Introduction. Study Design
The article under consideration is the study of the incidence and the attempt to find out the reasons for the self-reporter reduced productivity based on “musculoskeletal symptoms among computer users” (Hagberg et al., 2007, p. 1821). The design of the study is cohort research implementing the questionnaire and the monthly follow-up studies to check the results of the initial work and the possible changes of those results during the next 10 months.
Research Problem
The main problem of the article is the study of the musculoskeletal symptoms among computer users as, according to Hagberg et al. (2007), the majority of the latter suffer issues with their health because of their intense and devoted work. The situation is worsened by the fact that the bulk of workers experiencing musculoskeletal symptoms still work as they are either too ethical or loyal or just motivated by the financial stability of their families. The objective of the research was to identify the incidence rates of various types of musculoskeletal symptoms and see the factors why both employers and employees still cooperate if the symptoms discussed to reduce the workers’ productivity.
Research Procedures
The research procedures involved in the study include a literature review of the most relevant themes and ideas expressed by other scholars in previous research work, the development of the questionnaire, selection of the sample for the research, the analysis of the initial data, and the conduct of the monthly follow-ups during 10 next months to monitor the shifts in results. The literature review includes the consideration of main risk factors of musculoskeletal symptoms, the main reasons for them, as well as the points that make employers and employees keep collaborating understanding the reduced productivity.
The 88-item questionnaire was used to assess the study respondents’ (1283 people, 636 men, and 896 women) answers, whose results were converted into percentage relations to each other to see the main gender differences in the effect of musculoskeletal symptoms on work productivity, etc.
Procedural Design Flaws
The main flaw of the procedural design of the study is the only approximate possibility to measure the problems and productivity reduction levels in computer workers. The first point here is that these levels are self-reported and, consequently, self-assessed. The subjectivity of such answers and the correct relation made by every single person as for the reasons and effects of his/her productivity reduction limits the validity and potential opportunity to generalize the findings of the study.
Data Analysis
As for the procedures of data analysis, they are rather simple and purely mathematical. First of all, the answers of study respondents were classified according to gender to monitor the aforesaid gender differences in the issue. Secondly, the types of musculoskeletal symptoms reported were classified according to the areas of their appearance into the back, hand, shoulder, etc. This step allowed the researchers to figure out the most problematic areas for productivity. Finally, the percentage relation of the answers is calculated as the material for making the respective conclusions.
Conclusion
The conclusions that the authors arrive at a state that the assumed effect of musculoskeletal symptoms on self-reported reduced productivity of computer workers is rather exaggerated. Neck and upper arm issues impact productivity to a much bigger extent, while the gender difference in this aspect is observed only regarding the reduced productivity based on back musculoskeletal symptoms, which is 6 times higher in women. The reasons for musculoskeletal symptoms include unhealthy lifestyles, lack of physical exercise, excessive commitment to work and working overtime, etc.
References
Hagberg, M., Vilhelmsson, R., Wigaeus Tornqvist, E. & Toomingas, A. (2007). Incidence of self-reported reduced productivity owing to musculoskeletal symptoms: association with workplace and individual factors among computer users. Ergonomics, 50(11), 1820–1834.