Mismatch between school furniture dimensions and ...

Mismatch between school furniture dimensions and student’s anthropometry (A Cross-Sectional Study in an Elementary School, Tangerang, Indonesia) Yanto †, Evi situmorang2, Herlina Department of Industrial Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Atma Jaya Jakarta Catholic University Jalan Jendral Sudirman 51, Jakarta 12930 INDONESIA +62-21-5208826, Email: [email protected] 2 Faculty of Medicine, Atma Jaya Jakarta Catholic University Jakarta. Hotniar Siringoringo Department of Industrial Engineering, Faculty of Industrial Technology, Gunadarma University Jalan Margonda Raya, Depok 16425, INDONESIA Email: [email protected]. Baba Md Deros Department of Mechanical and Materials Engineering, Faculty of Engineering National University of Malaysia, 43600 Bangi, MALAYSIA. Email: [email protected] Abstract. This study was conducted in a private elementary school, Tangerang, Indonesia. This study aimed to investigate whether school furniture dimensions match with the student’s anthropometry. A number of 320 students with aged 6–12 years were subjected into anthropometric measurements. The following student’s anthropometric dimensions were measured: stature, shoulder, elbow, knee and popliteal height, buttockpopliteal length and hip breadth. School furnitures (chair and table) were measured for seat height, seat depth, seat width and backrest height of the chair, and height and underneath height of the desk. Finally, the anthropometric dimensions of the students and the school furniture dimensions were compared by using equations as proposed by Gouvaly and Boudolos in order to identify any incompatibility between them. The data indicate mismatch between the student’s anthropometric dimensions and the school furnitures. Mismatch findings were also supported by the results from the Nordic Body Map Questionnaire. Most students were reported having suffered pain in some segment of their body. In addition of the study, recommended accepted limit of minimum and maximum school furniture dimensions which could match with student’s anthropometric dimensions were provided. Keywords: School furniture, anthropometric dimensions; mismatch.

1. INTRODUCTION Children’s postures, especially when seated in school, have been a concern since the 18th century as described by Zacharkow (1988). For students, school furniture has an important role in the maintenance of good sitting posture. Student’s sitting posture is influenced by their activities performed in the classroom, the anthropometric dimensions of school children and the measures and design features of school furniture (Yeats, 1997). Therefore, anthropometric dimensions of the children are an important factor that should

be considered in school furniture design so that it could promote good sitting postures for the children. During the past decade ergonomic research has focused especially on the design of work furniture based on anthropometric dimensions. In some countries there were attempts to design desks and chairs based on anthropometric data. Many researchers have tried to establish theoretical recommendations for the principles that relate school furniture design to children’s anthropometry, and some have also attempted to define the ‘‘appropriate’’ dimensions for school furniture based on anthropometric measurements

________________________________________ † : Corresponding Author 656

APIEMS 2008 Proceedings of the 9th Asia Pasific Industrial Engineering & Management Systems Conference (Gouvali and Boudolos, 2006). In Iran (Mououdi and Choobineh, 1997) and Korea (Jeong and Park, 1990), there have been studies related to school furniture design that have investigated differences in body dimensions due to age and gender. Many researchers have also investigated incompatibility between school furnitures and anthropometric dimensions of the student and the effects of this incompatibility to the student’s health. Parcells et al. (1999) studied the mismatch between furniture and students’ dimensions by measuring anthropometric characteristics of American children aged 11– 13 years and the dimensions of their classrooms’ desks and chairs, reporting that only 18.9% of students could find an appropriate match. Panagiotopoulou et al. (2004) studied classroom furniture dimensions and student’s anthropometric measures (age 7 -12 year) in three primary school in Thessaloniki, Greece, reporting that none of students of 2nd grade matched with seat depth and only 5 % matched with seat height. The study also reported that for 4th grade students, the chair was too depth for 70% of the students while only 53.3% match with seat height. A number of 18.3% students of 2nd grade, 20% of 4th grade and 45% of 6th grade were reported having suffered from recurrent or continious back pain. In Indonesia, Riyadina (2001) studied the effect of mismatch between school furniture dimensions and student’s anthropometry, reporting that students had painful in some segment of their body, mostly neck (61.3%), shoulder (57%), waist (49.2%), posterior (54.5%) and arm (72.3%). In Indonesia, the elementary school authorities tend to provide the same size of school furnitures for all grades (single size). Whereas, there is significant difference anthropometric dimensions of children in elementary school from different grade following their difference age. This study was conducted in a private elementary school, Tangerang Indonesia. The aim of this study is to examine whether school furniture dimensions match with the student’s anthropometry. To achieve the aim of the study, the authors compare elementary school students’ anthropometric measures to school furniture dimensions and determine whether there is match or mismatch between them.

