Ergonomic assessment of fixed-height wooden laboratory stools and their association with student well-being: a cross-sectional study from Ghana

Introduction

Scientific knowledge is often pursued in university laboratories, which are designed for discovery but may not always prioritise the physical wellbeing of workers. Students worldwide, in both industrialised and developing countries, often spend many hours in practical sessions using furniture that is not ergonomically suitable (Ahmad et al., 2024; Oguntibeju et al., 2014; Penkala et al., 2018). This oversight presents a notable challenge that is frequently overlooked: the risk of ongoing physical discomfort and health problems, which can quietly affect learning, focus, and overall academic success (Caromano et al., 2015; Chen and Tsai, 2024; Hosteng et al., 2019). This study explores an important issue, especially in a setting where standardised, fixed-height, backless wooden stools are commonly used, as observed at a large public university in Ghana. This investigation focuses on a particular scenario to enhance our understanding of ergonomic challenges in higher education, particularly in situations where limited resources influence the selection of furniture.

The human body is not naturally suited to long periods in static positions, particularly those caused by poorly fitting furniture (Bai et al., 2024; Caromano et al., 2015). Previous studies have shown that sitting for long periods is associated with various negative health effects, including musculoskeletal issues such as back and neck pain and a higher risk of cardiometabolic diseases (Alibegóvić et al., 2020; Huang et al., 2022; Motuma et al., 2022). In academic environments, students often spend long hours sitting, usually without proper postural support or opportunities to move around, which increases the associated risk (Garn and Simonton, 2023). Caromano et al. (2015) in Brazil revealed that university students often experience pain and discomfort linked to the amount of time they spend sitting. Hosteng et al. (2019) showed a clear link between prolonged classroom sitting and higher levels of discomfort and sleepiness in college students at a Midwestern university. Sutherland et al. (2023) in Australia supported the finding that university students engage in high levels of sedentary behaviour, much of which is linked to study-related activities. These findings highlight a widespread issue that crosses geographical boundaries and various educational systems, impacting student populations worldwide (Garn and Simonton, 2023; Sutherland et al., 2023). Gumasing and Castro (2023) indicated that ergonomic factors can greatly affect student motivation and academic performance, highlighting their broader impact beyond physical health. Makaremi et al. (2024) highlighted the significant impact of classroom environments on student wellbeing in higher education.

Although ergonomics has long acknowledged the need to adapt environments for users to boost productivity and wellbeing (Afrifah and Glalah, 2021; Andersson, 1992; Oguntibeju et al., 2014), applying these principles to the design of educational furniture, particularly in university laboratories, remains a challenge. Numerous studies have highlighted a significant mismatch between students’ body measurements and the standard sizes of classroom and laboratory furniture, which may result in poor posture and greater physical strain (Fidelis et al., 2018; Kahya, 2019; Oguntibeju et al., 2014; Saha et al., 2024). This problem is especially evident in industrially developing countries, where financial limitations frequently lead to a focus on durability and cost-effectiveness rather than ergonomic factors (Jafry and O’Neill, 2000; Loo and Richardson, 2012; Ong, 1991). Research conducted in Nigeria by Fidelis et al. (2018) showed that classroom furniture in a Nigerian university was not ergonomically suitable, resulting in serious health concerns for students. Additional research in Nigeria by Musa et al. (2012) and Ha et al. (2025) reinforces these issues, highlighting the discrepancy between student body measurements and furniture design, which are frequently based on foreign data. The absence of standardised guidelines for educational furniture design in many countries adds to these challenges, as highlighted by Castellucci and Molenbroek (2022). Molenbroek et al. (2003) discovered that proposed European standards for school furniture did not sufficiently address the needs of the target population, highlighting the challenges of universal design.

The effect of seating design varies among different student groups. Previous studies have often highlighted sex differences in the perception of comfort, pain, and the occurrence of musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) (Afrifah and Glalah, 2021; MacLean et al., 2022; Sabbagh et al., 2021). MacLean et al. (2022) examined university employees and discovered that female employees experienced greater work-related musculoskeletal discomfort, particularly in the neck, shoulders, and lower back. Sabbagh et al. (2021) conducted a study on dental students in Saudi Arabia and found that females reported significantly more symptoms of musculoskeletal disorders than males. Afrifah and Glalah (2021) examined Ghanaian university students and discovered that women had a higher prevalence of musculoskeletal disorders than men. In Slovenia, Loredan et al. (2022) noted that differences in body dimensions and furniture suitability between male and female students became more noticeable at the university level. These findings indicate that solutions should be inclusive and consider students’ varied physiological and perceptual responses. It is important to recognise that a uniform approach to furniture design, which is common in many developing countries, can have a disproportionate impact on different groups (Esmaeel et al., 2020; Zhong and Shang, 2021).

