Article Critique
Paul, J., Frings-Dresen, M., Salle, H., & Rozendal, R. (1995). Pregnant women and working surface height and working surface areas for standing manual work. Applied Ergonomics, 26(2), 129-133.
The article being critique titled Pregnant women and working surface height and working surface areas for standing manual work is an article that is studying the problems that face pregnant women’s work environments. The authors are arguing that the physical nature of work and have an effect on the pregnant women and/or the unborn child. The author presumes that the workplace of the pregnant women correlates with the load on the pregnant women. The article study is on 27 pregnant/non-pregnant women that have a median range of 29 years old (Paul, 1995). The variables included in this article include working surface height, working surface area, appreciation of workplace layout, selection of the preferred working surface height, and task position at which effort started (Paul, 1995). The variables were identified and were in great detail. The authors are trying to study a cause and effect relationship that says physically loading aspects of work may have adverse effects on the health of both the pregnant woman and the unborn child. They are arguing that if the workplace is improved and suitable for pregnant women that this will improve the load on pregnant women (Paul, 1995). The article includes an abstract but no statement of purpose. The article was written by various authors from the department of Gynaecology and Obstretrics of the Academic Medical Centre. The persons analyzed in this study were 27 pregnant and non-pregnant women with a median age of 29 years old (Paul, 1995). The pregnant women conditions were between 31-39 weeks and the non-pregnant women were 5-15 weeks after pregnancy (Paul, 1995). Furthermore, none of the pregnant women had been pregnant before (Paul, 1995). The data points referenced, in both women, were taken...