running across the entire body or a body segment (along yaxis), Depth is a straight-line, point-to-point horizontal measurement running fore and aft the body (along x-axis). The standard preference planes are sagittal-median plane, frontal plane and transverse plane. Figure 1 shows the spatial measuring system of human body. When measurements are taken, the body should be in the standardized posture.

Figure 1: The spatial measuring system of human body

2.2 Standardized body postures To standardize measurement, the body is put into defined static postures: Sitting: When measurements are taken, the flat and horizontal surfaces of the seats and the foot support are arranged so that the thighs are horizontal, the lower legs vertical, and the feet flat on their horizontal support. Subject looks straigh ahead; arms hang straight down (or upper arms hang, forearms horizontal and extended forward); fingers extended. Head (including the neck) is held erect (or “upright’) when, in the front view, the pupils are aligned horizontally, and in the side view the ear-eye line is angled about 15 degrees above the horizon. The ear-eye (EE) line runs through the ear hole and the outside juncture of the eyelids.

2.3. Participants 2. METHODOLOGY 2.1 Terminology in Anthropometry Body measurements are usually defined by the two endpoints of the distance measured. Distance is defined as a straight-line, point-to-point measurement between landmarks on the body (Kroemer et al. 2001). Terminology of the measurement distances are defined as follows (Kroemer et al. 2001); Height is a straight-line, point-topoint vertical measurement (along z-axis), Breadth is a straight-line, point-to-point horizontal measurement

This study was conducted in a private elementary school, Tangerang, Banten, Indonesia. There are 1128 children in this school with age ranged 6–12 years. For the purpose of the study, samples (n= 320) were subjected into anthropometric measurements. Since the students are consist of 6 grade (grade 1 to grade 6), proportionate stratified Random Sampling was used to determine the number of students in each grade who participated. Hence, 54 students were subjected from Grade 1 and 50, 55, 54, 47 and 70 from Grade 2, Grade 3, Grade 4 Grade 5 and Grade 6 respectively.

Nusa Dua, Bali – INDONESIA December 3rd – 5th, 2008 657

APIEMS 2008 Proceedings of the 9th Asia Pasific Industrial Engineering & Management Systems Conference 2.4. Anthropometric Dimensions of the Students Anthropometric measures of the children were collected with children sitting on an adjustable chair. They were instructed to sit in such a way that their thighs were in full contact with the seat, their lower and upper legs were at right angles (knee bent at 900), their feet were placed on the floor and their trunk was upright. More explicitly, the anthropometric dimensions measured and used in this study are the following: Stature (St) : is the vertical distance from the floor to the top of the head, while the student stood erect, looking straight ahead. Elbow rest height (E): Taken with the elbow flexed at 900 , elbow height is the vertical distance from the bottom of the tip of the elbow (olecranon) to the student’s seated surface. Shoulder height (S): is the vertical distance from the top of the shoulder at the acromion process to the student’s sitting surface. Knee height (K): is the vertical distance from the foot resting surface to the top of the kneecap just in back and above the patella, measured with knee flexed at 900. Popliteal height (P): is the vertical distance from the foot resting surface to the posterior surface, the knee, measured with a 900 knee flexion. Buttock-popliteal length (BP): is the horizontal distance from the posterior surface of the buttock to the posterior surface of the knee or popliteal surface, knee flexed at 900. Hip Breadth (HB): Hip breadth is the maximal horizontal breadth across the hips or thighs.