Our study focuses on university science laboratories in Ghana that use only standardised fixed-height backless wooden stools, making it a particularly interesting case study. Previous research has examined ergonomics in African university settings (Adu et al., 2024; Afrifah and Glalah, 2021; Fidelis et al., 2018); however, there has been limited investigation into the specific health effects of basic laboratory seating. The absence of back support and the fixed seat height of these stools may not accommodate the varied body types of students, potentially contributing to discomfort, fatigue, and pain, which may be associated with reduced engagement and safety in important academic environments (Arefi et al., 2021; Castellucci et al., 2009). Additionally, the extended length of the laboratory sessions, as outlined in our methods, amplifies these possible negative effects on the participants. The impact of poor ergonomic design on student health, academic performance, and institutional costs is significant (Hendrick, 2003; Smith, 2011; Zentner et al., 2022). Therefore, it is crucial to understand and illuminate these challenges.

We explored the relationship between the features of standardised laboratory stools and several ergonomic outcomes for science students. These outcomes include comfort and fit, discomfort and pain, fatigue and posture adjustment, enjoyment of work, and safety awareness, all within a university in Ghana. Specifically, we addressed three research questions: (1) Are there significant sex differences in students’ ergonomic experiences with standardised fixed-height wooden laboratory stools? (2) Is daily sitting duration on these stools associated with differences in ergonomic outcomes? (3) Do demographic and anthropometric factors (age, height, weight, sex) significantly predict ergonomic outcomes? Based on prior literature (e.g., (Afrifah and Glalah, 2021; MacLean et al., 2022; Sabbagh et al., 2021), we hypothesised that female students would report poorer ergonomic outcomes than male students, that longer sitting durations would be associated with worse outcomes, and that anthropometric variables would be significant predictors of comfort and discomfort. Our main findings show notable differences between the sexes in terms of comfort and pain, with female students indicating lower comfort and higher pain. We found a consistent association between sitting duration and adverse outcomes such as fatigue, posture issues, discomfort, pain, and decreased enjoyment. This highlights the need for better ergonomic design in academic settings. To the best of our knowledge, no study in Sub saharan Africa has combined sex-disaggregated analysis, sitting-duration effects, and anthropometric regression modelling within a sub-Saharan African laboratory context that relies exclusively on fixed-height backless wooden stools, a seating type systematically under-represented in the ergonomics literature. Beyond this geographic novelty, this design allowed us direct quantification of how a specific, widely-used low-resource furniture type affects diverse student populations.

Methods

Study design and ethical considerations

This study used a cross-sectional survey design to investigate the association between laboratory stool characteristics and ergonomic outcomes of students. This approach allowed for the efficient collection of data at a single point in time, providing a comprehensive snapshot of the relationships under examination within the specified context (Taris et al., 2021). Ethical approval was obtained from the University Ethics Committee (approval number: SGS-EC-53-25) prior to data collection. All participants provided informed verbal consent before completing the survey, emphasising voluntary participation and maintaining confidentiality and anonymity throughout the study period (Roberts and Allen, 2015). Data were collected between May and August 2025.

Setting and participants

The study was conducted at a large public university in Ghana that serves a large undergraduate science student body. Consistent across all science laboratories at this institution is the use of standardised fixed-height wooden stools with a seat height of approximately 45 cm, a square seat of 40 cm, and notably, lacking back support. The target population included undergraduate students enrolled in science programmes who regularly engaged in practical laboratory sessions using these standard stools.

Figure 1 presents a photograph of the wooden laboratory stool commonly used in Ghanaian higher educational institutions. The stool is constructed from light-coloured wood with a smooth natural finish, featuring four slightly tapered legs connected by horizontal support bars near the bottom, which provide stability and serve as footrests. The square seat has rounded corners and a rectangular hand hole in the centre, making it easy to carry and move. The stool is of fixed height and does not have a height-adjustment mechanism.

