Strategies for construction hazard recognition
Download 2.75 Mb. View original pdf
|
- Navigate this page:
- Table 3 – Results of rating process
| RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS The research process resulted in 100 high quality ratings from each expert participant yielding a total of 1400 ratings. In order to compare each strategy objectively, mean ranks were computed for each criterion. That is, if a given strategy (e.g. hazard identification board) was given the highest rating based on a given criterion (e.g. active) by most experts within the panel, the strategy was assigned the highest ranking for that specific criterion. The use of mean ranks, rather than average scores provide a basis for making comparisons between several attributes and can be used to make inferences regarding the reliability or agreement between the various ratings Reid and Smith, 2007). The results of the analysis for the 10 shortlisted strategies are provided in Table 3 and are sorted by the relative effective score. Because each strategy was ranked between 1 and 10 and there were several ties, the Mean Rank Sum for each criterion adds up to 55. According to the results, the two top strategies were (1) pre-job safety meeting quality measurement tool and (2) an augmented and interactive virtuality training environment. Although the two strategies will be designed, refined and tested in a future study, a brief discourse of the two strategies is provided in the following section. 26 Table 3 – Results of rating process Active Testable Minimize disruptions Measurable Feasibility Knowledge acquisition Scalable and Adaptable Scenario building Worker Participation Potential Relative effectiveness score Pre-job safety meeting quality measurement tool 6.50 6.93 7.46 8.11 6.93 8.04 8.14 7.89 6.89 7.82 74.71 Augmented and Interactive virtuality training environment 5.54 7.32 5.39 7.07 4.29 5.43 5.00 5.50 6.00 6.75 58.29 Senior Leadership engagement in JSA process 6.82 4.32 4.32 6.00 6.82 5.21 7.29 2.86 5.11 7.14 55.89 Physical area hazard simulation 7.50 5.61 1.75 5.89 3.64 6.07 2.04 8.14 7.96 6.89 55.49 Safety situational-awareness training 4.14 7.36 7.50 5.57 6.14 4.75 5.82 4.39 4.79 4.79 55.25 Hazard identification Board 7.71 4.14 7.21 3.61 6.39 5.43 6.68 4.57 4.75 4.43 54.92 Foreman One on One w Employee 5.18 3.79 5.39 4.04 5.29 6.50 5.18 5.82 7.07 4.50 52.76 Precursory Visual Cues 4.43 4.39 6.29 4.04 6.07 5.43 4.18 5.25 5.04 4.36 49.48 JSA post-kick-off audit 2.75 6.00 6.14 6.39 6.14 3.25 5.43 5.96 2.89 3.86 48.81 Video/Photo Monitoring & Feedback 4.43 5.14 3.54 4.29 3.29 4.89 5.25 4.61 4.50 4.46 44.40 Mean Rank sum 55.00 55.00 55.00 55.00 55.00 55.00 55.00 55.00 55.00 55.00 Kendall’s coefficient of concordance (W) 0.407 0.263 0.443 0.334 0.304 0.495 0.396 0.352 0.352 0.306 Actual calculated chi-square value 51.30 33.13 55.78 42.15 38.35 62.42 49.94 44.36 44.36 38.52 Critical value of chi-square value 16.92 16.92 16.92 16.92 16.92 16.92 16.92 16.92 16.92 16.92 Degree of freedom 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 Asymptotic level of significance 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 H o = respondents' ratings are unrelated (independent) to each other within each group Reject H o if the actual chi-square value is larger than the critical value of the chi-square |