Stature (St) was used as main reference for comparing population samples. To determine wether mean differences existed among students from Grade 1 to Grade 6, a statistical procedure analysis of variance was used (with α=0.05). Meanwhile, T Tukey test was used to determine differences between two means among Grade.

2.5. School Furniture Measures The dimensions of the school furnitures which were measured are the following: Chair Seat height (SH): is the vertical distance from the floor to the highest point on the front of the seat. Chair Seat depth (SD): is the horizontal distance from the back of the sitting surface of the seat to its front. Chair Seat width (SW): is the horizontal distance from the outer left side of the sitting surface of the seat to outer right side. Chair Backrest height (B): is the vertical distance from the top side of the seat surface to the highest point of the backrest. Table height (T): is the vertical distance from the floor to the top of the front edge of the table.

Underneath Table Height (UT): is the vertical distance from the floor to the bottom of the front edge of the table.

2.6. Equations Relating Body Dimensions of the Students to School Furniture Dimensions Anthropometric dimensions of each individual students were compared to the relative school furniture dimensions in order to identify a match or mismatch between students and the furniture they used. A mismatch is defined as incompatibility between the school furnitures and the dimensions of the student’s body (Parcells et al., 1999). In the equations (Equation 1 to Equation 6) as proposed by Gouvali and Boudolos (2006), mismatch is determined if the result of calculated value of the critical dimensions are outside interval- lower or shorther than minimum value and higher or taller than maximum value: Seat height (SH) and Popliteal Height (P): Seat height needs to be adapted relatively to popliteal height, allowing knees to be flexed so that the lower legs form a maximum of 300 angle relative to the vertical axis (Molenbroek et al., 2003). The equation below (Gouvali and Boudolos, 2006) declares that seat height should be lower than popliteal height so that (1) the lower leg constitutes a 5–300 angle relative to the vertical and (2) the shin-thigh angle is between 95 and 1200. (P + 2) cos 300 ≤ SH ≤ (P + 2) cos 50 (Equation 1) Seat depth (SD) and buttock-popliteal length (BP): Parcells et al. (1999) defined a mismatch when depth was either < 80 % or >95 % of buttock-popliteal length. Since the present study represented an initial attempt to examine the potential mismatch, the upper limit was further increased to 99% of buttock-popliteal length and the equation was modified as follows (Gouvali and Boudolos, 2006): 0.80 BP ≤ SD ≤ 0.99 BP. (Equation 2) Seat width (SW) and Hip breadth (H): SW should be enough to support ischial tuberosities in order to achieve stability and allow space for lateral movements and for that, it should be large enough to accommodate even the users with the largest hip breadth (Evans et al., 1988; Sanders and McCormick, 1993). The modified equation proposed by Gouvali and Boudolos (2006) defined that seat width should be at least 10% (to accommodate hip breadth) and at the most 30% larger than hip breadth (for space economy): 1.1 H ≤ SW ≤ 1.30 H. (Equation 3) Backrest height (B) and Shoulder Height (S): Backrest is considered appropriate when it is below scapula (Evans et al., 1988) to facilitate mobility of the trunk and arms. As a result, the equation below (Gouvali and Boudolos, 2006) recommends keeping the backrest lower than the scapula, or at most on the upper edge of the scapula (60–80% of shoulder height):


APIEMS 2008 Proceedings of the 9th Asia Pasific Industrial Engineering & Management Systems Conference 0.60 S ≤ B ≤ 0.80 S. (Equation 4) Table height (T) and elbow rest height (E): Parcells et al. (1999) suggested that table height should be adjusted to elbow-floor height, so that it would be minimum when shoulders are not flexed or abducted, and maximal when shoulders are at 250 flexion and 200 abduction (elbow rest height x 0.8517 + shoulder height x 0.1483; Parcells et al., 1999). The equation below (Gouvali and Boudolos, 2006) has further been modified based on the fact that elbowfloor height is the sum of elbow rest height and seat height (as it has been defined in Eq. (1)): [(P+2)cos 30] + E ≤ T ≤ [(P+2)cos 5] + (0,8517E + 0,1483S).. (Equation 5) Underneath Table height (UT): Mandal (1997) and Parcells et al. (1999) proposed that the table clearance should be at least 2 cm. In accordance with the above, the equation below (Gouvali and Boudolos, 2006) considered as appropriate the case that underneath table height was at least 2 cm higher than clearance from seat height (with clearance is defined as knee height - popliteal height): (K + 2) + 2 ≤ UT ≤ ((P+2) cos5°) + (E0,8517) + (S0,1483)-4... (Equation 6)

