advancedergonomics.com

Advanced Ergonomics consulting covers three core services: job hazard analysis, risk assessment, and Ergonomics Program development. All services are performed by Certified Professional Ergonomists and are designed to conform to OSHA and NIOSH guidelines. Employers typically use this consulting to reduce injuries, lower workers' compensation costs, and cut lost work days.

The Three Core Consulting Services

The site describes the consulting offering as encompassing:

• Job hazard analysis — identifying hazards in how work is actually performed
• Risk assessment — evaluating the risk those hazards create
• Ergonomics Program development — building an ongoing program rather than a one-off review

These are presented as a connected set. A hazard analysis feeds the risk assessment, and both inform the program you build.

Who Performs the Work

All consulting services are performed by Certified Professional Ergonomists. This matters if you need internal or external review of your findings, since the credential signals a recognized standard of practice.

What Standards the Services Follow

The consulting services are designed to conform to OSHA and NIOSH guidelines. If your organization already frames its safety work around those standards, the deliverables should fit into that structure rather than requiring a separate framework.

What the Consulting Is Meant to Achieve

The site ties consulting to four outcomes it also applies to its physical abilities testing work:

These figures are the company's own reported averages, not guarantees for a specific employer. Treat them as the vendor's track record rather than a projection for your site.

Where Consulting Fits Alongside Other Services

Advanced Ergonomics lists three service lines. Consulting is one of them:

1. Physical Ability Testing — a testing program designed to comply with EEOC and ADA guidelines, validated through prospective validation studies
2. Ergonomics Consulting — job hazard analysis, risk assessment, and program development
3. Detailed Job Descriptions — physical demands analysis used to build job descriptions that accurately detail physical requirements

If your goal is accurate job descriptions, the physical demands analysis under the job description service is the relevant piece. If your goal is reducing injury risk in existing roles, consulting is the starting point.

Deciding Whether This Fits Your Situation

Choose consulting if you need an outside, credentialed assessment of job hazards and risks, or if you need to stand up a formal ergonomics program aligned to OSHA and NIOSH.

Consider the physical abilities testing line instead if your problem is matching candidates to the physical demands of a job — the site reports that up to 62% of job candidates do not have the fitness level to safely meet the average endurance or work intensity requirement of a job, based on its own studies.

The company states over 30 years of experience, over 1 million tests performed, and more than 100,000 hours of energy expenditure data collected from onsite analysis at over 1,000 employer locations. Those numbers describe scale and history; they don't tell you what a specific engagement will cost or how long it will take, and the site provides no pricing information.

To move forward, the practical next step is to define which of the three services matches your problem — hazard and risk review, program build-out, or job description accuracy — and ask for a scoped proposal, since scope and deliverables are not published.

Advanced Ergonomics, Inc. (AEI) is a U.S. company that provides physical abilities testing and ergonomics consulting to employers. Its core offering is a validated physical abilities testing program used in hiring and injury-prevention decisions, supported by ergonomics consulting and physical demands analysis for job descriptions. The company reports over 30 years of experience and more than 1 million completed tests for employers.

What Advanced Ergonomics Does

AEI positions itself as a physical abilities testing employment company. Its services fall into three main areas:

• Physical Ability Testing — A testing program designed to comply with Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) guidelines. According to the company, the program has been validated through prospective validation studies.
• Ergonomics Consulting — Job hazard analysis, risk assessment, and ergonomics program development. AEI states these services are performed by Certified Professional Ergonomists and designed to conform to OSHA and NIOSH guidelines.
• Detailed Job Descriptions — Physical demands analysis used to build job descriptions that accurately detail the physical requirements of a role.

Who It Serves

The services target employers rather than individual job seekers. Typical uses include screening candidates for physical fit, reducing workplace injuries, and controlling workers' compensation and turnover costs.

Reported Outcomes

AEI publishes the following figures on its site. These are company-reported results, not independently verified benchmarks:

Experience and Methodology

AEI states it has performed over 1 million tests for employers and accumulated over 100,000 hours of energy expenditure data across more than 1,000 employer locations over 30 years. The company says it uses engineering standards and wearable technology to quantify total job energy expenditure and test candidate endurance.

One of its cited findings: up to 62% of job candidates do not have the fitness level to safely meet the average endurance or work intensity requirement of a job.

When This Matters to You

If you are an employer evaluating pre-employment physical testing or an ergonomics program, AEI is one vendor in that space. The relevant questions are whether its validation methodology fits your job roles, whether the testing complies with EEOC and ADA requirements for your hiring process, and whether the reported cost and injury reductions match your own baseline data. The company's legal-defensibility claim rests on its own validation studies, so reviewing that documentation directly is the practical next step before adopting a program.

Advanced Ergonomics, Inc. (AEI) states that its testing methodology and validation have been approved in every legal review completed by the EEOC, OFCCP, and others — a 100% success record in legal defensibility of testing validation. That claim rests on three things the company describes on its site: a program designed to comply with EEOC and ADA guidelines, validation through prospective validation studies, and a testing approach built on quantified job data rather than generic fitness standards. Employers considering physical abilities testing as a hiring screen should understand each of these elements, because legal defensibility is the difference between a screening program that reduces injuries and one that generates complaints.

