Comparison of four different backpacks intended for school use.

Full Abstract

Four backpacks were evaluated for their desireability for use as school bags. Three of the four backpacks were specifically designed for school use based on previous research and ergonomic principles while the fourth (standard) backpack was chosen from two backpacks that their manufacturer considered to be the most likely to be used as a school bag. Twelve school students evaluated each of the backpacks firstly by examining them, again after donning them and again after walking with them on a treadmill by completing a questionnaire asking about the appearance, function and comfort of each backpack. On initial examination, the standard backpack was the most favoured but as functionality became increasingly important during the treadmill walk, the backpack which was designed specifically for school use and had two major compartments, substantial back padding and side compression straps became the most favoured. This particular design of backpack was reported as having the greatest practicality, being the least physically demanding and allowing the greatest balance and ease of walking. The results of this study suggest that school student's preference of backpack may change from when they first examine a prospective backpack to when they have used it. The study also shows that school students' preferred attributes in a backpack may shift over this time from 'style and image' to 'function and fit'.

Learn Faster Today Improve your study skills

Author information

Author/s: Mackie, H W (HW); Legg, S J (SJ); Beadle, J (J); Hedderley, D (D);

Affiliation: School of Sport, UNITEC, PO Box 92025, Auckland, New Zealand. hmackie(-atsign-)unitec.ac.nz

Journal and publication information

Publication Type: Comparative Study; Journal Article; Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Journal: Applied ergonomics (Appl Ergon), published in England. (Language: eng)

Reference: 2003-May; vol 34 (issue 3) : pp 257-64

Dates: Created 2003/05/09; Completed 2003/09/08; Revised 2006/11/15;

PMID: 12737926, status: MEDLINE (last retrieval date: 11/6/2008)

Sourced from the National Library of Medicine. Abstract text and other information may be subject to copyright.

External Links for this article (including full text providers, if available):

Click Electronic Full-text Provider Links to see options for finding the electronic full text links to this article. Note there may be a subscription or fee required for access to the full text. See our FAQ for information on finding FREE full text articles.

This article may also be located in paper journal collections available in many libraries. Use the Journal and Publication Information above to find the full article.

MeSH headings (categories)

This article was linked to the MESH Headings shown below.

This article has not been indexed for related articles as yet, however you can still use the live related article search links below.

See 100+ related articles.