2.7. Nordic Body Map Questionnaire Nordic Body Map questionnaire was used as method to assess current sitting posture of the children. By using Nordic Body Map questionnaire, body areas in which children feel pain and uncomfortable could be identified. The general section of questionnaire uses a sketch of the human body, seen from behind, divided into 27 region. The authors indicate wether a child has any pain or discomfort in these areas.

3. RESULTS 3.1 Anthropometric Measures of the Students Results of the student anthropometric measures are presented in Table 1 for students in Grade 1, Grade 2, Grade 3, Grade 4, Grade 5 and Grade 6. For the purpose of analysis and design, the data are presented in mean, max. and min., and percentile value. Anova test and T Tukey procedures showed that mean differences existed among students from Grade 1, Grade 2, Grade 3, Grade 4 Grade 5 and Grade 6.

3.2 School Furniture Dimensions The critical dimensions of current school furnitures (Chair and Table) are summarized in Tabel 2. Figure 2 presents the current chair and table. School furnitures provided to the students are the same size for all grades.

3.3. Comparison between students anthropometric dimensions and school furnitures. Match or mismatch were calculated based on the Equation 1 to Equation 6. Table 3 summarizes the number and percentage of students whose measurements matched or did not match with school furniture dimensions.

3.4. Reported pain Results of Nordic body map questionnaire show that most children feel pain in the area of buttock protusion (88.9% of children Grade 1, and 82% of children Grade 2 and more that 50% of children in Grade 3, 4, 5 and 6), neck (more that 80% of children from Grade 1, Grade 2 and Grade 3, and more thatn 40% of children from Grade 4, 5 and 6). Most children also feel pain in the area of waist (more that 50%) and backbone (more than 40%). The other areas are thigh, popliteal and acromion (more than 30%).

4. DISCUSSION Referring Table 3, the results indicate mismatch between anthropometric dimensions of majority of the students who participated in this study and the school furniture available to them. Number of children whose measurements have a good fit with the school furniture in seat depth, seat height and table height increases with age. Mismatch between the students’ dimensions and furniture dimensions is more evident in smaller children (Grade 1 and 2)-see Table 3. Table–chair combinations were inadequate for all the students in the 1st grades as well as the majority of those in the 2nd and 3rd grade. For majority of the children (Grade 1, 2 and 3), the seats were too high and/or too deep. The identified mismatch between students’ anthropometric measures and furniture dimensions is further demonstrated by the way the students sit on their chairs and at their table. Wrong seat height dimensions cause student’s feet was unable to reach the ground (see Figure 4). This may lead to an increase in tissue pressure on the posterior aspect of the thighs. Due to the fact that the chairs are too deep and high for the majority of the students, they usually place their buttocks forward on the edge of the seat, especially while reading and writing (See Figure 3). Lack of back support in this position causes a slumped, kyphotic posture. According to researchers, a good back rest, fitting the natural spinal curves, stabilizes the spine (Bendix et al., 1996), facilitates lumbar lordosis (AagaardHansen and Storr-Paulsen, 1995) and reduces kyphotic postures (Bendix et al., 1996). Furthermore, due to the fact that the height of the table exceeds their elbow rest height students are forced to lift their arms and shoulders while writing (Figure 3).