The compliance foundation: EEOC and ADA guidelines

AEI states that its Physical Abilities Testing Program "has been designed to comply with guidelines set forth by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Americans With Disabilities Act."

For employers, this matters because physical abilities tests sit at the intersection of two legal risks:

• Disparate impact — a test that screens out protected groups at higher rates can be challenged even without discriminatory intent.
• Disability discrimination — under the ADA, a screen must be job-related and consistent with business necessity, and must focus on the ability to perform essential job functions rather than on a medical condition or impairment.

A test built around the actual physical demands of a specific job, rather than a general fitness benchmark, is the structure that addresses both risks. That is why the compliance claim is tied directly to how the test is built, not just to a policy statement.

Validation through prospective validation studies

AEI states its program "has been validated through prospective validation studies." Validation is the evidentiary backbone of legal defensibility: it is the documented link between what the test measures and what the job actually requires.

The company describes its validation approach as grounded in measurement rather than assumption:

• Engineering standards and "wearable technology" are used to quantify total job energy expenditure and test candidate endurance.
• AEI reports amassing over 100,000 hours of energy expenditure data over 30 years, from onsite analysis at more than 1,000 employer locations.
• AEI's studies indicate that up to 62% of job candidates do not have the fitness level to safely meet the average endurance or work intensity requirement of the job.

That last figure is the practical justification for testing at all: if a majority of candidates cannot safely meet the job's demands, a validated screen separates those who can from those who cannot — on job-relevant criteria.

What the legal review record covers

AEI states its testing methodology and validation "have been approved in every legal review that has been completed by EEOC, OFCCP and others," and summarizes this as "100% success in legal defensibility of testing validation."

Two points of precision are worth keeping in mind when reading that claim:

1. The record is described as covering completed legal reviews — it is a track record, not a guarantee about future challenges.
2. The claim is specifically about testing validation — the defensibility of the validation methodology — rather than a blanket statement about every aspect of an employer's hiring process.

For an employer, the takeaway is that the validation documentation is the artifact that gets examined in a review, and that is what AEI points to as its basis for the 100% figure.

Why this matters to employers

Physical abilities testing is often adopted for measurable operational reasons. AEI reports average outcomes including:

Those numbers are the reason employers use the program. The legal defensibility record is what allows them to keep using it. A screening program that produces injury reductions but fails a legal review creates a different kind of cost — which is why the validation methodology, not just the outcome statistics, is the part worth scrutinizing before adoption.

What to verify before adopting a physical abilities testing program

If you are evaluating AEI or any comparable provider, the defensibility questions to ask are consistent:

• Is the test validated against this specific job? Ask for the physical demands analysis behind it, not a generic test battery.
• What is the validation method? AEI cites prospective validation studies; confirm the study design and whether it matches your job categories.
• Which guidelines does the program follow? AEI cites EEOC and ADA guidelines. Confirm how the test handles accommodation requests and essential-function alignment.
• What does the review record actually show? Ask for the scope of prior legal reviews — which agencies, which job types, which outcomes.

AEI also notes that its consulting services are performed by Certified Professional Ergonomists and designed to conform to OSHA and NIOSH guidelines, and that it performs physical demands analysis to help employers develop accurate job descriptions. Those services feed the same validation chain: accurate job descriptions and demands analyses are what make a physical abilities test job-related in the first place.

The short answer to how AEI ensures legal defensibility: it builds the test from measured job demands, validates it through prospective studies, designs it against EEOC and ADA guidelines, and points to a 100% approval record across completed EEOC, OFCCP, and other legal reviews. Employers should treat that record as the starting point for due diligence on their own job categories, not as a substitute for it.

Advanced Ergonomics approaches detailed job descriptions through physical demands analysis: its ergonomists study what a job actually requires of the body, then translate those findings into written job descriptions that state the physical requirements accurately. This matters because a description built on measured job demands — rather than on assumptions or generic templates — is what supports defensible hiring screens, accommodation decisions under the ADA, and injury prevention. The service is aimed at employers who need job descriptions tied to real, quantified physical demands rather than boilerplate language.

What the service produces

The output is a job description that details the physical demands of the position. According to the company, Advanced Ergonomics performs physical demands analysis specifically to help employers develop job descriptions that accurately detail those demands.

That distinguishes it from a conventional HR job description, which typically covers duties, qualifications, and reporting lines but says little or nothing precise about lifting, carrying, pushing, pulling, postural tolerances, or endurance. The physical demands analysis supplies that missing layer.

How the analysis is conducted

The company describes its method as combining engineering standards with "wearable technology" to quantify total job energy expenditure and to test for candidate endurance. It reports having amassed over 100,000 hours of energy expenditure data over 30 years, gathered through onsite analysis at more than 1,000 employer locations.