A priori power analysis was conducted using G*Power 3.1.9.7 to determine the required sample size. This analysis indicated that a minimum sample of 395 participants was necessary to achieve 80% statistical power to detect small-to-medium effects in multiple regression analyses with five predictors at an alpha level of 0.05 (Memon et al., 2020). Convenience sampling was employed for participant recruitment across five science departments: Chemistry, Biology, Physics, Food and Nutrition, and Integrated Science. While acknowledging the limitations of convenience sampling in terms of generalisability, this method was chosen for its practical feasibility in accessing the target student population within a university setting (Andrade, 2020). Eligible participants were undergraduate students currently enrolled in courses requiring laboratory practical work, who had attended a minimum of six laboratory sessions, and who had utilised standard wooden laboratory stools during these sessions. The exclusion criteria included individuals with pre-existing musculoskeletal conditions diagnosed before university enrolment to avoid confounding ergonomic assessments.

Of the 523 students who accessed the online survey, 456 completed all items, representing a completion rate of 87.2%, thereby exceeding the predetermined minimum sample size. The final sample consisted of 357 male students and 99 female students, representing all four undergraduate levels and five participating academic departments. The predominance of male students (78.3%) reflects the demographic composition of the science programmes at the study institution, where male enrolment substantially exceeds female enrolment, particularly in Physics and Integrated Science Education. While this imbalance mirrors the broader gender gap documented in STEM fields across sub-Saharan Africa (UNESCO, 2021), it does limit the statistical power of sex-based comparisons and the generalisability of sex-specific findings; these implications are discussed in the Limitations section. This sample size provided adequate power for the planned statistical analyses and sufficient representation of key demographic categories.

Instrumentation

Data were collected using a custom-designed online survey instrument developed specifically for this study. The instrument was constructed following established psychometric procedures, including a comprehensive literature review, expert panel consultation, and pilot testing (Jebb et al., 2021). The survey was structured into three primary sections: demographic and anthropometric information, laboratory usage patterns, and ergonomic outcome measures.

Demographic and anthropometric data included self-reported age, sex, academic level, department, height, and weight. While direct measurements are often preferred, self-reported anthropometric data in young adult populations have demonstrated strong correlations with measured values, offering a practical and reliable alternative for large-scale studies (Fayyaz et al., 2024). Laboratory usage patterns were assessed by asking students to report their typical weekly laboratory hours and the average daily duration of stool use, categorised into distinct time intervals (0–2 h, 3–4 h, and ≥5 h).

Ergonomic outcome measures were captured using 5-point Likert scales designed to assess five key domains: Comfort and Fit, Discomfort and Pain, Fatigue and Posture Adjustment, Enjoyment of Laboratory Work, and Safety Awareness. These scales were formulated such that higher scores indicated more positive perceptions (comfort, enjoyment, and safety) or more negative experiences (discomfort and fatigue).

Content validity was rigorously established through an expert panel review comprising five specialists, including ergonomics experts, health education faculty members, and experienced laboratory instructors. This panel critically assessed each item for relevance, clarity, and comprehensiveness, leading to refinements in wording and the removal of redundant items (Elangovan and Sundaravel, 2021). Following content validation, a pre-test involving 42 science students was conducted to evaluate instrument reliability and clarity. The overall Cronbach’s alpha for the instrument was α = 0.823, exceeding the conventional threshold for good internal consistency (Memon et al., 2020). Per-construct reliability coefficients were as follows: Comfort and Fit (α = 0.839), Discomfort and Pain (α = 0.827), Fatigue, Posture & Adjustment (α = 0.768), Enjoyment of Work (α = 0.775), Impact on Interest (α = 0.518), Relevance/Application (α = 0.675), Safety (α = 0.696), and Health Awareness (α = 0.787), indicating acceptable to good internal consistency across all constructs. The complete survey instrument is provided as Supplementary Material SA1.

Feedback from the pre-test participants confirmed item clarity and the appropriateness of the response options, leading to minor wording adjustments.

Data collection procedures

The survey was administered electronically via Google Forms, with links distributed through departmental email lists and online course management systems. The survey introduction clearly outlined the study’s purpose, reinforced voluntary participation, assured confidentiality, and provided an estimated time for completion. To enhance data quality and minimise careless responding, the survey incorporated attention-check items and required responses for all questions, preventing missing data and ensuring participant engagement (Ward and Meade, 2022). The electronic platform also precluded multiple submissions from the same device, thus safeguarding data integrity. All responses were automatically recorded in a secure, password-protected database that was accessible exclusively to the research team.

