Usability of a daily noise exposure monitoring device for industrial workers

Annals of Occupational Hygiene

Volumn 56, Issue 8, 2012, Pages 925-933

  Williams, Steven C ^a   Rabinowitz, Peter M ^a  

^a YALE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANNUAL SURVEYS; DAILY USE; FOCUS GROUPS; HEARING LOSS; HEARING PROTECTION; HEARING PROTECTORS; INDUSTRIAL WORKERS; MONITORING DEVICE; NOISE DOSIMETER; NOISE EXPOSURE; PERCEIVED BENEFITS; PERCEIVED USABILITY; PERSONAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT; TECHNOLOGY PROGRESS; WORK SITES;

AUDITION; EAR PROTECTORS; NOISE POLLUTION; PATIENT MONITORING; PROTECTIVE CLOTHING; SURVEYS; TECHNOLOGY;

USABILITY ENGINEERING;

ADULT; ARTICLE; EAR PROTECTIVE DEVICE; ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING; EQUIPMENT; FEMALE; HUMAN; INDUSTRIAL NOISE; INDUSTRY; INFORMATION PROCESSING; MALE; METHODOLOGY; MIDDLE AGED; NOISE INJURY; OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE; STANDARD; UTILIZATION REVIEW;

ADULT; EAR PROTECTIVE DEVICES; ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING; FEMALE; FOCUS GROUPS; HEARING LOSS, NOISE-INDUCED; HUMANS; INDUSTRY; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NOISE, OCCUPATIONAL; OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE;

EID: 84867801010     PISSN: 00034878     EISSN: 14753162     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/annhyg/mes028     Document Type: Article

References (12)

1. AMA. (2008) AMA guides to the evaluation of permanent impairment. 6th edn. Chicago, IL: American Medical Association ISBN 978 1579478889.
2. Berger EH, Franks JR, Behar A. (1998) Development of a new standard laboratory protocol for estimating the field attenuation of hearing protection devices. Part III. The validity of using subject-fit data. J Acoust Soc Am; 103: 665 - 72.
3. Gielen AC, Sleet D. (2003) Application of behavioral change theories and methods to injury prevention. Epidemiol Rev; 25: 65 - 76.
4. Karwowski W. (1998) The occupational ergonomics handbook. Noise-induced hearing loss. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press 1669.
5. Nielsen J. (1994) Heuristic evaluation. In: Nielsen J and Mack RL, editors. Usability inspection methods. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. pp. 25 - 64. ISBN 0 471 01877 5.
6. Nielsen J, Levy J. (2003) Measuring usability: preference vs. performance. Commun ACM; 37: 66 - 75.
7. Rabinowitz PM, Galusha D, Kirsche SR. (2010) Effect of daily noise exposure monitoring on annual rates of hearing loss in industrial workers. J Occup Environ Med; doi: 10.1136/oem.2010.055905.
8. Rabinowitz PM, Galusha D, Slade MD et al. (2007) Do ambient noise exposure levels predict hearing loss in a modern industrial cohort? Occup Environ Med; 64: 53 - 9.
9. Rabinowitz PM, Slade M, Dixon-Ernst C et al. (2003) Impact of OSHA final rule: Recording hearing loss. J Occup Environ Med; 45: 1274 - 80.
10. Strauss A, Corbin J. (1998) Basics of qualitative research techniques and procedures for developing ground theory. Newbury Park, CA: Sage ISBN-10: 141290644X.
11. Tak S, Davis RR, Calvert GM. (2009) Exposure to hazardous workplace noise and use of hearing protection devices among USworkers-NHANES, 1999 - 2004.AmJ Ind Med; 52: 358 - 71.
12. Williams-Avery RM, MacKinnon DP. (1996) Injuries and use of protective equipment among college in-line skaters. Accid Anal Prev; 28: 779 - 84.