Two practical implications follow from that description:

• Onsite measurement, not a questionnaire. The demands are observed and quantified at the actual work location.
• Energy expenditure and endurance are part of the picture. The analysis is not limited to peak lift weight; it also addresses work intensity and the endurance the job requires over a shift.

The company states that its studies show up to 62% of job candidates do not have the fitness level to safely meet the average endurance requirement or work intensity requirement of a job. That figure is the company's own finding, but it explains why endurance and intensity are treated as core job demands rather than afterthoughts.

Why the job description comes first

The detailed job description functions as the foundation for the company's Physical Abilities Testing program. The testing program is described as designed to comply with guidelines set forth by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Americans With Disabilities Act, and as validated through prospective validation studies.

The sequence matters: a physical abilities test is only meaningful if it tests the demands of the actual job. The job description is where those demands are documented, which is why the description work and the testing work are connected rather than sold as unrelated services.

Reported outcomes employers use to justify the work

Advanced Ergonomics publishes the following figures from its testing programs:

The company states its testing methodology and validation have been approved in every legal review completed by the EEOC, OFCCP, and others, and cites over 1 million tests performed for employers. These are the company's own claims, not independently verified figures — treat them as vendor-reported results when weighing them.

Where this fits for an employer

Consider this service if you need job descriptions that:

• State physical demands precisely enough to support a post-offer physical abilities test
• Document the basis for essential-function and accommodation discussions
• Reflect measured job demands rather than supervisor estimates

The company also offers ergonomics consulting — job hazard analysis, risk assessment, and ergonomics program development, performed by Certified Professional Ergonomists and described as designed to conform to OSHA and NIOSH guidelines. If your goal is only to rewrite job descriptions for clarity and not to build a testing or accommodation process around them, the physical demands analysis may be more than the task requires.

What the public materials do not specify

The site does not publish pricing, engagement timelines, deliverable formats, or the specific instruments used in the wearable-technology measurement. If you need those details — for example, whether the deliverable arrives as a formatted job description template you can edit, or as a report you convert yourself — ask directly before scoping the work.

Advanced Ergonomics Physical Abilities Testing is a job-specific physical assessment used to determine whether a candidate can safely meet the endurance and work-intensity demands of a particular job. Employers use it primarily to reduce workplace injuries and their associated costs. According to Advanced Ergonomics, Inc. (AEI), its testing program is designed to comply with Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) guidelines and has been validated through prospective validation studies.

What the testing actually measures

The assessment is built around the physical requirements of a specific job rather than a generic fitness standard. AEI states that it uses engineering standards and "wearable technology" to quantify total job energy expenditure and to test candidate endurance. The company reports having amassed over 100,000 hours of energy expenditure data over 30 years, drawn from onsite analysis at more than 1,000 employer locations.

A key finding from that data: AEI's studies show that up to 62% of job candidates do not have the fitness level to safely meet the average endurance requirement, or work intensity requirement, of the job.

Why employers use it

The stated business case rests on four measurable outcomes, each tied to a different cost category:

AEI also reports 100% success in legal defensibility of its testing validation, stating that its methodology and validation have been approved in every legal review completed by the EEOC, OFCCP, and others.

The compliance dimension

For employers, the legal question is usually as important as the operational one. A physical abilities test that screens out candidates can create exposure under the ADA and EEOC enforcement if it is not shown to be job-related and consistent with business necessity. AEI's program is positioned as addressing that requirement directly: it is designed to comply with EEOC and ADA guidelines, and the company emphasizes prospective validation studies and a record of approval in legal reviews.

That combination — a test tied to documented job demands plus a validation record — is the mechanism that lets an employer use physical screening while defending the practice if challenged.

Where it fits among AEI's services

Physical abilities testing is one of several offerings. AEI also provides:

• Ergonomics consulting — job hazard analysis, risk assessment, and ergonomics program development, performed by Certified Professional Ergonomists and designed to conform to OSHA and NIOSH guidelines.
• Detailed job descriptions — physical demands analysis used to develop job descriptions that accurately detail the physical requirements of a role.

The job description work is closely related to the testing: an accurate physical demands analysis is what establishes the job-related standard the test is built to measure.

How to judge whether it fits your situation

The reported figures — 47% fewer new-hire injuries, up to 80% lower claims costs, up to 78% fewer lost work days, up to 21% lower annual hiring — are AEI's own published results, so treat them as vendor-reported outcomes rather than independent benchmarks. The relevant questions for an employer evaluating this type of program are:

• Does the job have meaningful, documented physical demands (lifting, endurance, sustained work intensity) that a test can validly measure?
• Can the physical requirements be tied to a written job description produced through physical demands analysis?
• Is there a validation record that would hold up if the screening practice were reviewed by the EEOC or challenged under the ADA?

If the answer to those is yes, a validated, job-specific physical abilities test addresses both the injury-cost problem and the legal-defensibility problem at the same time. If the role has minimal physical demands, the case for testing is correspondingly weaker.