Statistical analysis

Data were analysed using Jamovi v.7 statistical software. Initial data screening involved checks for accuracy, outliers, and missingness. Composite scores for each ergonomic domain were calculated by averaging the scores of the constituent items.

Descriptive statistics were used to characterise the sample demographics and key study variables. Prior to inferential analyses, distributional assumptions were evaluated using Shapiro-Wilk tests, Q-Q plots, and assessments of skewness and kurtosis. All continuous outcome variables demonstrated approximately normal distributions, which supported the application of parametric statistical tests.

Independent-samples t-tests were used to compare the mean ergonomic outcomes between male and female students. Levene’s test was used to assess the homogeneity of variances, with Welch’s correction applied when this assumption was violated. Cohen’s d was calculated to quantify effect sizes, interpreted as small (d ≈ 0.2), medium (d ≈ 0.5), or large (d ≈ 0.8). A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed to examine differences across categorical variables with more than two levels. Significant omnibus F-tests were followed by Tukey’s HSD post-hoc tests to identify specific group differences, with Bonferroni corrections applied to control the familywise error rate. Effect sizes for ANOVA were reported as partial eta-squared.

Multiple linear regression analyses were conducted to identify the predictors of ergonomic outcomes, including comfort and fit, discomfort and pain, fatigue and posture adjustment, and enjoyment of work. The predictor variables included age, height, weight, and gender. Prior to regression analysis, critical assumptions including linearity, independence of residuals, homoscedasticity, normality of residuals, and absence of multicollinearity were thoroughly verified (Osbourne and Waters, 2020). Standardised regression coefficients (β) were used to indicate the relative importance of each predictor. Statistical significance for all analyses was set at α = 0.05, with exact p-values reported where p > 0.001.

Ethical considerations

The study protocol was approved by the University Ethics Committee (SGS-EC-53-25) prior to data collection. All participants provided voluntary informed verbal consent before completing the survey, with no compensation provided. Data confidentiality and anonymity were maintained throughout the study period, in accordance with established guidelines for research involving human participants.

Results

Socio-demographic characteristics of respondents

The study included 456 undergraduate science students, of whom 30.3% (n = 138) were Level 100 students, 14.5% (n = 66) were Level 200 students, 32.2% (n = 147) were Level 300 students, and 23.0% (n = 105) were Level 400 students (Table 1). The sample was predominantly male: 78.3% (n = 357) identified as male and 21.7% (n = 99) as female. Physics Education had the highest departmental representation (36.2%), followed by Integrated Science (29.6%). The lowest was Food and Nutrition Education (1.3%). The mean age of respondents was 26.93 years (SD = 4.84), with most participants aged approximately 22–32 years. This relatively mature age profile is consistent with the institution’s admission structure, which primarily enrols students who hold a prior Diploma in Education; therefore, the findings may not directly generalise to conventional school-leaver undergraduate cohorts. The mean height of 159.10 cm (SD = 20.07) and mean weight of 61.89 kg (SD = 11.12) are broadly consistent with reported Ghanaian young adult anthropometric norms (Ghana Statistical Service, 2015). Notably, the fixed stool seat height of approximately 45 cm used in these laboratories falls within the lower end of the recommended range (38–46 cm) for the 5th percentile female popliteal height, suggesting that taller students—particularly males—may have experienced greater mismatch between their body dimensions and the stool height (Pheasant and Haslegrave, 2016). Furthermore, 56.6% (n = 258) of respondents reported sitting on the laboratory stool for 0–2 h per day, 34.9% (n = 159) for 3–4 h, and 8.6% (n = 39) for five or more hours. The mean height and weight of participants were 159.10 cm (SD = 20.07) and 61.89 kg (SD = 11.12), respectively.

TABLE 1. Socio-demographic characteristics of participants (N = 456).

