Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 302

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 49 of the 49 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Effects of acoustic environment on work in private office rooms and open-plan offices – longitudinal study during relocation

Kaarlela-Tuomaala, A., Helenius, R., Keskinen, E., Hongisto, V.·2009·Ergonomics

Abstract

The aim was to determine how the perceived work environment, especially acoustic environment, and its effects differed in private office rooms and in open-plan offices. The subjects consisted of 31 workers who moved from private office rooms to open-plan offices and who answered the questionnaire before and after the relocation. Private office rooms were occupied only by one person while open-plan offices were occupied by more than 20 persons. Room acoustical descriptors showed a significant reduction in speech privacy after relocation. The noise level averaged over the whole work day did not change but the variability of noise level reduced significantly. Negative effects of acoustic environment increased significantly, including increased distraction, reduced privacy, increased concentration difficulties and increased use of coping strategies. Self-rated loss of work performance because of noise doubled. Cognitively demanding work and phone conversations were most distracted by noise. The benefits that are often associated with open-plan offices did not appear: cooperation became less pleasant and direct and information flow did not change. Nowadays, most office workers, independent of job type, are located in open-plan offices without the individual needs of privacy, concentration and interaction being analysed. This intervention study consisted of professional workers. Their work tasks mainly required individual efforts, and interaction between other workers was not of primary concern, although necessary. The results suggest that the open-plan office is not recommended for professional workers. Similar intervention studies should also be made for other job types.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/00140130903154579

Cites

49 of 49 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 49 references

Research works printed but not linked: 22

  1. Boyce P. R., 1974, Journal of Architectural Research, 3, 44
  2. Danielsson C., 2005, Office environment, health and job satisfaction
  3. 10.1037/0021-9010.85.5.779 · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.85.5.779 · Paper page
  4. Eysenck H. J., 1972, Eysenck Personality Inventory, Form A
  5. Griefahn B., 2008, Acoustics
  6. Haapakangas A., 9th international congress on noise as a public health problem (ICBEN) 2008, 434
  7. Haka M., 2009, Indoor Air
  8. Helenius R., Proceedings of Inter-Noise 2004, paper 674
  9. Hongisto V., 9th international congress on noise as a public health problem (ICBEN) 2008, 442
  10. Hongisto V., 2004, Acta Acustica United with Acustica, 90, 481
  11. Hundert A. T., Proceedings of the 77th annual convention of the American Psychological Association, 601
  12. International Organization for Standardization, 1995, Acoustics [Dbar]-measurement of sound insulation in buildings and of building elements, part 4: Field measurements of airborne sound insulation of between rooms
  13. International Organization for Standardization, 1996, Acoustics [Dbar] rating of sound insulation in buildings and of building elements, part 1: airborne sound insulation
  14. International Organization for Standardization, 1997, Acoustics – Sound absorbers for use in buildings – Rating of sound absorption
  15. International Organization for Standardization, 2009, Acoustics – Measurement of room acoustic parameters – Part 3: Open plan spaces
  16. Ives R. S., 1974, Personnel Practice Bulletin, 30, 126
  17. Jones D., 9th international congress on noise as a public health problem (ICBEN)
  18. Kaarlela A., 2003, Acoustical environment questionnaire for offices – method development
  19. Kankkunen E., 2009, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America
  20. Keighley E. C., 1970, Journal of Sound Vibration, 11, 83, 10.1016/S0022-460X(70)80108-0 · doi:10.1016/s0022-460x(70)80108-0
  21. Keränen J., International congress on acoustics, paper RBA-10–006-IP
  22. 10.1037/0278-7393.13.2.310 · doi:10.1037/0278-7393.13.2.310 · Paper page

Cited by

See all 302

Metadata

Authors
Kaarlela-Tuomaala, A., Helenius, R., Keskinen, E., & Hongisto, V.
Venue
Ergonomics
Published
2009-10-21
Volume
52
Issue
11
Pages
1423-1444
ISSN
  • 0014-0139 (ISSN-L)
  • 1366-5847
OpenAlex
W2007964183
Cited by
302
References
49
FWCI
4.63
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Effects of acoustic environment on work in private office rooms and open-plan offices – longitudinal study during relocation. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/00140130903154579
The paper
Kaarlela-Tuomaala, A., Helenius, R., Keskinen, E., & Hongisto, V. (2009). Effects of acoustic environment on work in private office rooms and open-plan offices – longitudinal study during relocation. Ergonomics. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140130903154579

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.