Volume 10, Issue 1 (Jan-Mar 2021)                   JCHR 2021, 10(1): 60-67 | Back to browse issues page

XML Persian Abstract Print

Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:

Seyedi F, Shahabi-Rabori M A, Eftekhar-Vaghefi S H. Anthropometric Dimensions and Classroom Furniture Measurements Among Pre-school Students in Kerman, South East of Iran. JCHR. 2021; 10 (1) :60-67
URL: http://jhr.ssu.ac.ir/article-1-656-en.html
1- 1. Department of Anatomical sciences, faculty of Medicine, Jiroft University of Medical Sciences, Jiroft, Iran
2- 2. Department of Anatomical sciences, Afzalipour School of Medicine, Kerman University of Medical Sciences, Kerman, Iran
Abstract:   (306 Views)

With the alternation of the educational system from a three-stage into a two-stage system in Iranian schools since several years ago, five-year-old children entered from kindergartens to primary schools. This study was conducted to investigate the harmonization of classroom furniture with anthropometric dimensions in preschool students. 
Methods: In this study, 366 male and female preschool students were selected by cluster sampling method in Kerman, Iran. The  sample size was calculated by the Cochran formula  Some of the anthropometric dimensions such as shoulder, elbow, and popliteal height, popliteal buttock length, and buttock breath were measured. Data were analyzed using SPSS 21. Statistical indicators such as mean, maximum, minimum, standard division, and 5th, 50th, and 95th percentiles were calculated for both the sexes and were compared with five dimensions of the existing seats. Next, the dimensions of the standard seats were determined according to the anthropometric dimension’s students.
Results: Anthropometric dimensions comparision between girl and boy pre- school students in Kerman city showed just popliteal height had a siginificnt diference (p ≤0.05). Match of antropometric musurmants with seat dimentions indicated that there is no consistency between the seats and anthropometric dimensions in. Armrest height, seat height, backrest height, seat depth and seat breath were matched with (0, 0.5, 10, 6.7, 0) and (0.7, 28.7, 6, 2.5, 0) percent of anthropometric musurments of girl and boy students respectively
Conclusions: Due to adding a new grade to primary school, it seems that no work has been done for improving the furniture. Therefore, in this article, we presented the dimensions of an appropriate seat. This may help not only save production costs in the industry but also increase the matching between students' anthropometric and seat dimensions.

Full-Text [PDF 1625 kb]   (106 Downloads) |   |   Full-Text (HTML)  (37 Views)  
Review: Research | Subject: Occupational Health
Received: 2020/07/6 | Accepted: 2021/03/20 | Published: 2021/03/29