Sex differences in ergonomic outcomes

Independent-samples t-tests were conducted to compare the mean ergonomic outcomes between male and female students across all constructs. Results showed that Comfort and Fit was significantly lower in female students than in male students, t(448) = −4.50, p < 0.001, d = −0.51, indicating a medium effect. Discomfort and Pain and Fatigue, Posture & Adjustment also showed significant sex differences (both p = 0.004), with medium effects (d = −0.34 and −0.35, respectively). Impact on Interest was higher in males, t(454) = 3.94, p < 0.001, d = 0.40. Safety also showed a significant difference, t(454) = −2.16, p = 0.031, d = −0.24, with female students reporting higher safety concerns. No significant sex differences were observed for Enjoyment of Work, Relevance/Application, or Health Awareness. Full results including group statistics, t-test outcomes, and effect sizes are presented in Table 2.

TABLE 2. Sex differences in ergonomic outcomes: group statistics, independent-samples t-test results, and effect sizes.

Cohen’s d interpretation: |d| ≈ 0.2 = small effect; |d| ≈ 0.5 = medium effect; |d| ≈ 0.8 = large effect (Cohen, 1988). Negative d values indicate female < male.

Effect of daily sitting duration on ergonomic outcomes

A one-way ANOVA was conducted to examine the association between daily hours spent sitting on wooden laboratory stools and ergonomic outcomes. Results showed significant effects for Comfort and Fit, F(2, 442) = 3.62, p = 0.028; Discomfort and Pain, F(2, 448) = 5.38, p = 0.005; Fatigue, Posture & Adjustment, F(2, 448) = 12.19, p < 0.001; Enjoyment of Work, F(2, 448) = 7.24, p < 0.001; Relevance/Application, F(2, 448) = 9.46, p < 0.001; and Health Awareness, F(2, 448) = 5.83, p = 0.003. No significant effects were observed for Impact on Interest or Safety (see Table 3).

TABLE 3. One-way ANOVA results for association between daily sitting duration and ergonomic outcomes.

Tukey HSD post-hoc analyses were conducted for constructs with significant omnibus F-tests. Participants who sat for longer durations consistently reported lower comfort, greater fatigue, poorer posture, and reduced enjoyment compared to those who sat for 0–2 h. Students sitting for longer durations also reported heightened awareness of physical discomfort. These findings suggest that extended sitting on the fixed-height wooden stool was consistently associated with higher levels of adverse ergonomic outcomes (see Table 4).

TABLE 4. Post-hoc Tukey HSD results for ANOVA: pairwise comparisons by daily sitting duration.

Regression analyses

A series of multiple linear regression analyses were conducted to examine whether demographic and anthropometric factors—specifically age, height, weight, and gender—were associated with students’ experiences with the standardised fixed-height laboratory stools. The outcome variables included Comfort and Fit, Discomfort and Pain, Fatigue, Posture & Adjustment, and Enjoyment of Work. These variables reflect key dimensions of ergonomic suitability and their relationship with student wellbeing and academic experience. Results are summarised below and presented in full in Tables 5–7.

TABLE 5. Model summary for multiple linear regression predicting ergonomic outcomes.

Predictors: Age, Height (cm), Weight (kg), Gender.

TABLE 6. ANOVA for linear regression models predicting ergonomic outcomes.

Predictors: Age, Height (cm), Weight (kg), Gender.

TABLE 7. Coefficients for predictors of ergonomic outcomes.

B, unstandardised coefficient; SE B, standard error; β, standardised coefficient.

The regression model significantly predicted Comfort and Fit, F(4, 445) = 8.43, p < 0.001, accounting for 7.0% of the variance (R ² = 0.070, Adjusted R ² = 0.062). Gender was the strongest predictor (β = 0.23, p < 0.001), with female students reporting lower comfort than males. Weight also emerged as a significant negative predictor (β = −0.11, p = 0.021), and age was a modest but significant negative predictor (β = −0.10, p = 0.035). Height did not significantly predict Comfort and Fit (p = 0.524).

The model for Discomfort and Pain was also significant, F(4, 451) = 12.15, p < 0.001, explaining 9.7% of the variance (R ² = 0.097, Adjusted R ² = 0.089). Weight was the strongest positive predictor (β = 0.22, p < 0.001). Gender also significantly predicted this outcome (β = −0.18, p < 0.001), with female students reporting higher discomfort than male students. Age showed a significant positive relationship (β = 0.14, p = 0.003), while height was not a significant predictor (p = 0.550).

The model for Fatigue, Posture & Adjustment was significant, F(4, 451) = 10.18, p < 0.001, accounting for 8.3% of the variance (R ² = 0.083, Adjusted R ² = 0.075). Three predictors emerged as significant: Weight (β = 0.17, p < 0.001), Height (β = 0.15, p = 0.001), and Age (β = 0.14, p = 0.004). Gender was not a significant predictor (p = 0.562).

