Effects of Active Sitting on Reading and Typing Task Productivity.
Clicks: 324
ID: 80378
2019
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This
article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score —
reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
Reader Engagement
Steady Performance
30.0
/100
324 views
71 readers
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
SteadyRanked #2 of 4 articles by views in international journal of exercise science
Most read
Least read
Bar heights use a square-root scale.
Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet mintedCreate a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.
5
SUSD
one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
Increased sedentary behavior and reduced physical activity among children and adults has led to the advent of various active devices to combat these behaviors. Active sitting, consisting of modified chairs or stability balls, allows the body to stay dynamic while seated. While research has evaluated the health benefits of active sitting, minimal research has shown the effects of active sitting on productivity in adult populations. The purpose was to evaluate the effects of various chairs (active versus non-active) on typing and reading task productivity. Twenty adult participants performed typing and reading tasks for 10-minutes while sitting on each of the following: standard chair (SC), stability ball (SB), and active sitting chair (ST). Reading comprehension (RC), words per minute (WPM), accuracy, and errors were measured following each task. Additionally, perceived productivity was measured using a self-reported rating of difficulty scale (1-10). In terms of RC, there was no difference between the chairs ( = 0.16). However, perceived productivity was significantly greater on the SC as compared to SB ( < 0.01) and ST ( < 0.01). For the typing task, no differences were demonstrated for errors ( = 0.87) or accuracy ( = 0.91). However, WPM was significantly greater on SC (38.8 ± 10.5) compared to ST (35.9 ± 9.5) ( = 0.02). For perceived typing productivity, SC and SB demonstrated significantly greater values compared to ST ( < 0.01). Results suggest that various types of active sitting may have a minimal negative effect on workplace performance and perceived productivity.
| Reference Key |
doroff2019effectsinternational
Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using
SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
|
|---|---|
| Authors | Doroff, Claire E;Langford, Emily L;Ryan, Greg A;Snarr, Ronald L; |
| Journal | international journal of exercise science |
| Year | 2019 |
| DOI |
DOI not found
|
| URL | URL not found |
| Keywords |
Citations
No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org
Comments
No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.