APIEMS 2008 Proceedings of the 9th Asia Pasific Industrial Engineering & Management Systems Conference Table 1: Anthropometric measures of schoolchildren for Grade 1 until Grade 6. Grade 1 Anthropometric dimension Stature (St.) Shoulder Height (S) Elbow height (E) Knee height (K) Popliteal height (P) Buttock-popliteal length (B) Hip breadth (H)

Anthropometric dimension Stature (St.) Shoulder Height (S) Elbow height (E) Knee height (K) Popliteal height (P) Buttock-popliteal length (B) Hip breadth (H)





Mean

104.20 34.60 11.70 31.80 27.30 29.10 19.30 Mean

112.70 38.10 13.20 34.60 30.00 32.00 21.30 Mean

119.40 40.80 14.70 37.10 32.20 33.80 23.00 Mean

121.80 42.60 15.30 37.40 31.20 35.00 24.10 Mean

129.40 45.60 17.50 40.50 34.00 36.20 28.20 Mean

137.40 47.90 19.40 43.60 37.00 38.70 30.10

St.Dev.

6.30 2.30 1.70 2.00 1.50 2.00 2.10 Grade 2 St.Dev.

6.70 2.50 1.20 1.80 1.90 2.00 1.90 Grade 3 St.Dev.

3.40 1.40 1.00 1.60 1.50 1.30 1.10 Grade 4 St.Dev.

2.20 1.50 0.80 1.00 0.80 1.10 2.10 Grade 5 St.Dev.

4.80 2.00 1.60 1.70 1.30 1.90 1.80 Grade 6 St.Dev.

5.10 1.60 1.80 1.90 1.50 1.90 1.10

Maximum

120.50 41.80 17.00 36.60 32.00 33.00 25.00 Maximum

121.0 41.5 15.0 37.0 33.5 35.0 25.0 Maximum

125.00 43.00 17.00 40.50 36.10 36.00 25.00 Maximum

126.50 45.60 17.50 40.50 33.60 37.00 27.50 Maximum

140.50 49.20 21.00 43.20 36.40 41.00 31.50 Maximum

148.00 50.70 22.20 47.00 39.80 43.80 32.60

Minimum

95.00 31.50 9.50 29.00 24.50 25.90 15.60 Minimum

98.0 33.5 9.8 31.0 25.5 26.2 16.3 Minimum

112.00 38.00 13.00 34.20 29.80 31.50 20.00 Minimum

118.20 39.50 14.00 35.50 30.00 32.50 22.00 Minimum

120.60 41.30 14.60 37.00 31.20 33.00 23.80 Minimum

127.00 45.00 16.80 38.80 33.70 35.40 28.00

5th %tile

97.70 32.00 5.70 29.00 25.10 26.50 16.90 5th %tile

100.20 33.80 10.80 31.10 27.00 28.50 18.00 5th %tile

113.00 38.30 13.20 35.10 30.60 31.70 21.00 5th %tile

118.30 40.10 14.30 35.90 30.00 33.30 22.50 5th %tile

122.50 42.40 15.20 37.90 31.60 33.90 25.70 5th %tile

129.00 45.60 17.00 40.10 34.00 35.90 28.10

95th %tile

115.20 38.00 10.20 35.20 29.50 32.30 23.20 95th %tile

120.90 41.30 14.50 37.00 32.10 34.60 23.50 95th %tile

123.50 42.50 16.30 40.00 34.30 35.50 24.30 95th %tile

125.90 44.50 16.90 39.10 32.40 36.40 26.50 95th %tile

138.00 48.10 20.40 43.00 35.80 39.70 30.70 95th %tile

145.30 50.10 21.90 46.00 38.90 42.00 31.80


APIEMS 2008 Proceedings of the 9th Asia Pasific Industrial Engineering & Management Systems Conference Tabel 2: School Furniture dimensions No.

School Furnitures dimensions

1 Chair 2

Table

Seat Height (SH) Seat depth (SD) Seat width (SW) Backrest height (B) Table height (T) Underneath Table Heigth (UT)

Dimensions (cm) 37 33 39 33 60 50

Figure 2: School Furnitures which are prevalent used in the elementary school

Figure 3: Wrong furniture dimensions force student to lift their arms and hunch their shoulders.

