Evaluation of the Perception of Workplace Safety Signs and Effective Factors
Safety signs in the workplace are effective in the controlling of workplace hazards. Correct interpretation of signs is vital, preventing injury and saving lives. This study seeks to assess the perception of workplace safety signs and determine effective personal factors in comprehension. The current analytical-descriptive study was carried out in 2012 on 166 factory workers in 4 factories at the Khoramdasht and Bumehen industrial areas. Data was gathered using ISO 9186 and Demographic Information questionnaires. Stratified–random method was used for sampling and data were analyzed with Kendal statistical test using SPSS 16. General perception of safety signs was 69.22% with a standard deviation of 20.32%. Out of the 11 signs studied, the "eye protection must be worn" and "hand protection must be worn" signs had the highest effective perception and the "wear face shield" had the lowest. Results show a positive relationship between sign perception and factors such as age, experience and safety sign training (p≤0.05). However a meaningful relationship between sign perception and gender was not observed. Acceptable perception of signs was 72.72% based on ISO 3864 and only 9% based on ANSI Z5353. Results show overall safety sign perception within the studied samples was low and few signs actually reach the perception limits. The contribution of personal factors on sign perception can be reduced by educating the work force on workplace safety signs.
Saremi M, Rezapoor T, Road Safety Symbols Ergonomic Design and Traffic and accident decrease. Rahvar 2011; 8(14): 53-64. Persian
McCammack AM. Measuring impressions of different signal-word panel formats for workplace safety signs, Master thesis, University of Montana, Montana, US, 2001.
Annie WY.Ng, Honour WC. Lo, Alan HS. Chan. Measuring the Usability of Safety Signs: A Use of System Usability Scale (SUS). International Multi Congress of Engineers and Computer Scientists, 16-18 March 2011; Hong Kong, China.
Piamonte DP, Abeysekera JD, Ohlsson K. Understanding small graphical symbols: a cross-cultural study. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 2001; 27(6): 399-404.
Arghami S, Poya M. Principles of Safety in Industry and Services, Fanavaran, Tehran, Iran, 2008.
Liu L, Hoelscher U. Evaluation of Graphical Symbols, In: International Encyclopedia of Ergonomics and Human Factors. 2nd edn. Ed by Karwowski W, CRC Press; 2006.
Davies S, Haines H. Norris B, Wilson JR. Safety pictograms: are they getting the message across. Applied Ergonomics 1998; 29(1): 15-23.
Collins BL, Lerner ND. Assessment of Fire Safety Symbols. Human Factors 1982; 24(1): 75-84.
Piamonte DP. Using Multiple Performance Parameters in Testing Small Graphical Symbols. PhD thesis, Lulea Tenaska University, Lulea, Sweden, 2000.
Shinar D, Dewar R, Summala H, Zakowska L. Traffic Sign Symbol Comprehension: A Cross-cultural Study. Ergonomics 2003; 46(15): 1549-1565.
Lesch MF. Comprehension and memory for warning symbols: Age-related differences and impact of training. Journal of Safety Research 2003; 34(5): 495-505.
Lesch MF. Warning symbols as reminders of hazards: Impact of training. Journal of Accident Analysis & Prevention 2008; 40(3): 1005-1012.
Chan HS, Han SH, Ng WY, Park W. Hong Kong Chinese and Korean comprehension of American security safety symbols. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 2009; 39(5): 35-850.
Chan AH, Ng AW. Effects of sign characteristics and training methods on safety sign training effectiveness. Ergonomics 2010; 53(11): 1325-1346.
Zamanian Z, Jahangiri M, Norozi MA, Afshin A. Comprehension of workplace safety sign: A case study in an industrial company in Shiraz. Journal of Health and Safety at Work 2010; 1(1): 47-52. Persian
ISO 9186-1, graphical symbols test methods part 1: methods for testing comprehensibility, international organization for standardization, Geneva; 2007.
ISO 3864-3, graphical symbols safety colours and safety signs part 3: design principles for graphical symbols for use in safety signs. In: international organization for standardization. Geneva; 2006.
ANSI Z535.3, criteria for safety symbols. In: National Electral Manufacturers Assoiciation; 2002.
Arphorn S, Augsornpeug N, Srisorrachatr S, Pruktharathikul V. Comprehension of safety signs for construction workers: comparison of existing and newly designed signs. Occupational Health 2003; 32(2): 87-94.
Ward SJ, Wogalter SM, Mercer AW. Comprehension and training of international road signs. 48th annual meeting on human factors and ergonomics society. 2004; North Carolina, United States.
Lesch MF. A comparison of two training methods for improving warning symbol comprehension. Applied Ergonomics 2008; 39(2): 135-143.
Hancock EH, Rogers WA, Schroeder D, Fisk AD. Safety symbol comprehension: Effects of symbol type, familiarity and age. The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society. 2004; 46(2): 183-195.
Ben-Bassat T, Shinar D. Ergonomic guidelines for traffic sign design increase sign comprehension. Human Factors 2006; 48(1): 182-195.
Yu RF, Chan AH. Comparative research on response stereotypes for daily operation tasks of Chinese and American engineering students. Perceptual and Motor Skills 2004; 98(1): 179-191.
Al-Madani H, Al-Janahi A. Assessment of drivers’ comprehensions of traffic signs based on their traffic, personal and social characteristics. Transportation Research Record 2002; 5(1): 63-76.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.