A WARNING LABEL FOR SCAFFOLD USERS

PROCEEDINGS of the HUMAN FACTORS SOCIETY 36th ANNUAL MEETING-1992 A WARNING LABEL FOR SCAFFOLD USERS Daniel Johnson Daniel Anthony Johnson, Inc. Olym...
Author: Earl Bishop
2 downloads 1 Views 483KB Size
PROCEEDINGS of the HUMAN FACTORS SOCIETY 36th ANNUAL MEETING-1992

A WARNING LABEL FOR SCAFFOLD USERS Daniel Johnson Daniel Anthony Johnson, Inc. Olympia, Washington The purpose of this research project was to develop a warning label which would: a) alert scaffold workers to the potential of danger when working on scaffolds, and b) to increase the likelihood they would seek out ind read the safety guidelines supplied with the scaffolds. A warning was developed and tested on 150 potential users. It significantly increased subjects' behavioral intentions to seek safety information before working on a scaffold they had not been on before. This was true for inexperienced and experienced scaffold workers. This effect was not found for scaffolds the subjects supposedly had been on before. Highly experienced workers were less likely to comply with the warning than less experienced workers. It was concluded that the warning would increase the use of safety guidelines by those working on a scaffold that was new to them. But a new warning on a scaffold a worker had already been on would have no effect on the reading of safety guidelines. INTRODUCTION Severe injuries and death can occur if workers do not follow safe procedures when erecting and using scaffolds. These procedures are presented in the form of detailed safety guidelines that should be consulted by workers. Scaffolds may be used by both experienced and inexperienced workers, and by those who are working under close supervision or none at all. Since it is often beyond the manufacturer's control that the scaffold be erected and used correctly, manufacturers are concerned that workers learn about and are persuaded to follow the safety guidelines. To achieve this end the research reported here was sponsored by, and done under contract to, The Scaffold Industry Association and The Scaffolding, Shoring & Forming Institute.

according to Lehto and Miller, who go on to state their definition of warning as a separate subset of safety instructions: "...(W)arnings are specific stimuli which alert a user to the presence of a hazard, thereby triggering the processing of additional information regarding the nature, probability, and magnitude of the hazard. This additional information may be within the user's memory or may be provided by other sources external to the user. Much of the current controversy regarding warnings is actually related to the need for this additional information" (Lehto and Miller, 1986, p.16). This approach distinguishes between a warning of a hazard and everything a person must know to understand the consequences of certain actions or inactions associated with that hazard. This point is important when it comes to pieces of equipment, such as a scaffold, where there are many causes of injury or damage as well as many ways to avoid injury or damage.

All the information needed for working safely on scaffolds is so extensive that it is impractical to present it on the scaffold itself. Instead, it was decided to develop a warning to workers that a danger did exist and to persuade them to review the safety information.

Lehto and Miller acknowledge that some safety information may be within the user's memory, or located external to the individual. If it is external to the individual, then it follows that the safety information may be either attached to the equipment the user is attempting to use, or may be otherwise accessible to the user (Lehto and Miller, 1986, p.16).

Safety information can be distinguished from warnings. A common definition of "warning" was provided by Donis and Purswell who state that a warning is a "message intended to reduce the risk of personal or property damage by inducing certain patterns of behavior and discouraging or prohibiting certain other patterns of behavior." (Donis and Purswell, 1978).

It appeared to be impractical to attach all safety guidelines to each scaffold in a comprehensive, readable, and easily understandable format. The decision was made to produce a warning that would alert the user to the potential of possible injury and to instruct and persuade the user to review the safety guidelines.

Lehto and Miller (1986) point out that there are various ways of changing these patterns of behavior. Some common approaches are to inform, persuade, instruct, and warn. "These concepts must be disentangled in order to scientifically evaluate warnings"

61 1

PROCEEDINGS of the HUMAN FACTORS SOCIETY 36th ANNUAL MEETING-1992

mately 0.11 inches (.28 cm) from the top to bottom. ANSI 2535.4-1991 recommends a letter height of 0.09 inches (.23 cm) at a reading distance of 28 inches (7 lcm) under favorable reading conditions.

METHOD A prototype warning label was designed (see Figure 1) which incorporated several features: 1) a signal word, 2) a graphic illustration, and 3) instructions informing the reader that serious injury could occur and to review the safety guidelines.

Readability. Sentence length and number of syllables per word were selected in such a way that they would be easily readable. A Flesch test for readability (Flesch, 1979) indicated the message should be easily understood by a person with a 6th grade education.