Figure 4: Wrong seat height dimension causes student’s feet unable to reach the ground.


APIEMS 2008 Proceedings of the 9th Asia Pasific Industrial Engineering & Management Systems Conference Tabel 3: Number and percentage (%) students who matched with school furnitures No

1

2

3

4

5

6

Comparison between anthropometric dimensions and school furniture dimensions Grade 1 Seat Height (SH) dan Popliteal Height (P) Seat depth (SD) and Buttock-Popliteal depth (BP) Seat width (SW) and Hip breadth (H) Backrest height (B) and Shoulder height (S) Table Height (T) and Elbow Height (E) Underneath Table Height (UT) and Knee Height (K) Grade 2 Seat Height (SH) and Popliteal Height (P) Seat depth (SD) and Buttock-Popliteal depth (BP) Seat width (SW) and Hip breadth (H) Backrest height (B) and Shoulder height (S) Table Height (T) and Elbow Height (E) Underneath Table Height (UT) and Knee Height (K) Grade 3 Seat Height (SH) and Popliteal Height (P) Seat depth (SD) and Buttock-Popliteal depth (BP) Seat width (SW) and Hip breadth (H) Backrest height (B) and Shoulder height (S) Table Height (T) and Elbow Height (E) Underneath Table Height (UT) and Knee Height (K) Grade 4 Seat Height (SH) and Popliteal Height (P) Seat depth (SD) and Buttock-Popliteal depth (BP) Seat width (SW) and Hip breadth (H) Backrest height (B) and Shoulder height (S) Table Height (T) and Elbow Height (E) Underneath Table Height (UT) and Knee Height (K) Grade 5 Seat Height (SH) and Popliteal Height (P) Seat depth (SD) and Buttock-Popliteal depth (BP) Seat width (SW) and Hip breadth (H) Backrest height (B) and Shoulder height (S) Table Height (T) and Elbow Height (E) Underneath Table Height (UT) and Knee Height (K) Grade 6 Seat Height (SH) and Popliteal Height (P) Seat depth (SD) and Buttock-Popliteal depth (BP) Seat width (SW) and Hip breadth (H) Backrest height (B) and Shoulder height (S) Table Height (T) and Elbow Height (E) Underneath Table Height (UT) and Knee Height (K)

Match Students %

Mismatch Students %

-

-

54 54 54 54 54 54

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100 100

16 3 -

32.00 6.00 -

50 34 50 47 50 50

100.0 68.00 100.0 94.00 100.0 100.0

2 15 24 10

4.40 33.30 53.30 22.2

43 30 45 21 45 35

95.60 66.70 100.0 46.70 100 77.8

51 43 48

94.40 79.60 88.9

54 3 54 11 54 6

100.0 5.60 100.0 20.40 100 11.1

6 46 8 47 9 44

12.80 97.90 17.00 100.0 19.1 93.6

41 1 39 38 3

87.20 2.10 83.00 80.9 6.4

59 70 42 70 55 70

84.30 100.0 60.00 100.0 78.6 100

11 28 15 -

15.70 40.00 21.4 -


APIEMS 2008 Proceedings of the 9th Asia Pasific Industrial Engineering & Management Systems Conference 5. CONCLUSIONS Based on evaluation by using mismatch equations (equation 1 – equation 6) and reported pain to the students, the authors conclude that the chair and table are not safe to use and they can cause health problems for the children. These chair and table should be replaced with a new chair and table which are safe and comfort for the children. In addition of the study, recommended accepted limit of

minimum and maximum school furniture dimensions which could match with student’s anthropometric dimensions were provided. Table 4 presents the minimum and maximum accepted limit of critical dimensions of chair that could match with student’s anthropometric dimensions. Table 5 presents the minimum and maximum accepted limit of critical dimensions of table that could match with student’s anthropometric dimensions.

