Strategies for construction hazard recognition
Figure 2: Rendering of the preliminary augmented and interactive virtuality training
Download 2.75 Mb. View original pdf
|
| Figure 2: Rendering of the preliminary augmented and interactive virtuality training environment In the virtual environment, workers will be tasked with identifying hazards in various realistic work-scenarios. The tool will then provide immediate feedback on the hazards that were successfully identified and the ones that were not recognized. It is expected that the repeated feedback process (Renn and Fedor 2001) in diverse work scenarios along with the concept of serious games (Zyda 2005) for training purposes will improve situational awareness (Endsley et al. 2011) and the capability of workers to recognize hazards in dynamic environments. An assumption made in the analysis is that there was concordance or agreement between the judges in the rating process. Kendall’s coefficient was used to measure the agreement between the expert panel’s ratings (Howell, 2012; Siegel and Castellan, 1988). This statistic tests whether there is consistency in ratings among the experts. If the coefficient of concordance is statistically 30 significant at a predefined significance level (e.g. 0.05), then the null hypotheses that the experts ratings are not in agreement can be rejected and the alternate hypothesis maybe accepted Kendall and Babington-Smith, 1939; Sheskin, 2003). Kendall’s coefficient of concordance for each of the criterion is shown in Table 3. All were significant to α=0.05. The degree of agreement is also comparable with other research studies focusing on consensus ordering (Chan et al., 2010; Xia et al., 2011; Xu et al., 2010). Since the number of criteria rated is greater than seven, the chi-square value was computed as suggested by Siegel and Castellan (1998) and Chan et al. (2010). Based on the chi-square distribution with nine degrees of freedom and a significance level of 0.05, the critical value was 16.92. The chi-square value for each of the criterion measures are shown in Table 3. Because all were larger than the critical value one can conclude that there is concordance among the expert ratings. Download 2.75 Mb. Share with your friends:
|