[Latar Belakang. Deteksi dini risiko pajanan ergonomi di tempat kerja menggunakan instrumen skrining merupakan salah satu cara cepat dan mudahyang dapat dilakukan. Instrumen RULA dan ceklis OCRA merupakan metodepenilaian semi-kuantitatif yang cukup banyak digunakan namun belum diketahuipenerapannya pada sektor informal. Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengetahuikesesuaian hasil penilaian menggunakan instrumen OCRA dengan RULA untukskrining UE-WMSDs pada kelompok pekerja pengrajin logam informal. Metode. Penelitian menggunakan disain potong lintang terhadap pengrajin logaminformal Citeureup, Kabupaten Bogor. Penilaian dilakukan dengan mengamatiaktivitas subyek selama delapan jam kerja per hari pada 17 bagian kerja kemudianmemberikan skor berdasarkan lembar ceklis. Hasil total skor dikategorikanmenjadi acceptable ( OCRA: ≤ 7,5; RULA: ≤ 2) dan berisiko (OCRA: ≥ 7,6;RULA ≥ 3). Hasil. Pada total subyek pekerja 78 orang didapatkan 52/78 (74,3%) subyekberisiko untuk tangan kanan dan 15/78 (34,9%) subyek untuk tangan kiri padakedua metode. Berdasarkan tugas kerja didapatkan 13/17 bagian berisiko untukkanan dan 6/17 kiri. Perbedaan hasil OCRA dan RULA terutama pada bagianbubut dan pemotongan (manual dan semi-automatis).Secara umum instrumenRULA menilai lebih banyak risiko UE-WMSDs dibandingkan OCRA dengankesesuaian dari kedua metode ini rendah pada kedua ekstremitas (kappa (kanan):0,07; kappa (kiri): 0,17). Simpulan dan Saran. Metode RULA lebih dianjurkan sebagai instrumen skrining UE-WMSDs pada pekerja logam informal. Dibutuhkan penelitian lebih lanjut terhadap instrumen skrining lain dan penilaian keseluruhan proses kerja untuk penentuan metode yang paling sesuai. ;Background. The use of screening instrument is considered as effective methods forearly detection of ergonomic risk exposure at workplace. RULA and OCRA-checklistsare semi-quantitative assessment methods that have been widely used, but not widelyapplied particularly in the informal sector. This study determines the goodness of fit ofOCRA-checklists compared with RULA for screening UE-WMSDs on metalworkersinformal groups. Method. This study used a cross-sectional design involving informal metalworkersgroups in Citeureup-Bogor . Subjects? assessments being done by observing eight-houractivityperdayforeachsubjectsin17workstationandbyscoringchecklistsheets.Totalscoreresultswerecategorizedinto acceptable (OCRA: ≤ 7.5; RULA: ≤ 2) and high risk(OCRA: ≥ 7.6; RULA ≥ 3). Result. A total of 78 subjects, both methods showed 52/78(74.3%) subjects were at riskfor right hand and 15/78 (34.9%) subjects for left hand. Based on job task, 13/17 jobswere high risk for the right and 6/17 for the left hand. There were result differencebetween OCRA and RULA instruments especially for lathe and cutting (manual andsemi-automatic) jobs. Generally, RULA instrument assess more risks factors than OCRAchecklistso that goodness of fit was low for both extremities (kappa score right: 0.07;left: 0.17). Conclusion and Recommendation. RULA method is more recommended as UEWMSDsscreeninginstrumentforinformal metalworkers groups. Further research usingother type of screening instruments and overall tasks assessment is necessary to find most appropriate method. , Background. The use of screening instrument is considered as effective methods forearly detection of ergonomic risk exposure at workplace. RULA and OCRA-checklistsare semi-quantitative assessment methods that have been widely used, but not widelyapplied particularly in the informal sector. This study determines the goodness of fit ofOCRA-checklists compared with RULA for screening UE-WMSDs on metalworkersinformal groups. Method. This study used a cross-sectional design involving informal metalworkersgroups in Citeureup-Bogor . Subjects’ assessments being done by observing eight-houractivityperdayforeachsubjectsin17workstationandbyscoringchecklistsheets.Totalscoreresultswerecategorizedinto acceptable (OCRA: ≤ 7.5; RULA: ≤ 2) and high risk(OCRA: ≥ 7.6; RULA ≥ 3). Result. A total of 78 subjects, both methods showed 52/78(74.3%) subjects were at riskfor right hand and 15/78 (34.9%) subjects for left hand. Based on job task, 13/17 jobswere high risk for the right and 6/17 for the left hand. There were result differencebetween OCRA and RULA instruments especially for lathe and cutting (manual andsemi-automatic) jobs. Generally, RULA instrument assess more risks factors than OCRAchecklistso that goodness of fit was low for both extremities (kappa score right: 0.07;left: 0.17). Conclusion and Recommendation. RULA method is more recommended as UEWMSDsscreeninginstrumentforinformal metalworkers groups. Further research usingother type of screening instruments and overall tasks assessment is necessary to find most appropriate method. ] |