Table 4: The accepted limit of critical dimensions of chair that could match with student’s anthropometric dimensions (in cm). Grade

1

2

3

4

5

6

Minimum accepted limit

Maximum accepted limit

Seat Height (SH)

22.95

33.86

Seat Depth (SD)

20.72

32.67

Seat Width (SW)

17.16

32.50

Backrest Height (B)

18.90

33.44

Seat Height (SH)

23.82

35.36

Seat Depth (SD)

20.96

34.65

Seat Width (SW)

17.93

32.50

Backrest Height (B)

20.10

33.20

Critical Chair Dimensions

Seat Height (SH)

27.54

37.95

Seat Depth (SD)

25.20

35.64

Seat Width (SW)

22.00

32.50

Backrest Height (B)

22.80

34.40

Seat Height (SH)

27.71

35.46

Seat Depth (SD)

26.00

36.63

Seat Width (SW)

24.20

35.75

Backrest Height (B)

23.70

36.48

Seat Height (SH)

28.75

38.21

Seat Depth (SD)

26.40

40.59

Seat Width (SW)

26.18

40.95

Backrest Height (B)

24.78

39.36

Seat Height (SH)

30.92

41.63

Seat Depth (SD)

28.32

43.36

Seat Width (SW)

30.80

42.38

Backrest Height (B)

27.00

40.56


APIEMS 2008 Proceedings of the 9th Asia Pasific Industrial Engineering & Management Systems Conference Table 5: The accepted limit of critical dimensions of table that could match with student’s anthropometric Dimensions (in cm). Grade 1 2 3 4 5 6

Minimum accepted limit 32.88 33.00 33.62 35.00 40.71 38.20 41.91 39.50 43.61 41.00 47.72 42.80

Critical Table Dimensions Table Heigth (T) Underneath Table Height (UT) Table Heigth (T) Underneath Table Height (UT) Table Heigth (T) Underneath Table Height (UT) Table Heigth (T) Underneath Table Height (UT) Table Heigth (T) Underneath Table Height (UT) Table Heigth (T) Underneath Table Height (UT)

6. RECOMMENDATION The single size, as the school authorities tend to provide for elementary school students, needs “correction” because there is a significant difference anthropometric dimensions of children in elementary school from different grade following their different age. This study, with a large number students participated in the anthropometric measurements, could represent the “mismatch anthropometric problem” between school furniture and the students as the users. Since the mean differences existed among students from Grade 1, Grade 2, Grade 3, Grade 4 Grade 5 and Grade 6, the authors recommend “different sizes policy” of school furnitures following their different anthropometric dimensions. More studies should be conducted to determine the appropriate allocation size for the students. In addition, giving the children the chance to choose their appropriate school furniture if different sizes provided could be much more satisfactory.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT The authors would like to thanks to all those who participated in this study, thanks to the Head of elementary school for the permission to conduct the study and to all students and parties who involved in the anthropometric measurement.

REFERENCES Aagaard-Hansen, J., Storr-Paulsen, A., (1995) A comparative study of three different kinds of school furniture. Ergonomics 38 (5), 1025–1035.

Maximum accepted limit 54.54 50.53 53.04 49.04 58.80 54.80 56.45 52.44 62.23 58.22 67.59 63.58

Aaras, A., Fostervold, K.I., Ro, O., Thoresen, M., (1997) Postural load during VDU work: a comparison between various work postures. Ergonomics 40 (11), 1255–1268. Bendix, T., Poulsen, V., Klausen, K., Jensen, C., (1996) What does a backrest actually do to the lumbar spine? Ergonomics 39 (4), 533–542. Brunswic, M., (1984) Ergonomics of seat design. Physiotherapy 70 (2), 40–43. Cranz, G., (2000) The Alexander Technique in the world of design: posture & the common chair. J. Bodywork Move. Ther. 4 (2), 90–98. Cook, C.J., Kothiyal, K., (1998) Influence of mouse position on muscular activity in the neck, shoulder and arm in computer users. App. Ergono. 29 (6), 439–443. Evans, W.A., Courtney, A.J., Fok, K.F., (1988) The design of school furniture for Hong Kong school children: an anthropometric case study. Appl. Ergon. 19, 122–134. Gouvali, M.K., Boudolos, K., (2006) Match between school furniture dimensions & children’s anthropometry. App. Ergo. 37, 765-773. Jeong, B.Y., Park, K.S., (1990) Sex differ. in anthrop. for school furniture design. Ergonomics 33, 1511–1521. Kumar, S., (1994) A computer desk for bifocal lens wearers, with special emphasis on selected telecommunic. tasks. Ergon. 37, 1669–1678. Knight, G., Noyes, J., (1999) Children’s behaviour & design of school furniture. Ergonomics 42 (5), 747–760. Mandal, A.C., Changing standards for school furniture. Ergono. Des. April, 28–31. 1997. Milanese, S., Grimmer, K., (2004) School furniture & the user population: an anthropometric perspective. Ergon. 47 (4), 416–426.


