level results. The results shows that these two checklists can accurately reflects the level of risk, but EAWS need to be more careful to assess the composte jobs in order to strengthen the reasonableness of the risk score. In this way, that the risk value can be more match with the Subjective feelings of fatigue and that can improve the reliability of EAWS.

Keywords：KIM LHC risk score、EAWS risk score、Subjective feelings of fatigue

[1] Liang Hui-Wen, Labor investigate yearly report, A brief of WMSDs ,
Industrial safety scientific and technological quarterly, Council Of Labor
Affairs Executive Yuan Taiwan 2003, Vol.50, P.2-6
[2] Health and safety statistics 2004/05~2009/10, Health and Safety Executive
[3] Musculoskeletal disorders in Europe-Definitions and statistics, EUROGIP 2007
[4] W. Monroe Keyserling, Sheryl S. Ulin, 2004, Case Studies of Ergonomic
Interventions in Automotive Parts Distribution Operations, Journal of Occupational
Rehabilitation, Vol.14, No.4.
[5] Nonfatal occupational injuries and illnesses requiring days away from work, U.S.
Bureau of Labor Statistics 2005~2009
[6] Machi Suka, Katsumi Yoshida, Musculoskeletal pain in Japan：prevalence and
interference with daily activities, Japan College of Rheumatology and
Springer-Verlag Tokyo 2005
[7] WORKING CONDITIONS : A QUARTER OF EU CITIZENS
SUFFER FROM MUSCULOSKELETAL DISORDERS, European Social Policy
[8] Chapter9 Health Care Utilization and Economic Cost, The Burden
of Musculoskeletal Diseases in the United States
[9] Chaffin et al., Occupational biomechanics, John Wiley & Sons 1988, p.293
[10] Waters, T.R, Putz-Anderson V., Garg A., Fine L. J., 1993, Revised NIOSH
equation for the design and evaluation of manual lifting tasks, Ergonomics,
36, 749-776.
[11] Waters, T.R, Baron, S.L., Kemmlert, K., 1998, Accuracy of measurements for the
revised NIOSH lifting equation, 29, 433-438.
[12] Chung, M.K. and Kee, D., 2000, Evaluation of lifting tasks
frequently performed during fire brick manufacturing processes using NIOSH
lifting equations, International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 25, 423-433.
[13] Van der Beek, A.J., Mathiassen, S.E., Windhorst, J., Burdorf, A., 2005, An
evaluation of methods assessing the physical demands of manual lifting in
scaffolding, Applied Ergonomics, 36, 213-222.
[14] OHSCO’s Musculoskeletal Disorders Prevention Series Part 3: MSD Prevention
Toolbox – Final Draft ,2007
[15] Council Of Labor Affairs Executive Yuan Taiwan, Human Factor Guide Book,
Taipei 1995.
[16] Osmo Karhu, Reino Harkonen, Pentti Sorvali and Pentti Vepsalainen, “Observing
working postures in industry : examples of OWAS application”, Applied
Ergonomics 1981, Vol.12, No.1, 13-17
[17] McAtamney, L. & Corlett, E.N. , 2004, Rapid Upper Limb Assessment (RULA) In
Stanton, N. et al. (eds.) Handbook of Human Factors and Ergonomics Methods,
Chapter 7, Boca Raton, FL, pp. 7:1 - 7:11
[18] Sue Hignett,Lynn McAtamney,2000,Rapid Entire Body Assessment (REBA),
Applied Ergonomics 31,201~205
[19] Health and Safety Executive, Manual handling assessment chart (MAC) tool,
http://www.hse.gov.uk/msd/mac/
http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/indg383.pdf
[20] Health and Safety Executive, Assessment of Repetitive Tasks (ART) tool,
http://www.hse.gov.uk/msd/uld/art/index.htm
http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/indg438.pdf
[21] Assessment of manual handling tasks based on key indicators,Version 2001
[22] Assessment of pulling and pushing based on key indicators ,Version 2002
[23] André Klussmann1, Ulf Steinberg, Falk Liebers, Hansjürgen Gebhardt1 and
Monika A Rieger, 2010, The Key Indicator Method for Manual Handling
Operations (KIM-MHO) - evaluation of a new method for the assessment of
working conditions within a cross-sectional study, BMC Musculoskeletal
Disorders, 11:272
[24] U. Steinberg, S. Behrendt, G. Caffier, K. Schultz, M. Jakob, 2008., Key indicator
method manual handling operations - Design and testing of a practical aid for
assessing working conditions, Bundesanstalt für Arbeitsschutz und Arbeitsmedizin,
Project number: F 1994
[25] Ergonomic AssessmentWork- Sheet (EAWS) , Fondazione Ergo-MTM Italia ,2
August 2013
中文文獻
[26] 潘儀聰、游志雲，人因工程現場不良工作姿勢改善績效評估研究，行政院
勞工委員會勞工安全衛生研究所，民國 97 年
[27] 行政院勞工委員會勞工保險局,勞工保險統計年報民國 94 年~98 年
[28] 潘儀聰、游志雲，人因工程現場不良工作姿勢改善績效評估研究，行政院
勞工委員會勞工安全衛生研究所，民國 97 年
[29] 人因工程肌肉骨骼傷害預防指引，行政院勞工委員會勞工安全衛生研究所，民
國90年
[30] 陳志勇，從職業性肌肉骨骼傷病案例比較OCRA Index與HALTLV，行政院勞
工委員會勞工安全衛生研究，民國98年
[31] 工作現場人因工程檢點適用性研究，行政院勞工委員會勞工安全衛生研究所，
民國86年。