4.9 Association Between BMI And Daily Vibration Exposure A (8)

4.9 Association between BMI and Daily Vibration Exposure A(8)

In this case, the scatter plot looks plausible. All respondents have body mass index (BMI) between, 20.2 and 30.8. The body mass index are reasonably spread out with an average around 24.6. Next, the range for daily vibration exposure A(8) from roughly 0.86 to 1.41. On top of how BMI and daily vibration exposure are distributed separately, it can be seen that respondents with higher BMI tend to have higher daily vibration exposure A(8). This indicates a positive correlation between BMI and daily vibration exposure A(8).

Correlations Daily Vibration Exposure A (8) BMI
Daily Vibration Exposure A (8) Pearson Correlation 1 .813** Sig. (2-tailed) .000 N 35 35
BMI Pearson
Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

The correlation shows the value of .813. This indicates that there is a strong (positive) linear relationship between BMI and daily vibration exposure A (8). The p-value, denoted by “Sig. (2-tailed)”, is .000. If the correlation is 0 in the population, then there's a 0% chance of finding the correlation we found in our sample. The null hypothesis is often rejected if p < .05. We conclude that the correlation is not 0 in the population (we now expect it to be somewhere near .813).

More precisely, since this is a 2-tailed test, the p-value consists of a 0% chance that the sample correlation is larger than 0.813 and another 0% chance that it's smaller than -0.813. The results are based on N = 35 subjects. Since 35 value corresponds to the sample size, it can be concluded that there are no missing values in the data. The result of correlation shows that there is a strong linear relation was observed between BMI and Daily Vibration Exposure A (8); Pearson correlation = 0.813, p = .000 (2-sided). However, Noorloos et al. (2008) concluded that occupational participants exposed to WBV, with a high BMI do not have an increased risk for the development of LBP, so the focus should be on other factors or more studies should be conducted in depth regarding to this
This indicates that there is a positive linear relationship between WBV A(8) exposure and MSD symptoms which include back pain, neck pain and shoulder pain only since both MSDs have the same results. Most of the respondents’ complaint about having problem with MSD symptoms. Therefore, it can be concluded that WBV exposure may imposed MSD symptoms towards the harvester operator. However, the symptoms might be influenced by their routine activities like repeated lifting of loads and manual handling by drivers (HSE, 2005). The p-value, denoted by “Sig. (2-tailed)”, is .036. If the correlation is 0 in the population, then there's a 0% chance of finding the correlation we found in our