What this is
What is an assessment comparison review?
What is an assessment comparison review?
It is a review that places two, or a small number, of specific ergonomic task assessments against each other, scored by the same method, to answer one of four questions: did a control work, do two assessors agree, does a shift or line differ, or does one similar task differ from another.
How is this different from an MSD trend review?
The trend review aggregates discomfort reports and injuries across the whole workforce over a period, looking for a pattern. This review holds two named, specific assessments, each with an assessment ID and a score, and compares them directly. One is workforce-wide and periodic; the other is task-level and comparative.
What does the review actually test?
Whether the difference between two scores reflects a real difference in the task, the conditions, or the control applied, or whether it reflects inconsistent application of the assessment method itself. Those are different findings and call for different corrective actions.
Scope
When is an assessment comparison review required?
This review sits between the individual task assessments it draws on and the programme decisions it feeds. Using it to write up a single new assessment, or to summarise the whole workforce's injury trend, produces a record that answers neither question well.
Use this template when
- A control has been implemented on a task and needs a before-and-after comparison to prove it worked
- Two assessors scored what should be the same task and the results diverge
- The same task is being compared across shifts or lines to find where a problem has already been solved
- A similar task is being compared across sites to check whether one line's solution transfers
- The annual programme review needs comparative evidence, not another raw assessment
Do not use it for
- Task Ergonomic Assessment, which assesses a work task using RULA, REBA or WISHA, and is the input this review compares, not a substitute for it.
- Lifting Task Assessment, which runs the NIOSH lifting equation alongside a whole body posture method.
- Push and Pull Assessment, which uses Snook tables alongside a posture method for pushing, pulling and carrying tasks.
- MSD Trend Review, which aggregates discomfort and injury data across the whole workforce over a period, rather than comparing named individual assessments.
- Post Control Reassessment, the single reassessment record after a control is fixed, which can feed into this review but is not itself a comparison of two assessments.
Compliance mapping
Which ISO 45001 cl.9.1 requirements does this satisfy?
ISO 45001 clause 9.1 requires that monitoring and measurement produce valid results, and this review is the check on validity applied to the assessment process itself: whether a method, used twice on related tasks, produces a comparison that can be trusted.
| Clause | Requirement | Where it lands |
|---|---|---|
| ISO 45001 cl.9.1 | Determine what is to be monitored or measured, and the methods needed to assure valid, comparable results | Header |
| ISO 45001 cl.6.1.2.2 | Assessment of OH&S risks with a defined methodology and criteria, applied consistently across occasions of use | Header |
| ISO 45001 cl.6.1.2.2 | Risk evaluated and recorded against the defined methodology, producing a score and risk band that can be set against another | Assessments compared |
| ISO 45001 cl.9.1.1 | Evaluate OH&S performance, including whether measurement results are consistent between occasions and between assessors | Comparison |
| ISO 45001 cl.7.2 | Determine necessary competence and take action where a person's competence, here an assessor's calibration, is found wanting | Comparison |
| ISO 45001 cl.8.1.2 | Elimination of hazards and reduction of risk following the hierarchy of controls, with effectiveness verified rather than assumed | Outcome |
| ISO 45001 cl.10.2 | Determine and act on nonconformities, including corrective action where a method or calibration gap is found | Outcome |
What it does not cover
- MSD Trend Review, which reads discomfort and injury data in aggregate across the workforce over time, not two named assessments against each other.
- A new task assessment, such as a Task Ergonomic Assessment, Lifting Task Assessment or Push and Pull Assessment, which this review compares but does not itself produce.
- Post Control Reassessment, the single record of reassessing one task after a control, which may supply one half of a comparison here.
- Video Assessment, which holds the underlying video-based scoring an assessment here may cite by reference, without repeating the analysis.
- Ergonomics Committee Record, the forum where this review's conclusions are discussed, not the record that produces them.
Global
Assessment Comparison Review requirements by country
No jurisdiction names a comparison review as a distinct legal instrument. What underlies it is the expectation that an assessment method, once chosen, is applied with enough consistency that its results mean something when set against each other.
OSH Act General Duty Clause; no comparison-specific standard
There is no requirement to compare assessments, but an employer who proves a control worked, or discovers one line's method disagrees sharply with another's, has evidence relevant to a General Duty Clause defence either way.
