ArticlePeerJ2026
Ergonomic risk assessment for musculoskeletal disorders in office workers Turkish version, validity and reliability study.
Article in PeerJ, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The Ergonomic Risk Assessment for Musculoskeletal Disorders in Office Workers (ERAMO) questionnaire is used by office workers, practitioners or researchers to screen for ergonomic risk factors in the office environment. The study aims to establish the validity and reliability of the Turkish version of ERAMO questionnaire among office workers. Methods: A total of 116 office workers, 67 women and 49 men, participated in the study. Reliability was assessed through test-retest reliability and internal consistency measures. Validity was evaluated by structural, content, and face validity analyses. Floor and ceiling effects were examined to provide a comprehensive evaluation. ERAMO's correlation with pain intensity, New York Posture Rating (NYPR), and Short Form-36 (SF-36) was also examined. Results: ERAMO demonstrated high reliability, with an intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) value of 0.802 and a Cronbach's α of 0.890. Structural validity was affirmed through both exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). EFA revealed four factors, accounting for 61.888% of the total variation. ERAMO's total score exhibited no floor or ceiling effect. ERAMO exhibited correlations ranging from poor to moderate (-0.185 to -0.413) with pain intensity, NYPR, and SF-36 subscales. Conclusion: ERAMO has demonstrated high reliability and good validity. ERAMO can be used to evaluate ergonomic risks among Turkish-speaking office workers.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.