Wow. You're right. Even as early on as the abstract, the "conclusion" of the study seems to be the complete opposite of what I think is more accurately described as a "policy document"
---
> This report describes results for a study of electric height-adjustable
worksurfaces (EHAWs) conducted in two companies. A total of 33 computer
workers from the two companies worked at fixed-height worksurfaces (FHWs) and
then at EHAWs for between 4 and 6 weeks. Participants completed extensive
survey questionnaires immediately before and then 4-6 weeks after using the
EHAWs. Results showed significant decreases in the severity of musculoskeletal
discomfort for most upper body regions. In the EHAW condition daily discomfort
ratings were lower in the afternoon and productivity ratings improved. Written
comments about the EHAWs generally were positive. There was a strong
preference for using the EHAWs. Implications are discussed.
*significant decreases in the severity of musculoskeletal discomfort
*daily discomfort ratings were lower
*productivity ratings improved
*strong preference for using the EHAWs
Corporate policy is often based on more than just study results. In this case, maybe the internal ergonomics department looked at the cost associated with outfitting everyone's desk with electric motors and decided against officially declaring them a good thing.
Thanks for reading the original source. I had a bad "feeling" about the article, I know it's on a Cornell website, but it doesn't come across as an actual study of any sort.
--- > This report describes results for a study of electric height-adjustable worksurfaces (EHAWs) conducted in two companies. A total of 33 computer workers from the two companies worked at fixed-height worksurfaces (FHWs) and then at EHAWs for between 4 and 6 weeks. Participants completed extensive survey questionnaires immediately before and then 4-6 weeks after using the EHAWs. Results showed significant decreases in the severity of musculoskeletal discomfort for most upper body regions. In the EHAW condition daily discomfort ratings were lower in the afternoon and productivity ratings improved. Written comments about the EHAWs generally were positive. There was a strong preference for using the EHAWs. Implications are discussed.
Corporate policy is often based on more than just study results. In this case, maybe the internal ergonomics department looked at the cost associated with outfitting everyone's desk with electric motors and decided against officially declaring them a good thing.Thanks for reading the original source. I had a bad "feeling" about the article, I know it's on a Cornell website, but it doesn't come across as an actual study of any sort.