Effect of hazardous material symbols
labeling and training on
comprehension according to three
types of educational specialization
International journal of industrial ergonomics 31 (2003) 343-355
An-Hsiang Wang, Chun-Cheng Chi
Report: Yang Kun, Ou
Purpose
• The purpose of this research was to investigate
the effect of hazardous material symbol
labeling and training on the comprehension of
three groups of participants having differing
educational specialization.
• A purpose of this research is to learn whether
Taiwan’s hazard symbol labels met the criteria
of ANSI and ISO standards.
Reference
• The use of context may help reduce the costs
of producing pictorial symbols with acceptable,
above-criterion
comprehension
levels
( Wolff and Wogalter, 1998)
• Jaynes and Boles (1990) results found that
symbols with context yielded better
performance in reading, and complying
Reference
• Cairney and Sless (1982) found that groups
(migrants, native-born and Vietnamese) differ
in their recognition and recall test performance
on symbolic safety
• If university graduate students do not
understand hazard symbols, less educated
individuals are apt to encounter even greater
difficulty in understanding them.
Reference
• Wogalter et al. (1997) have found that training
leads to a significant increase in pictorial
comprehension
Method
• Subjects
–
–
–
–
–
60 university graduates
They were between 22 and 26 years old
60人有工程、設計和商學背景各20人
20(10 male, 10 female)
The subjects were determined to have 0.8
corrected visual acuity or better, and normal color
vision.
Apparatus
• Topcon Screenscope SS-3
• Standard Pseudo-Isochromatic charts
• Twelve hazard symbols were printed on
individual 10x10 cm sheets of white paper.
Experiment design
• The factor of training was studied on three
levels in the experiment:
– comprehension prior to training
– comprehension immediately following training
– comprehension one month following training
• Education was between-subjects variables
• Training and symbolic pictorial were withinsubjects variables
Procedure
• The first stage of experiment began with an
open-ended pre-training test, in which subjects
were asked to write down the meaning of each
symbol on an A4-sided paper.
• Subjects were provided with no time limit
within which to write their responses
Procedure
• The experimenter told the subjects the
meaning of the hazard symbols through the use
of a hazard symbol label booklet
• Thirty seconds was spent in describing the
meaning of each hazard symbol
• Upon completion of this step, recognition
training was conducted
Procedure
• Subjects saw the meaning of randomly
selected hazard symbols on A4 paper and were
asked to pick the corresponding symbol from
the booklet of hazard symbols
• If subjects selected the wrong hazard symbol,
the experimenter told the subjects the correct
meaning of the hazard symbol again.
Procedure
• The recognition training procedure
• Recall training required subjects to orally
recall the correct meaning of hazard symbols
that were randomly selected by the
experimenter from the booklet of hazard
symbol labels
Procedure
• After the training session, the subjects were
given a 10-min break after which they were
asked to engage in a set of unrehearsed tasks
(playing poker) that served as a distraction to
prevent stimuli from being retained in shortterm memory (Wogalter et al., 1997)
Procedure
• In the second stage of the experiment, subjects
taking the immediate post-training test were
shown the hazard symbols (in a new random
order) and were asked to write down their
meaning.
• The third stage of experiment was held one
month following the immediate post-training
test.
Data analysis
• ISO 9186(2001)計算方式
– estimated probability of correct understanding over
80%) were assigned as a score of ‘‘1’’
– estimated probability of correct understanding
between 66% and 80%) were assigned as ‘‘0.75’’
– Estimated probability of correct understanding
between 50% and 65%) were assigned as ‘‘0.5’’
– The meaning which is understood is opposite to
the intended was assigned as a score of ‘‘1’’
Results
• The hazard symbol had a significant effect on
comprehension F(11,627)=32.54, P<0.01
• The education specialization produced a
significant main effect on symbol
comprehension F(2, 57)=8.51, P<0.01
• The training had a significant effect on
comprehension F(2,114)=248.7, P<0.01
Results
Reults
Results
Results
Discussion
• We found that the hazard symbol labels for
explosives materials and poisonous materials
group I and II were familiar pictorials, and be
considered to be well-designed pictorials as
they exceeded the ISO 67% comprehension
standard.
•
Discussion
• Subjects had good comprehension immediately
following training and had the least
comprehension dropping one month after
training
• There is significant comprehension difference
among the three groups of subjects
• The industrial specialization showed the
significantly better comprehension than the
subjects of business and design.
Discussion
• The well-design hazard symbols which were
the best understood initially, also resulted in
the least comprehension dropping in the one
month post-training test
• Consequently, redesigning the poor-designed
symbols to be maximally understandable is
still very important despite the high cost of
redesigning.