The model for Enjoyment of Work was significant, F(4, 451) = 6.15, p < 0.001, explaining 5.2% of the variance (R ² = 0.052, Adjusted R ² = 0.043). Age was a significant negative predictor (β = −0.15, p = 0.001). Gender was also a significant predictor (β = −0.13, p = 0.007), with male students reporting higher enjoyment. Height (p = 0.148) and weight (p = 0.644) did not significantly predict enjoyment.

Discussion

This study examined the ergonomic implications of standardised fixed-height wooden laboratory stools on student wellbeing and academic experience. The findings highlight how demographic and anthropometric characteristics are associated with students’ physical comfort, fatigue, and engagement during laboratory sessions. Overall, the results suggest that the current one-size-fits-all seating approach may not adequately accommodate the diversity of student body dimensions and demographic characteristics present in university laboratory environments, as evidenced by the patterns of self-reported discomfort and perceived poor fit.

Body weight emerged as the most consistent predictor across ergonomic outcomes, significantly influencing comfort, pain, and fatigue. Heavier students consistently reported poorer ergonomic experiences compared with lighter students, suggesting that the fixed-height wooden stools may not adequately support variations in body mass. Increased body weight may lead to greater pressure on seating surfaces and musculoskeletal structures during prolonged sitting, thereby contributing to perceived discomfort and fatigue. These findings align with ergonomic research emphasising that furniture designed without consideration for body size variability can result in increased physical strain and reduced comfort during extended seated activities (Bridger, 2018; Kroemer and Grandjean, 1997). In laboratory environments where students often remain seated for extended practical sessions, such design limitations may substantially influence physical wellbeing and concentration.

Height also demonstrated a significant association with fatigue and postural adjustment. Taller students reported greater fatigue and more frequent attempts to modify their posture while seated. Fixed-height stools are typically designed based on average anthropometric dimensions derived from adult populations, particularly the popliteal height, which determines appropriate seat height. For most adult populations, recommended seat heights range between 38 cm and 46 cm, corresponding approximately to the 5th percentile female to the 95th percentile male popliteal height (Pheasant and Haslegrave, 2016; Kroemer and Grandjean, 1997). However, many laboratory stools fall within a narrow fixed height of approximately 45–50 cm, which may not accommodate the wide variability in student body dimensions (Parcells et al., 1999; Castellucci et al., 2010). When seating height does not match users’ anthropometry, individuals may adopt awkward postures such as excessive trunk flexion or unsupported lower limbs, which can increase fatigue and musculoskeletal discomfort. Together with body weight and age, these findings suggest that cumulative physical strain may be exacerbated for students whose body dimensions fall outside the narrow range accommodated by standardised furniture. Similar observations have been reported in ergonomic studies emphasising the importance of adjustable furniture to accommodate variability in human body dimensions (Pheasant and Haslegrave, 2016; Dul and Weerdmeester, 2008).

Age demonstrated modest but statistically significant effects across all four measured outcomes: comfort, pain, fatigue, and enjoyment of laboratory work. Older students reported lower levels of comfort, greater pain and fatigue, and reduced enjoyment of laboratory activities. Notably, the mean age of 26.93 years, with most respondents aged approximately 22–32 years, indicates a relatively mature student population. This demographic profile may reflect the university’s admission structure, which predominantly admits students who have previously obtained a Diploma in Education and are therefore enrolled as mature students. Although the magnitude of the effects was relatively small, they suggest that even within the typical undergraduate age range, age-related differences in physical tolerance, previous musculoskeletal exposure, or expectations regarding learning environments may influence students’ experiences.

Sex differences were also evident in several outcomes, particularly comfort, pain, and enjoyment of laboratory work. Female students generally reported more negative physical experiences than male students, suggesting that the laboratory seating environment may affect male and female students differently. Previous research has consistently shown that females report higher prevalence of musculoskeletal discomfort in work and learning environments designed using anthropometric data largely derived from male populations (Kahya, 2019; Parcells et al., 1999). Differences in body proportions, muscle strength, and seating pressure distribution may contribute to these disparities. Furthermore, male students in the present study reported higher enjoyment of laboratory work. Although the reasons for this difference cannot be fully determined from the current cross-sectional analysis, it is possible that perceived greater physical comfort among male students may be associated with higher engagement and satisfaction with laboratory activities.