The absence of a naming requirement does not remove the value of showing, on request, that a claimed control actually reduced exposure.
Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999, reg.3
The suitable and sufficient test extends to whether an assessment method was applied consistently; a wide, unexplained variance between assessors casts doubt on the sufficiency of either result.
A comparison review is one way of demonstrating, after the fact, that the assessment process itself was sound rather than merely that a form was completed.
ISO 45001
Clause 9.1 requires that monitoring and measurement produce valid results, and clause 6.1.2.2 requires a defined, consistently applied methodology.
Certification auditors treat inter-assessor variance as evidence bearing directly on whether the methodology clause is actually being met, not just documented.
How to complete it
How to complete an assessment comparison review, step by step
Most comparisons record two scores and a conclusion sentence. The parts that make the comparison trustworthy are the ones that establish whether the two scores were ever comparable in the first place.
Before and after a control, between assessors, between shifts, and between similar tasks are four different questions. Recording a purpose after the fact, to match whatever the numbers turned out to show, defeats the point; the purpose should be set at the outset and the comparison should answer that question and no other.
A comparison is only valid if both assessments used the same method. RULA and REBA scores are not interchangeable, and neither are NIOSH and MAC results for a lifting task. Where the method used differs between the two assessments being compared, the review should say the comparison is not valid rather than force a reading.
A gap between two scores can come from the task genuinely differing, the conditions at assessment differing, such as pace, product or which worker was observed, or the method being applied inconsistently by the assessors. Deciding which of these it is, explicitly, is what the comparison and outcome sections exist to record.
A gap traced to assessor inconsistency belongs in training and calibration. A gap traced to the task or the conditions belongs in redesign or a fresh assessment. Recording 'variance found' and raising a single generic action conflates two different problems and fixes neither properly.
What auditors find
Most common assessment comparison review findings
The comparison almost always contains two scores and a conclusion line. The findings concern whether the comparison behind them was actually valid, and whether the variance was explained rather than just noted.
| Finding | Clause | What fixes it |
|---|---|---|
| Comparison purpose not selected or recorded, so the conclusion cannot be tied to a specific question. | ISO 45001 cl.9.1 | Require the comparison purpose to be set before assessments are entered, and check the conclusion answers that purpose. |
| Two assessments compared despite being scored with different methods. | ISO 45001 cl.6.1.2.2 | Block or flag any comparison where the method used differs between the assessments being set against each other. |
| Variance recorded but not attributed to conditions, method application, or a genuine task difference. | ISO 45001 cl.9.1.1 | Require an explicit answer on whether differences are explained by conditions and by method application, not just a variance figure. |
| Assessor calibration flagged as needed, with no training action raised against it. | ISO 45001 cl.7.2 | Route a positive calibration finding directly into an assessor training action, not just a note in the record. |
| Improvement claimed without a percent score reduction or a judgement on whether it is statistically meaningful. | ISO 45001 cl.8.1.2 | Require the percent reduction and a meaningfulness judgement wherever improvement is claimed, rather than a bare 'yes'. |
| Method guidance update or reassessment flagged as needed, with no CAPA or owner attached. | ISO 45001 cl.10.2 | Raise a CAPA with an owner at the point either flag is set to yes, rather than leaving it as an unattached observation. |
Case in point
Case in point: the gap that was not the task
Two packing lines ran the same product. One had a height-adjustable table fitted six months earlier; the other had not. The ergonomics lead ran a between-similar-tasks comparison, and the REBA scores came back three on the upgraded line against seven on the other, an apparently clear case for extending the fix.
The comparison's own fields caught what a bare score difference would have missed. 'Differences explained by conditions' had been ticked only 'partly', and digging into conditions at assessment showed the higher-scoring line had been filmed during an unusually high-volume shift, not a typical one. A second assessment at typical volume narrowed the gap considerably, still enough to justify the equipment case, but sized correctly rather than inflated by a mismatched comparison.
The template
The template, field by field
The form exactly as it installs. Every field, option, score and conditional rule is editable, and the links to other templates come with it.
