Anthropometry of Wheeled Mobility Project

Transcription

1 Final Report Anthropometry of Wheeled Mobility Project Prepared for the U.S. Access Board December 31 st, 2010 Center for Inclusive Design and Environmental Access (IDeA) School of Architecture and Planning University at Buffalo The State University of New York Buffalo, NY

2 Credits Authors Graphics Edward Steinfeld, Arch.D. Co-Project Director Victor Paquet, Sc.D. Co-Project Director Clive D Souza, M.S. Research Assistant Caroline Joseph, M.Sc.A. Research Assistant Jordana Maisel, M.U.P. Research Associate Jonathan White, M.Arch. Research Intern Architect Heamchand Subryan, M.A., M.Arch., Research Design Associate Funding for this project was provided by: U.S. Access Board National Institute for Disability and Rehabilitation Research, U.S. Department of Education Acknowledgement The authors would like to thank the following people for their foresight in perceiving the value of this work: William Peterson, RERC Project Manager at NIDDR who perceived the need for the project and insured that it was part of the RERC on Universal Design s mission. Katherine Seelman, Director of NIDRR during the time the project was conceived. Lois Thibault, Research Director of the U.S. Access Board who saw the value of continuing the work. Lawrence Roffee and David Cappozi, Executive Directors of the Access Board during the project period. Marsha Mazz, Director, Office of Technical and Information Services, who managed the project for the U.S. Access Board when Lois Thibault retired. Disclaimer This report was developed with funding from the U.S. Access Board (contract # TPD-ABA-07-C- 001). The research was initially funded by the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR), U.S. Dept. of Education (grant #H133E99005). The contents of the report do not necessarily represent the policy of the U.S. Access Board or NIDRR, and readers should not assume any endorsement by the Federal government.

3 Contact Information For further information, contact: Edward Steinfeld, Director Center for Inclusive Design and Environmental Access (IDeA Center) School of Architecture and Planning University at Buffalo 3435 Main Street, 378 Hayes Hall Buffalo, NY (phone) ( ) This document is available free of charge from the IDeA Center website at: Copyright, Center for Inclusive Design and Environmental Access, 2010 Unlimited use of this document for educational and research purposes are permitted without written permission but altering the contents and distribution for sale is not allowed without prior written permission from the IDeA Center.

4 Table 3-5: Participation rates in the functional anthropometric tests for each site. Data Location Total Buffalo, NY Pittsburgh, PA Ithaca, NY Total Sample size Reach Capability Able to Pick-place empty canister (%) 261 (74%) 83 (83%) 27 (61%) 371 (75%) Able to Pick-place 5 lbs. canister (%) 183 (52%) 68 (68%) 15 (34%) 266 (54%) Able to Exert Hand Grip Force Power Grip (%) 320 (91%) 80 (80%) 38 (86%) 438 (88%) Lateral Pinch Grip (%) 305 (87%) 77 (77%) 29 (66%) 411 (83%) Thumb-forefinger Tip Grip (%) 288 (82%) 73 (73%) 34 (77%) 395 (80%) 3.3 Comparison of Dimensions with Standards and other Anthropometric Studies Unoccupied Device Width The unoccupied widths of devices were similar for the mean and 80 th percentile values across research findings from different countries (Figure 3-1). Our sample overall had, on average, larger mean and 80 th percentile values for unoccupied device width than other countries. This was in part due to the larger percentage of powered wheelchair users and manual bariatric wheelchair users that were included in our study. The unoccupied widths of devices used for the reference wheelchair described in the U.S. and Canadian standards are smaller than many of the WhMD users in our sample. For example, our results for mean unoccupied width are just under the U.S. standard reference wheelchair of 660 mm (26 in.). But, the widest device measured (a manual wheelchair) was over 300 mm (12 in.) wider than the U.S. standard s reference wheelchair. The U.S. standards, generally accepted by the other countries, were derived from manufacturers data in the 1970 s and did not include many of WhMD technologies that are in use today. Anthropometry of Wheeled Mobility 40

5 Data Source Sample Size Min 5%ile Mean 80%ile 90%ile 95%ile Max Seeger et al., AUS All Device Types* UDI, Canada Power chairs and scooters* DfT, U.K. Self-Propelled Wheelchair Attendant-Propelled Wheelchair Electric Wheelchair Electric Scooter All Device Types* IDeA Center, U.S. Manual chairs Power chairs Scooters All Device Types* * Indicates data plotted in the graph. Figure 3-1. Unoccupied WhMD width: research findings versus the standards. Anthropometry of Wheeled Mobility 41

6 3.3.3 Clear Floor Width The findings on clear floor width are based on the findings on occupied width from anthropometric studies shown in Figure 3-3. Neither the DfT or DETR studies collected data on occupied width but did measure the unoccupied device width. The authors argued that individuals can bring their arms and legs inboard when entering transportation vehicles and passing through doorways. We found, however, that many individuals do not have the physical ability to position their upper and lower extremities inboard. Moreover, in situations where an individual might remain stationery for a relatively long time, for example, at a concert or sporting event, it is unrealistic to assume that an individual would keep their upper and lower extremities in such a constraining position. The BS8300 research did not report occupied widths larger than 800 mm but the BS8300 standard, as we interpret it, requires an additional 100 mm (4 in.) more than that for the clear floor area width (900 mm). The BS8300 standard s developers may have added 100 mm to provide additional maneuvering room at clear floor areas. Due to recent revisions, the minimum required clear floor width standard in Australia and the U.K. now exceeds that in U.S. and Canada (Figure 3-3). The U.K. standard accommodates the occupied widths of most everyone in all of the studies, except for a small sample of the largest widths measured in our study. Approximately 90% of manual wheelchair users, 85% of scooter users and 80% of powered chair users in our sample had occupied widths that were less than the U.S. clear floor width standard. Therefore, 10-20% of individuals measured in our study have an occupied width that is greater than the U.S. standard of 760 mm (30 in.). Anthropometry of Wheeled Mobility 44

7 Data Source Sample Size Min 5%ile Mean 80%ile 90%ile 95%ile Max Seeger et al., AUS All Device Types* BS8300:2001, U.K. Manual chairs - self propelled Power chairs Manual and Power chairs* Scooters IDeA Center, U.S. Manual chairs Power chairs Scooters All Device Types* * Indicates data plotted in the graph. Figure 3-3. Clear floor width (occupied width): research findings versus the standards. Anthropometry of Wheeled Mobility 45