Another particularly noteworthy finding was the significant sex difference in Safety Awareness (t = −2.16, p = 0.031, d = −0.24), with female students reporting higher safety concerns than males. Although this was a small effect, it carries important implications for occupational health in laboratory settings. Higher safety concern among female students may reflect greater vigilance regarding physical hazards associated with an unstable or poorly-fitting seated posture, including the risk of falls or awkward movements that could cause accidents when working with chemicals or fragile equipment. Prior research on sex differences by Laberge et al. (2022) in risk perception has noted that women tend to report higher levels of concern about physical and environmental hazards in workplace and educational settings. Alternatively, female students’ greater reported discomfort may sensitise them to bodily awareness, including awareness of postural instability. Regardless of its origin, this sex difference in safety perception warrants targeted attention in laboratory safety training and design, as seating that provokes physical unease or instability may disproportionately compromise the safety of female students. Institutions should ensure that ergonomic furniture improvements and safety training are equitably delivered across all student groups.

The regression models revealed modest explanatory power, with R² values ranging from 5.2% to 9.7%. While demographic and anthropometric variables significantly predicted several outcomes, a large proportion of variance remained unexplained. This pattern of low explanatory power is not unexpected; indeed, it underscores that the demographic and anthropometric predictors examined here account for only a small fraction of students’ ergonomic experiences. The majority of the variance in outcomes such as comfort, pain, and fatigue remains attributable to factors outside the scope of this study. Importantly, the Safety model (R² = 0.020, F = 2.25, p = 0.062) did not reach statistical significance at the 0.05 threshold and should therefore be interpreted with caution; the regression findings for this outcome are not substantively interpreted. This finding is expected, as ergonomic experiences are influenced by numerous interacting factors beyond those included in this study. Factors such as individual pain tolerance, previous musculoskeletal disorders, sitting posture, psychological stress, and the physical demands of laboratory tasks were not included in the current model but may substantially influence perceptions of comfort and fatigue. Previous research indicates that musculoskeletal discomfort is multifactorial and influenced by a combination of individual characteristics, biomechanical loading, and psychosocial conditions (Kumar, 2001; Punnett and Wegman, 2004; Bridger, 2018). Environmental characteristics such as table height, workstation layout, duration of laboratory sessions, and opportunities for movement may also contribute to students’ experiences (Dul and Weerdmeester, 2008; Hedge, 2016).

The apparent discrepancy between the t-test (p = 0.965) and regression (p = 0.007) results for Enjoyment of Work reflects the distinction between unadjusted and covariate-adjusted estimation. The t-test compares raw group means without controlling for other variables. In the regression, age is a significant negative predictor of enjoyment (β = −0.15, p = 0.001); if male students are on average older in this sample, their higher mean age attenuates the crude sex gap, masking the underlying sex effect. Once age, height, and weight are held constant, the suppression is resolved and the partial effect of sex becomes evident. This pattern is consistent with a suppressor variable mechanism (Horst, 1941; Cohen et al., 2003) and reinforces the value of multivariate over bivariate analysis when demographic predictors are intercorrelated.

These findings have practical implications for laboratory design and student welfare. The consistent association between physical characteristics and negative ergonomic outcomes suggests that a standardised, one-size-fits-all approach to laboratory seating is inadequate. Institutions should consider investing in adjustable seating options to better accommodate diverse student body types. Although formal cost-effectiveness data for ergonomic furniture in sub-Saharan African educational settings are not yet available and future research should address this gap directly, prior ergonomics literature suggests that the long-term costs of musculoskeletal injury, reduced productivity, and safety incidents often justify investments in improved furniture design (Hendrick, 2003; Bridger, 2018). The observed sex difference in safety perception further indicates that ergonomic improvements may have occupational health and safety benefits beyond physical comfort, which are especially relevant in laboratory environments where students handle hazardous materials and equipment. Additionally, the demographic differences observed (age, sex) warrant further investigation to ensure equitable access to comfortable and supportive learning environments for all students.