4 sections
- Reference
- ERG-013
- Archetype
- Review
- Record ID
- ACR-2026-000
- Scoring
- Score comparison
- Direction
- High is bad
- Singleton
- No
- Basis
- ISO 45001 cl.9.1
- Links
- Links Task Assessments
- Tags
- Ergonomics, Analysis
- Sections
- 4
- Fields
- 44
- Follow up fields
- 3
- Repeating sections
- 1
- Links out
- 4
Header
12 fieldsReview ID*
Auto sequence. Format ACR-2026-000.
The record's own ID. Other templates point at this value.
Status*
Drives who this goes to next.
- Planned2 pts
- In progress2 pts
- Complete3 pts
- Deferred0 pts
- Open0 pts
- Closed3 pts
- Overdue0 pts
Date and Time*
Completed By*
Site*
Site ID*
Format SITE-000.
Links to FDN-001 Site ID
Area
The area within the site.
Exact Location
Drop a pin for anything hard to find.
Comparable Only If Consistent
Two assessors scoring the same task with the same method should reach the same band. Where they do not, the problem is the method application, not the task.
Comparison Purpose*
Before and after control, between assessors, between shifts, or between similar tasks.
Method Used*
Reviewed By*
Assessments compared
Repeats11 fieldsAssessment ID*
Date*
Assessor*
Task
Job ID
Format JOB-000.
Links to FDN-004 Job Task ID
Method*
Score*
Risk Band*
- Acceptable4 pts
- Investigate2 pts
- Change soon1 pt
- Change now0 pts
Conditions At Assessment
Video Based*
- Yes3 pts
- No1 pt
Video Assessment ID
Links to ERG-036 Assessment ID
Comparison
9 fieldsScores Consistent*
- Yes3 pts
- Some variation1 pt
- Wide variation0 pts
Variance Between Assessors
Same Risk Band Reached*
- Yes3 pts
- No0 pts
Differences Explained By Conditions*
Different pace, different worker or different product all legitimately change the score.
- Yes3 pts
- Partly1 pt
- No0 pts
Differences Explained By Method Application*
- No3 pts
- Partly1 pt
- Yes0 pts
Assessor Calibration Needed*
- No3 pts
- Yes0 pts
Improvement Demonstrated
- Yes3 pts
- Some1 pt
- No0 pts
Percent Score Reduction
Statistically Meaningful
- Yes3 pts
- Uncertain1 pt
- No0 pts
Outcome
12 fieldsConclusion*
Method Guidance Update Needed*
- No3 pts
- Yes1 pt
Assessor Training Required*
- No3 pts
- Yes0 pts
Reassessment Required*
- No3 pts
- Yes1 pt
Action Required*
Raise the action record, then enter its reference here.
- No2 pts
- Yes0 pts
Priority
- High0 pts
- Medium1 pt
- Low3 pts
CAPA ID
Format CAPA-2026-00000.
Links to FDN-014 CAPA ID
Action Owner
Ergonomics*
Signature*
Safety Lead*
Second Signature*
ERG-013 · record IDs look like ACR-2026-000 · Links Task Assessments
Open in KnowellaRun it with agents
From a document you fill in to a programme that runs itself
The comparison depends on the two assessments it draws on already existing and having been scored consistently. What fails is not the arithmetic but the checks that establish whether the two numbers were ever comparable.
Holds the task assessment library, checks that a comparison's method matches on both sides, and flags a comparison drawing on incompatible methods before it is scored.
Watches for a control going live or a spread of scores between shifts or lines, and prompts a comparison review at that point rather than waiting for the next scheduled cycle.
Turns an assessor calibration finding into a training requirement and a completion record, so a flagged inconsistency becomes a closed action rather than a note.
This template lives in KnowErgo — ergonomics. Task assessment, video posture analysis, rotation and workstation redesign.
Meet KnowErgo→Glossary
Assessment Comparison Review definitions and key terms
- Risk band
- The categorical outcome of an assessment method, such as acceptable, investigate, change soon or change now, derived from the numeric score.
- Score comparison
- The scoring basis for this review: the difference between two assessments' scores or risk bands, where a wide or unexplained gap is the finding of interest.
