INTRODUCTION: The Need for Recovery Scale (NFR) has been widely used in Ergonomic studies. However, there is no consensual cutoff point in the literature to identify high levels of need for recovery. OBJECTIVE: To compare the results from different mathematical parameters used to interpret the levels of need for recovery, among them, tertile, quartile and mean, as well as the cutoff values already suggested in the available literature in order to investigate how these parameters will identify high levels of need for recovery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total sample of 679 workers participated in this study. Of this total, N = 192 were industrial workers, N = 128 nursing professionals and N = 359 call-center operators. Data collection was performed by means of questionnaires. RESULTS: The data distribution varied widely between groups. The cutoff points determined considering data distribution (tertile and quartile) presented similar values to few of cutoff points proposed by the literature. Divergent number of workers with high levels of need for recovery was identified using the different values of cutoff points proposed by the literature. The non-normal distribution of two worker groups indicated that the mean may not be an adequate parameter for all populations. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: The mathematical parameters used to identify high levels of need for recovery led to different results, suggesting caution when selecting a method of evaluation. Inasmuch results from larger studies are not available, the use of the own data distribution parameters for each group is recommended instead of cutoff points already available in the literature.
Fatigue; Reference values; Parameters; Workers; Primary prevention