Limitations

Our study highlights important ergonomic concerns; however, several limitations warrant consideration. First, the cross-sectional design limits our ability to establish causality; we can identify associations but cannot definitively claim that unsuitable stools lead to ergonomic impairment or decreased work enjoyment over time. Longitudinal studies would offer stronger evidence of cause-and-effect relationships and symptom development (Caromano et al., 2015). Second, relying on self-reported anthropometric measurements and subjective ergonomic perceptions, while common in survey-based research, introduces risks of recall bias and personal interpretation (Kahya, 2019). Although we used established methods for survey development, incorporating objective measurements of posture, muscle activity, and discomfort, as recommended by Oguntibeju et al. (2014), could provide further insights. In particular, the study did not employ standardised observational postural assessment tools such as RULA (Rapid Upper Limb Assessment), REBA (Rapid Entire Body Assessment), or OWAS (Ovako Working Posture Analysis System), which are widely used in ergonomics research to provide objective, validated measures of postural risk. The exclusive use of self-report instruments is a notable methodological limitation, and future studies in this context should incorporate such observational tools alongside survey measures to strengthen the validity of ergonomic risk assessments. The research was conducted at a single public university in Ghana. Although this offers useful context-specific data, our findings may not apply broadly to other academic institutions with different types of furniture, cultural settings, or student demographics. The widespread presence of similar non-adjustable furniture in various parts of Africa and other developing regions indicates that our findings may have broader relevance (Adu et al., 2024; Fidelis et al., 2018; Ha et al., 2025). Finally, the convenience sampling method, while effective for recruiting participants, may result in a sample that is not fully representative of the overall Ghanaian university student population. The sample was predominantly male (78.3%), which limits the generalisability of sex-specific findings, and the implications of this imbalance should be considered when interpreting gender-based comparisons. Future research should employ probability sampling and seek more balanced sex representation to verify and extend the gender differences identified here.

Conclusion

This study investigated ergonomic experiences associated with the use of standardised, fixed-height, backless wooden laboratory stools among undergraduate science students in Ghana. The findings indicate that these stools were consistently associated with notable physical discomfort, pain, and fatigue, particularly among female students. Prolonged sitting duration was further associated with worsening ergonomic experiences, including reduced enjoyment of laboratory work. A noteworthy finding was the significant sex difference in safety awareness, with female students reporting higher safety concerns, a result with direct implications for laboratory health and safety management. These patterns conform to broader literature emphasising the musculoskeletal and wellbeing consequences of poorly designed learning environments.

We strongly encourage educational institutions, especially in developing countries, to shift their focus from solely considering cost when purchasing furniture to embracing ergonomic principles in laboratory design. Based on the evidence from this study and the broader ergonomics literature, institutions should consider the following concrete furniture specifications: (a) adjustable seat height in the range of 38–52 cm to accommodate the popliteal height variability of both male and female students; (b) incorporation of a backrest or lumbar support panel at an angle of approximately 100–110° from the seat surface to reduce lower-back strain during extended laboratory sessions; and (c) a padded or contoured seat surface with a minimum depth of 38 cm and width of 40 cm to distribute body weight more evenly and reduce pressure on the ischial tuberosities (Pheasant and Haslegrave, 2016; Kroemer and Grandjean, 1997). These specifications are consistent with existing ergonomic design standards and represent a realistic and cost-effective upgrade path for resource-constrained institutions that currently rely on fixed-height backless wooden stools. Neglecting ergonomic wellbeing may perpetuate the patterns of discomfort, pain, and reduced enjoyment of laboratory work observed in this study, with potential broader implications that future longitudinal research should examine. Future research should focus on longitudinal studies that examine the long-term associations between ergonomic interventions and health outcomes, the cost-effectiveness of adjustable furniture in resource-constrained settings, and the development of ergonomic design guidelines that are culturally appropriate for diverse student populations worldwide.

Generative AI statement

The author(s) declared that generative AI was used in the creation of this manuscript. During the preparation of this article, the authors used PaperPal to improve the language, readability, and grammar. After using this tool/service, the authors reviewed and edited the content as needed and take full responsibility for the content of this publication.

Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Supplementary material

The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fieng.2026.1781205/full#supplementary-material

Supplementary material Supplementary material at the source

Footnotes

Edited by: Philippe Gorce, International Institute of Biomechanics and Occupational Ergonomics, France

Reviewed by: Rolien Terblanche, University of Cape Town, South Africa

Kausalyah Venkatason, MARA University of Technology, Malaysia

Ayman Assem, Ain Shams University, Egypt