Warning Desim Signal Word. Three signal words commonly used on warnings are Caution, Warning, and Danger. Which one to use depends on the potential risk for serious injury or damage. According to ANSI 2535.41991, entitled "Product Safety Signs and Labels", the signal words should be used in the following conditions:

Layout. When the label was attached to the smallest diameter tubing used on scaffolds (outside

"Danger" indicates an imminently hazardous situation which, if not avoided, will result in death or serious injury. This signal word is to be limited to the most extreme situations. "Warning" indicates a potentially hazardous situation which, if not avoided, could result in death or serious injury. "Caution" indicates a potentially hazardous situation which, if not avoided, may result in minor or moderate injury. It may also be used to alert against unsafe practices. The signal word "Warning" was selected as most appropriate for the scaffold warning label. In addition, a triangle encompassing an exclamation point, was used in accordance with ANSI 2535.4- 1991. Graphic. The graphic depicting a person falling off of a scaffold was intended to gain the readers's attention and convey a message of concern for safety.

Text. The text instructs potential users to check with their boss as to the scaffold's safe use prior to using it since they could be killed or seriously injured. The text also was designed to persuade users with the following sentence: "There are many ways YOU CAN BE hurt or even KILLED using scaffolds." The capitalized words were printed in safety orange, as compared to the other words which were printed in small case and in white against the black background.

Figure 1. The warning label measured 5.67" (14.4 em) by 2.58" (6.55 cm). The shaded area, including the capital letters, were printed in orange. This artwork is copyrighted and cannot be used without permission.

T F e Size. The type size selected was 11 point; this means a rounded capital letter measures approxi-

612

PROCEEDINGS of the HUMAN FACTORS SOCIETY 36th ANNUAL MEETING-1992

diameter = 1.5 inch (3.81 cm)) the words could be read without moving one's head.

get on one that was already set up, like the one in the picture. This is the first time up on this scaffold, and you have not read the safety guidelines before. Would you review the safety guidelines with your boss to see if the scaffold was ready and safe to use before climbing up to go to work? Assume a sheet of safety guidelines was available." The subject then answered on a five-point scale, from "Definitely Not Review" to "Definitely Will Review."

Color, The label was printed in two colors: black and orange. In accordance with ANSI 2535.4-1991 the word "Warning" was printed in black letters on an orange background; the message panel was printed in white letters against a black background except for the capitalized words which were printed in safety orange. The pictorial panel was printed in black against a white background. The border was orange to increase its conspicuity.

The subject was then handed a section of scaffolding pipe 18 inches (45.7 cm) long and 1.5 inch (3.81 cm) in diameter to which the warning (shown in Figure 1) had been attached. The subject was asked: "Let's say you see this label on a scaffold you are about to work on for the first time. For you it is a NEW scaffold. Would you review the safety guidelines with your boss?" Answers were recorded on the same five-point scale.

Ouestionnaire Design The behavioral intentions of the potential scaffold users before and after seeing the warning were measured. The relationship between behavioral intentions and behavior has been established over the past two decades (Ajzen, 1971; Ajzen and Fishbein, 1969, 1970, 1972, 1973; Brislin and Olmstead, 1973; Johnson, 1974). Appropriately designed interviews can elicit verbal responses highly correlated with actual behavior.

The subject was then asked: "Let's say you see this label on a FAMILIAR scaffold, one you had been on before. Do you think you would review the safety guidelines with your boss?" The same scale was used. RESULTS

Altogether, 150 subjects (36 women and 114 men) were tested individually. There were 93 experienced workers (10 women; 83 men) and 26 women and 31 men who had not been on a scaffold before.

The warning significantly increased the percent of people who indicated they would review the safety instructions prior to using a NEW scaffold, one they had not been on before. There was a statistically significant shift toward the "Definitely Will Review" end of the scale for both inexperienced as well as experienced subjects (see Figures 2 and 3).

The experienced subjects had been on scaffolds an average of 11.2 times. They had worked on scaffolds an average of 4.45 years, with a range of 1 to 28 years: 16 of them had worked on scaffolds for 10 years or more. The age of the experienced subjects ranged from 19 to 81, with an average of 37.8 years. The age of the inexperienced subjects ranged fiom 18 to 82, with an average of 38.7 years.

Figures 2 and 3 show that the average response of subjects before the warning was between the "Might or Might Not Review" and the "Probably Will Review." After reading the warning, their average response shifted toward the "Definitely Will Review'' anchor point. The differences were statistically significant for both inexperienced subjects (t = 5.015, 1 dF,N=57, p