- Assessor calibration
- The degree to which different assessors, using the same method on the same task, arrive at consistent scores; a gap here points at training, not the task.
- Statistically meaningful
- A judgement on whether an observed score difference is large enough, relative to normal variation, to represent a real change rather than noise.
- Comparable conditions
- The requirement that two assessments being compared were taken under conditions similar enough, in pace, product and method, for the difference to reflect the task rather than the circumstance.
FAQ
Frequently asked questions about assessment comparison review
How is this different from the MSD trend review?+
The trend review reads discomfort reports and injuries in aggregate across the whole workforce over a period, looking for a pattern. This review holds two specific, named assessments, each with its own ID and score, against each other. One is workforce-wide and periodic; the other is task-level and comparative.
Can I compare two assessments scored with different methods?+
No. A RULA score and a REBA score are not on the same scale and cannot be read as a difference. If the method used differs between the two assessments, the comparison is not valid and should say so rather than force a conclusion from incompatible numbers.
Why does this review score high as bad, when most other reviews score high as good?+
Because the number being tracked is variance and unresolved risk band, not progress. A wide, unexplained gap between two assessments, or a score that has not improved after a control, is the finding this review is built to surface, so a high reading here is the thing to act on.
How do I know if a score gap is the task or the assessor?+
Check the conditions at assessment for both entries first: different pace, product or worker legitimately changes a score. If conditions were comparable and the gap remains, the more likely explanation is inconsistent method application, which points at assessor calibration rather than the task itself.
What makes a before-and-after comparison valid?+
The same task, the same method, and conditions close enough to comparable that any remaining difference can reasonably be attributed to the control. A before-and-after taken at different production volumes or by different assessors risks measuring the wrong thing.
What happens if assessor calibration is flagged as needed?+
It should route directly into an assessor training action with an owner, rather than being left as a note on the record. Left unaddressed, it will keep producing comparisons that cannot be trusted, regardless of what the tasks themselves are doing.
Keep going
Related templates and programmes
Industries this is written for
Programmes this belongs to
Used together in Ergonomics and MSD Prevention
Discomfort Report
Lets a worker report aches, pain or discomfort early, before it becomes an injury
Body Part Symptom Survey
Maps where in the body workers are experiencing discomfort, across a team or area
MSD Injury Report
Records a diagnosed musculoskeletal injury, including affected body part and suspected task
Early Intervention Record
Records the actions taken when discomfort is reported, before it becomes an injury
MSD Trend Review
Reviews discomfort reports and MSD injuries across areas and tasks
Task Ergonomic Assessment
Assesses a work task using video, applying the methods you configure such as RULA, REBA or WISHA
More in Task Assessments
Task Ergonomic Assessment
Assesses a work task using video, applying the methods you configure such as RULA, REBA or WISHA
Lifting Task Assessment
Assesses a lifting task from video, running the NIOSH lifting equation alongside a whole body posture method
Push and Pull Assessment
Assesses pushing, pulling and carrying tasks from video, using Snook tables alongside a posture method
Repetitive Task Assessment
Assesses highly repetitive work from video, focusing on upper limb loading and cycle time
Sustained Posture Assessment
Assesses tasks held in one position for long periods, such as inspection, monitoring or fine assembly
Manual Handling Assessment
A general manual handling assessment covering load, posture, frequency and environment
Written and reviewed by
Siddarth Singh
Founder & Chief Executive Officer, Knowella
Certified Safety Professional and industrial and systems engineer with more than a decade inside food supply chain, freight and manufacturing operations. This page was written against the current text of the standards it cites, not against secondary summaries of them.
- Certified Safety Professional (CSP), Board of Certified Safety Professionals
- MBA, University of Chicago Booth School of Business
- MS and BS, The Ohio State University, Industrial and Systems Engineering
- Six Sigma Black Belt
Sources and last review. Reviewed 16 August 2026 against:
- ISO 45001:2018 clauses 9.1, 9.1.1 and 6.1.2.2
- ISO 45001:2018 clauses 7.2, 8.1.2 and 10.2
- Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999, regulation 3 (GB)
- McAtamney and Corlett, RULA; Hignett and McAtamney, REBA
This page is general guidance, not legal advice. Confirm requirements with your jurisdiction’s regulator.