In my opinion and experience, there are two problems with using the DOT frequency ratings (although I use them all the time!).

1. A level of intensity exists in a job description is not effectively conveyed in a generalization (1/3 of day when they do "it" for one hour straight-like climbing a ladder at the end of a shift for an hour+ straight).

2. When the task is sustained vs. repetitious (truck drivers sitting for long periods of time vs. having positional breaks at will).

This problem gets confounded when a job match is not requested (no job to go "back to"). The best way to handle either of these situations in my opionion is to quantify the demands of the job or the evaluee's abilities. In the first instance, I would rate how many times per hour or per repetition (and length of the ladder, spacing of the rungs, incline vs. straight, etc,).

In the second instance, I would state how long the periods of the sustained activity exist (the driver must be able to continuously sit for two hours-common DOL parameter in the states). Other examples would include sustained sitting for welding at low levels vs. repetitiousl squatting, or sustained overhead work vs. a term I often use-"momentary".

I think that having clear referral questions can prevent a lot of re-work, and that giving some gudelines when a task is in question (sitting for LBP, one handed vs. two handed overhead work) will help prevent phone calls. Just having generalizations (i.e; 15x/hr.) can give the reader a quantity they can use. I often add on such "quantifiers" to my reports and recommendations. It takes some extra effort and time, but can make the difference between getting another referral and your referral going down the road to someone that is making less useful generalizations. My two cents...

I also have wondered about "...

Aside from the old DOT definitions of Occasional = up to 1/3 of a day, Frequent = 1/3-2/3 of a day, and Constant = >2/3 of a day, are there any generic definitions of frequency for movements such as bending, squatting, reaching, kneeling, crawling, climbing, etc.?

The DOT definitions work pretty well for sitting, standing, and walking, but not for other components."

However, are you referring to sustained or repetitive?

If the postiions are sustained, I used the frequency categories as I would for the sitting, standing or walking. However, with respect to repetitive nature such as getting in and out of the fully crouched position or bending down towards the floor.

I have also seen referenced in some reports as >200 repetitions/day = constant ; 150 -200 = frequent, 30- 99 = occasionally but there is no reference or research stated.

Daniel.

Just wondering if this paper is available and if so, where can I access it?
TX, Finola

Roy Matheson is currently working on this paper with Louise Lynch, PT, CEES, CWCE, who is one of the instructors of our Ergonomics Evaluation course. It will be made public upon its completion.

anything new on the paper you mentioned on this topic?

This is a good question! No, there are not other definitions readily available for repetition-based frequency of the physical demands you list. We are working on an informal paper that reviews the research on this topic; I hope to have it done by the end of the year. We could all use more clarity in this area.