APIEMS 2008 Proceedings of the 9th Asia Pasific Industrial Engineering & Management Systems Conference Mououdi, M.A., Choobineh, A.R., (1997) Static anthropometric characteristics of students age range six-11 in Mazandaran province/Iran & school furniture design based on ergonomics principles. Appl. Ergon.. 28 (2), 145–147. Molenbroek, J.F.M., Kroon-Ramaekers, Y.M.T., Snijders, C.J., (2003) Revision of the design of a standard for dimensions of school furniture. Ergomics 46 (7), 681–694. Naqvi, S.A., (1994) Study of forward sloping seats for VDT workstations. J. Hum. Ergol. 23 (1), 43–49. Panagiotopoulou, G., Christoulas, K., Papanickolaou, A., Mandroukas, K., (2004) Classroom furniture dimensions & anthropometric measures in primary school. App.Ergon. 35, 121–128. Pheasant, S., (1998) Bodyspace: Anthropometry, Ergonomics & the Design of Work. London: Taylor & Francis. Parcells, C., Stommel, M., Hubbard, R.P., (1999) Mismatch of classroom furniture & student body dimensions: empirical findings & health implications. J. Adolesc. Health 24 (4), 265–273. Riyadina, W. (2001) Dampak meja dan kursi sekolah yang tidak ergonomic terhadap kesehatan anak sekolah dasar. Buletin/Segjas, 13 (VII). Sanders, M.S., McCormick, E.J. (1993) Human Factors in Engineering & Design. NY: McGraw-Hill. Yeats, B., (1997) Factors that may influence the postural health of schoolchildren. Work 9 (1), 45–55. Zacharkow, D., (1988) Posture:Sitting, standing, chair design & exercise. Springfield, IL. Charles C Thomas.

Hotniar Siringo-ringo is a Lecturer in Department of Industrial Engineering, Faculty of Industrial technology, Gunadharma University, Indonesia. She received a BSc degree from Bogor Institute of Agriculture and MSc from Asia Institute of Technology, Thailand in. Her teaching and research interests include ergonomics and marketing. His email address is < [email protected] > Baba MD Deros is an associate professor in the Department of Mechanical and Materials Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, National University of Malaysia. He received a BSc Degree from Glamorgan University, UK, MSc.from Warwick University, UK and PhD from Universiti Technology Malaysia. His teaching and research interests include industrial ergonomics and quality system. His email address is < [email protected]>

AUTHOR BIOGRAPHIES Yanto is a Lecturer in Department of Industrial Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Atma Atma Jaya Catholic University Jakarta, Indonesia. He received a BSc Degree from Bandung Institute of Technology, Indonesia in 2002 and MSc degree from National University of Malaysia in 2006. His teaching and research interests include industrial ergonomics, work system design and applied statistics. His email address is Evi Situmorang is a Lecturer in the Faculty of Medicine, Atma Atma Jaya Catholic University Jakarta, Indonesia. She received a BSc Degree from North Sumatra University and MSc degree from University of Indonesia. Her email address is Herlina is a student in Department of Industrial Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Atma Atma Jaya Catholic University Jakarta, Indonesia. She received a BSc Degree from Atma Atma Jaya Catholic University Jakarta, Indonesia. His research interests is ergonomics.