1. Savanur C S. An Ergonomic study of comparison between school classroom furniture and student's anthropometry. Proceedings of the National Conference on Humanizing Work and the Work Environment, 22-24 April; 2004; 2004: National Institute of Industrial Engineering.
2. Musa A. Anthropometric evaluations and assessment of school furniture design in Nigeria: A case study of secondary schools in rural area of Odeda, Nigeria. International Journal of Industrial Engineering Computations. 2011;2(3): 499-508. [DOI:10.5267/j.ijiec.2011.03.006]
3. Panagiotopoulou G, Christoulas K, Papanckolaou A, et al. Classroom furniture dimensions and anthropometric measures in primary school. Appl Ergonomics. 2004; 35(2):121-128. [DOI:10.1016/j.apergo.2003.11.002]
4. DiDomenico E, Bonnici J. Assessing service quality within the educational environment. Education. 1996;1163:353-360.
5. Azabagic S, Spahic R, Pranjic N, et al. Epidemiology of Musculoskeletal Disorders in Primary School Children in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Materia socio-medica. 2016;28(3):164. [DOI:10.5455/msm.2016.28.164-167]
6. Murphy S, Buckle P, Stubbs D. Classroom posture and self-reported back and neck pain in schoolchildren. Applied Ergonomics. 2004;35(2): 113-120. [DOI:10.1016/j.apergo.2004.01.001]
7. Tichauer E.The Biomechanical Basis of Ergonomics anatomy applied to the design of work situations.Wiley & Sons. 1978:99.
8. Kane P, Pilcher M, Legg S. Development of a furniture system to match student needs in New Zealand schools. 16th World Congress on Ergonomics; 2006: 10-14.
9. Diep NB. Evaluation of fitness between school furniture and children body size in two primary schools in Haiphong, Vietnam: 2003.
10. Murphy S, Buckle P, Stubbs D. A cross-sectional study of self-reported back and neck pain among English schoolchildren and associated physical and psychological risk factors. Applied Ergonomics. 2007;38(6):797-804. [DOI:10.1016/j.apergo.2006.09.003]
11. Dianat I, Karimi MA, Hashemi AA, et al. Classroom furniture and anthropometric characteristics of Iranian high school students: proposed dimensions based on anthropometric data. Appl Ergonomics. 2013;44(1):101-108. [DOI:10.1016/j.apergo.2012.05.004]
12. Shahabi-Rabori MA, Eftekhar-Vaghefi SH, Babaee A, et al. Assessment of the match of Anthropometric Dimension with Classroom chairs and‎ Determination of the Standard Classroom chairs Dimensions in Students of 3th and 6th‎ grades primary schools in Kerman. Iran Occupational Health. 2018;15(2):42-53.
13. O Ismaila S, I Musa A, B Adejuyigbe S, et al. Anthropometric design of furniture for use in tertiary institutions in Abeokuta, South-western Nigeria. Engineering Review. 2013;33(3):179-192.
14. Obinna, F. P., Sunday, A. A., & Babatunde, O. Ergonomic assessment and health implications of classroom furniture designs in secondary schools: a case study. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science.,2021;22(1): 1-14. [DOI:10.1080/1463922X.2020.1753259]
15. Baharampour S, Nazari J, Dianat I, et al. Student's body dimensions in relation to classroom furniture. Health promotion perspectives. 2013;3(2):165.
16. Knight G, Noyes J. Children's behaviour and the design of school furniture. Ergo. 1999;42(5):747-760. [DOI:10.1080/001401399185423]
17. Milanese S, Grimmer K. School furniture and the user population: an anthropometric perspective. Ergo. 2004;47(4):416-426. [DOI:10.1080/0014013032000157841]
18. Pheasant S, Haslegrave CM. Bodyspace: Anthropometry, ergonomics and the design of work: CRC Press; 2016. [DOI:10.1201/b21331]
19. Agha SR. School furniture match to students' anthropometry in the Gaza Strip. Ergo. 2010;53(3):344-354. [DOI:10.1080/00140130903398366]
20. Castellucci H, Arezes P, Molenbroek J. Analysis of the most relevant anthropometric dimensions for school furniture selection based on a study with students from one Chilean region. Applied Ergonomics. 2015;46:201-211. [DOI:10.1016/j.apergo.2014.08.005]
21. Chung JW, Wong TK. Anthropometric evaluation for primary school furniture design. Ergonomics. 2007;50(3):323-34. [DOI:10.1080/00140130600842328]
22. Fidelis O. P., Ogunlade B., Adelakun S. A. Incidence of School Furniture Mismatch and Health Implications in Primary School Children in Akure, South-West Nigeria. Journal of Occupational Therapy, Schools, & Early Intervention. 2020; 1-13 [DOI:10.1080/19411243.2020.1787292]
23. Habibi E, Asaadi Z, Hosseini SM. Proportion of elementary school pupils' anthropometric characteristics with dimensions of classroom furniture in Isfahan, Iran. Journal of research in medical sciences.. 2011;16(1):98.
24. Parcells C, Stommel M, Hubbard RP. Mismatch of classroom furniture and student body dimensions: empirical findings and health implications. J Adolesc Health. 1999;24(4):265-273. [DOI:10.1016/S1054-139X(98)00113-X]
25. Aagaard J, Storr-Paulsen A. A comparative study of three different kinds of school furniture. Ergonomics. 1995;38(5):1025-1035. [DOI:10.1080/00140139508925169]
26. YMT K-R. Revision of the design of a standard for the dimensions of school furniture. Ergo. 2003;46(7):681-694. [DOI:10.1080/0014013031000085635]

Add your comments about this article : Your username or Email:

Send email to the article author

© 2021 CC BY-NC 4.0 | Journal of Community Health Research

Designed & Developed by : Yektaweb