Ergonomic mismatch between classroom furniture and anthropometric characteristics of university students

Abstract

Prolonged sitting adversely affects students' physical well-being and academic performance. This study provides a detailed anthropometric analysis evaluating 13 different body parameters across 102 students of the Green Architecture and Interior Design program at the University of Applied Sciences in Ferizaj, Kosovo, to determine the ergonomic reference dimensions for school furniture (chair and desk). The data were evaluated through descriptive statistical indicators, including the mean, standard deviation, and percentiles. The application of the One-Sample T-Test rejected the null hypothesis, confirming statistically significant discrepancies between the current furniture and the recommended dimensions. The primary mismatches were identified in the height of the seat and desk, where the existing dimensions consistently exceed ergonomic standards. In the comparative analysis, model 1 provided a more favorable fit than model 2, which showed more pronounced discrepancies in the height parameters. These empirical findings constitute a valuable basis and a practical framework for designing ergonomic furniture, directly contributing to the optimization of learning spaces, enhancing sitting comfort, and consequently, elevating the overall quality of the learning process.

Keywords

• Furniture
• School
• Students
• Mismatch
• Anthropometric
• Ergonomics

Supporting Institution

N/A

Project Number

N/A

Ethical Statement

N/A

Thanks

N/A

Sınıf mobilyaları ile üniversite öğrencilerinin antropometrik özellikleri arasındaki ergonomik uyumsuzluk

Abstract

Uzun süreli oturma, öğrencilerin fiziksel sağlığını ve akademik performansını olumsuz etkiler. Bu çalışma, okul mobilyaları (sandalye ve masa) için ergonomik referans boyutlarını belirlemek amacıyla Kosova, Ferizaj Uygulamalı Bilimler Üniversitesi Yeşil Mimarlık ve İç Tasarım programında öğrenim gören 102 öğrenci üzerinde 13 farklı vücut parametresini değerlendiren ayrıntılı bir antropometrik analiz sunmaktadır. Veriler, ortalama, standart sapma ve yüzdelikler de dahil olmak üzere tanımlayıcı istatistiksel göstergeler aracılığıyla değerlendirilmiştir. Tek örneklem T-Testi uygulaması, sıfır hipotezini reddederek, mevcut mobilyalar ile önerilen boyutlar arasında istatistiksel olarak anlamlı farklılıklar olduğunu doğrulamıştır. Başlıca uyumsuzluklar, mevcut boyutların sürekli olarak ergonomik standartları aştığı koltuk ve masa yüksekliğinde tespit edilmiştir. Karşılaştırmalı analizde, model 1, yükseklik parametrelerinde daha belirgin farklılıklar gösteren model 2'ye göre daha uygun bir uyum sağlamıştır. Bu ampirik bulgular, ergonomik mobilya tasarımı için değerli bir temel ve pratik bir çerçeve oluşturarak, öğrenme alanlarının optimizasyonuna, oturma konforunun artırılmasına ve dolayısıyla öğrenme sürecinin genel kalitesinin yükseltilmesine doğrudan katkıda bulunur.

Keywords

• Mobilya
• Okul
• Öğrenciler
• Uyumsuzluk
• Antropometrik

Supporting Institution

N/A

Project Number

N/A

Ethical Statement

N/A

Thanks

N/A

References

1. Ahmad, Z., Yusof, I. S. M., and Samsudin, N., (2025), Comparison of ergonomic principles for school furniture design: a global perspective, Malaysian Journal of Ergonomics, 7(1), 52–58, https://doi.org/10.58915/mjer.v7.2025.2217
2. Castellucci, H. I., Arezes, P. M., Molenbroek, J. F. M., de Bruin, R., and Viviani, C., (2017), The influence of school furniture on students’ performance and physical responses: results of a systematic review, Ergonomics, 60(1), 93–110, https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.20 16.1170889
3. Castellucci, H. I., Arezes, P. M., and Viviani, C. A., (2010), Mismatch between classroom furniture and anthropometric measures in Chilean schools, Applied Ergonomics, 41(4), 563–568, https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2009.12.001
4. Chaffin, D. B., Andersson, G. B. J., and Martin, B. J., (2006), Occupational biomechanics, John wiley and sons.
5. Dianat, I., Karimi, M. A., Hashemi, A. A., and Bahrampour, S., (2013), Classroom furniture and anthropometric characteristics of Iranian high school students: proposed dimensions based on anthropometric data, Applied Ergonomics, 44(1), 101–108, https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.apergo.2012.05.004
6. Evans, W. A., Courtney, A. J., and Fok, K. F., (1988), The design of school furniture for Hong Kong schoolchildren: An anthropometric case study, Applied Ergonomics, 19(2), 122–134, https://doi.org/10.1016/0003-6870(88)90005-1
7. Gliem, J. A., and Gliem, R. R., (2003), Calculating, interpreting, and reporting Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient for Likert-type scales, Midwest research-to-Practice Conference in Adult, Continuing, and community education, Columbus, 82-88, Ohio State University, United States of America.
8. Gouvali, M. K., and Boudolos, K., (2006), Match between school furniture dimensions and children’s anthropometry, Applied Ergonomics, 37(6), 765-773, https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.apergo.2005.11.009

