Making ergonomics accountable: reliability, validity and utility in ergonomics methods

Chris Baber*, Mark S. Young

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review


In this paper, we discuss the ways in which Neville Stanton has challenged himself, his research colleagues, PhD students, the many co-authors and contributors to his publications, and the entire Ergonomics community to determine what it means for there to be ‘consistent standards for how [Ergonomics] methods are described and reported.’ Only in this way, can it be possible to make claims about whether or not a method in Ergonomics is effective. Given that he is Chartered as both an Occupational Psychologist and an Ergonomist, it is not surprising that he has been concerned with the question of the reliability and validity of Ergonomics methods. In Occupational Psychology, psychometric and personnel selection methods are expected to exhibit acceptable levels of reliability, but this is an expectation which is still somewhat alien to Ergonomics. Neville's work has been instrumental in raising this issue and in providing approaches which can be used to critically evaluate the methods we use. We think that, despite his ground-breaking work, there is still much to do in the Ergonomics community to create the situation for which he has long argued.

Original languageEnglish
Article number103583
Number of pages7
JournalApplied Ergonomics
Early online date9 Oct 2021
Publication statusPublished - Jan 2022

Bibliographical note

Publisher Copyright:
© 2021 Elsevier Ltd


  • Benefit
  • Cost
  • Methods
  • Reliability
  • Validity

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Human Factors and Ergonomics
  • Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation
  • Safety, Risk, Reliability and Quality
  • Engineering (miscellaneous)


Dive into the research topics of 'Making ergonomics accountable: reliability, validity and utility in ergonomics methods'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this