9. Hira, D. S., (1980), An ergonomic appraisal of educational desks, Ergonomics, 23(3), 213–221, https://doi.org/10.1080/00140138008924735
10. Kahya, E., (2019), Mismatch between classroom furniture and anthropometric measures of university students, International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 74, 1-10, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ergon.2019.102864
11. Kaya, N. A., and Erkarslan, Ö., (2019), Mismatch between classroom furniture and student body dimensions: case of Izmir, Ergonomi, 2(3), 167–177, https://doi.org/10.33439/ ergonomi.598932
12. Khademi, J., Charkazi, A., Rajabi, A., Rahimifard, H., Sohrabi, M., and Heidari, H., (2025), Musculoskeletal symptoms related to workstation design, an ergonomic mismatch between office furniture, and anthropometric measures among office staff, Work, 82(4), 994–1007, https://doi.org/10.1177/10519815251327317
13. Khalil, T. M., Abdel-Moty, E. M., Rosomoff, R. S., and Rosomoff H. L., (1993), Ergonomics in back pain: a guide to prevention and rehabilitation, Wiley.
14. Kocak, C., Egrioglu, E., Yolcu, U., and Aladag, C. H., (2014), Computing Cronbach alpha reliability coefficient for fuzzy survey data, American Journal of Intelligent Systems, 4(5), 204–213, https://doi.org/10.5923/j.ajis.20140405.03
15. Linton, S. J., Hellsing, A. L., Halme, T., and Åkerstedt, K., (1994), The effects of ergonomically designed school furniture on pupils’ attitudes, symptoms and behaviour, Applied Ergonomics, 25(5), 299–304, https://doi.org/10.1016/0003-6870(94)90044-2
16. Australia, W., (1991), Ergonomic principles and checklists for the selection of office furniture and equipment, Canberra, Australia: Australian Government Publishing Service.
17. Obinna, F. P., Sunday, A. A., and Babatunde, O., (2021), Ergonomic assessment and health implications of classroom furniture designs in secondary schools: a case study, Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 22(1), 1–14, https://doi.org/10.1080/1463922X.2020. 1753259
18. Oborne, D., (1995). Ergonomics and human factors, Edward Elgar Publishing.
19. Owoyemi, J. M., Aliyu, D., and Akinnuoye, A., (2023), Design and development of appropriate desk and chair for secondary schools in Ondo State, Nigeria using anthropometric variables, Furniture and Wooden Material Research Journal, 6(1), 1-13, https://doi.org/10.33725/mamad.1297861
20. Panagiotopoulou, G., Christoulas, K., Papanckolaou, A., and Mandroukas, K., (2004), Classroom furniture dimensions and anthropometric measures in primary school, Applied Ergonomics, 35(2), 121–128, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2003.11.002
21. Panero, J., and Zelnik, M., (1979), Human dimension and interior space: A source book of design reference standards, Watson-Guptill.
22. Parcells, C., Stommel, M., and Hubbard, R. P., (1999), Mismatch of classroom furniture and student body dimensions: empirical findings and health implications, Journal of Adolescent Health, 24(4), 265–273, https://doi.org/10.1016/S1054-139X(98)00113-X Rosyidi, C. N., Susmartini, S., Purwaningrum, L., and Muraki, S., (2016), Mismatch analysis of elementary school furniture in several regions of Central Java, Indonesia, and redesign recommendations, SAGE Open, 6(3), 1–9, https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440166643
23. Saleh, M. S., and Abd ElHay, A. E. M., (2026), Role of school nurses in ergonomic education and prevention of musculoskeletal disorders, NASN School Nurse, 41(2), 64–67, https://doi.org/10.1177/1942602X261432127
24. Sanders, M. S., and McCormick, E. J., (1993), Applied anthropometry, work-space design and seating, Human Factors in Engineering and Design, New York: McGraw-Hill.
25. Sejdiu, R., Sylejmani, B., Idrizi, L., Bajraktari, A., and Sejdiu, M., (2023), Discrepancy between pupils’ body and classroom furniture in elementary schools: A case study in the Republic of Kosovo, Work, 75(2), 447–459, https://doi.org/10.3233/WOR-2200
26. Shih, S. C., Chen, C. N., and Chen, K. P., (1966), A study on establishment of the standard size of desk and chair for school children in Taiwan, Taiwan Yi Xue Hui Za Zhi Journal of the Formosan Medical Association, 65(2), 92–98.
27. Taifa, I. W., and Desai, D. A., (2017), Anthropometric measurements for ergonomic design of students’ furniture in India, Engineering Science and Technology, an International Journal, 20(1), 232–239, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jestch.2016.08.004
28. Yanto, E. S. H., Siringoringo, H., and Deros, B. M., (2008), Mismatch between school furniture dimensions and student’ s anthropometry (A Cross-Sectional Study in an Elementary. 9th Asia Pacific Industrial Engineering and Management Systems Conference, 656–665.