Training of Low-Literacy and Low-English-Proficiency ... · LL workers within construction have not been validated. Although computer-based training material is recommended for training

Case Study

Training of Low-Literacy and Low-English-ProficiencyHispanic Workers on Construction Fall Fatality

Ken-Yu Lin, A.M.ASCE1; Wonil Lee, A.M.ASCE2; Rahman Azari3; and Giovanni C. Migliaccio, A.M.ASCE4

Abstract: The construction industry has made extensive efforts to improve the safety of its labor force through various approaches, including

training. However, many construction workers in the United States are recent immigrants who lack English proficiency and do not possess suf-

ficient literacy levels in their own language for training comprehension. This reduces the effectiveness of traditional text-dominated translated

training materials, which depend on both literacy and proficiency in a language. Thus, in this study, the authors used three-dimensional (3D)

visualization to overcome the communication barriers that hinder effective safety training for low-literacy (LL) and low-English-proficiency

(LEP) construction workers. This article summarizes the contributions of a study sponsored by the Occupational Safety and Health

Administration (OSHA) Susan Harwood Training Grant Program; it describes the methodology to develop scenario-based 3D training materi-

als on fall safety for LL and LEPworkers and to validate the effectiveness of thematerials. The results show that 3D trainingmaterials improve

interaction between trainer and trainee during safety training, facilitate learning processes, and can overcome some of the communication bar-

riers that hinder effective safety training.DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000573.© 2017 American Society of Civil Engineers.

Author keywords: Occupational health and safety; Training; Visualization; Fall protection; Case study.

Introduction

Contractors aim to achieve zero jobsite incidents. Good safety and

health records can be used as indicators of projects’ success and of

contractors’ and subcontractors’ abilities to reach this goal (Jiang

et al. 2016; Luo et al. 2017; Yuan et al. 2012). Occupational inci-

dents in construction are often tied to either the lack of training or

ineffective training; therefore, various stakeholders, including gov-

ernment agencies, academia, and contractors, have continuously

invested resources toward the development of accessible and effec-

tive safety training (Brunette 2004; Brunette 2005; Evia 2011;

OSHA 2010). However, training effectiveness is more challenging

because of larger numbers of immigrant workers, who are mostly

found to have low English proficiency (LEP) and/or low literacy

(LL) (NAHB 2013; Rathod 2009). Moreover, relying on traditional

on-the-job training seems less effective because supervisors often

struggle to communicate with these workers. These circumstances

have caused major safety and health performance concerns

(Brunette 2004; Clevenger and del Puerto 2011; Evia 2011).

A method of overcoming this challenge is to develop training

materials that differ from traditional text-dominated training meth-

ods. The existing guidelines for achieving best practices in the

development and delivery of training materials maintain that this

can be done by implementing technology to create visually

enhanced training materials suitable for such audiences (OSHA

2010). This would facilitate the learning process, leading to higher

motivation and sustained engagement to complete the training.

There have been several attempts to develop visually enhanced,

game-based, virtual construction training, notably by researchers in

the United States, Australia, and Hong Kong (Guo et al. 2012; Li et

al. 2012; Lin et al. 2011). The effectiveness of training LEP and LL

construction workers using virtual games, however, was only

inferred, at best, in these previous efforts. Although the benefits of

game-based and scenario-driven training for similar workers out-

side construction were evaluated (de Freitas et al. 2006; de Freitas

2006; Mitchell and Savill-Smith 2004), such benefits for LEP and

LL workers within construction have not been validated. Although

computer-based training material is recommended for training

immigrant construction workers (Evia 2011), an approach to

developing and assessing visualized, game-based, and scenario-

driven safety training for LEP and LL construction workers is

needed to provide audience-sensitive insights and ensure training

effectiveness.

In this article, the authors illustrate a structured approach to

developing and assessing visualized and scenario-driven safety and

health training materials for LEP and LL construction workers on

fall-related fatalities and protection. To this end, six fatality cases

were selected from the Fatality Assessment and Control Evaluation

(FACE) program of the U.S. National Institute for Occupational

Safety and Health (NIOSH 2017) to represent some of the most fre-

quent fall hazards and to develop a fall-protection training suite.

This training suite was used to deliver two separate training sessions

attended by 14 Hispanic immigrant workers and 29 domestic

apprenticeship students. These audiences were selected because of

their closeness to the targeted LEP and LL worker populations. The

goal of these training sessions was also to validate training material

with the appropriate audience and evaluate the benefits of visual-

ized, scenario-driven, and three-dimensional (3D) safety and health

training games for LEP and LL construction workers.

1Associate Professor, Univ. of Washington, Dept. of Construction

Management, Seattle, WA 98195-1610. E-mail: [email protected]. Candidate, Dept. of Construction Management, Univ. of

Washington, Seattle, WA 98195-1610 (corresponding author). E-mail:

[email protected] Professor, College of Architecture, Construction and

Planning, 501 W. C�esar E. Chávez Blvd., San Antonio, TX 78207. E-mail:

[email protected] Professor, Dept. of Construction Management, Univ. of

Washington, Seattle WA, 98195-1610. E-mail: [email protected]

Note. This manuscript was submitted on January 5, 2017; approved on

July 27, 2017; published online on November 16, 2017. Discussion period

open until April 16, 2018; separate discussions must be submitted for indi-

vidual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Management in

Engineering, © ASCE, ISSN 0742-597X.

© ASCE 05017009-1 J. Manage. Eng.

J. Manage. Eng., 2018, 34(2): 05017009

Dow

nlo

aded

fro

m a

scel

ibra

ry.o

rg b

y S

outh

ern C

alif

orn

ia U

niv

ersi

ty o

n 1

1/2

0/1

7. C

opyri

ght

AS

CE

. F

or

per

sonal

use

only

; al

l ri

ghts

res

erved

.

Literature Review

Occupational Safety Characteristics of theConstruction Industry

Construction sites are dangerous workplaces, which explains why

the construction industry had the highest number (937) and the

fourth-highest rate (10.1%) of work-related fatalities among all

U.S. industries in 2015 (BLS 2016a). This is not unique to the

United States; in Europe, 24% of fatal occupational incidents took

place in the construction sector in 2001 (Karjalainen 2004).

According to the reported work injuries for construction laborers,

falls predominate, accounting for 38% of all fatal injuries in 2015

(BLS 2016a). Huang and Hinze (2003) analyzed the fall-incident

data from 1990 to 2001 and found that falls from ladders, scaffolds,

and roofs accounted for 53% of fall fatalities. In private construc-

tion from 2011 through 2013, fall fatalities were common, with the

most prevalent types being falls from 11 to 15 feet in height and

falls from roofs (BLS 2015). The most common cause of these

events is the lack of in-place fall protection. Therefore, effective

employee training, including the selection of a proper fall-

protection system and its installation, is crucial in preventing

workers from fall accidents and fatalities (Janicak 1998).

Moreover, the U.S. construction sector employs large numbers

of migrant and/or immigrant workers (Rathod 2009), as do other

countries, including Australia, Saudi Arabia (Loosemore and Lee

2002), Western Europe (ILO 1995), and China (Swider 2008). In

the United States, the construction industry has proven to be among

the deadliest for immigrant workers. Approximately 33% of the

work-related fatalities among foreign-born workers in the United

States took place in construction (BLS 2016a). A study on occupa-

tional fatalities of Latino workers found this group to be affected by

almost a quarter of all fatal construction injuries, even though this

group makes up less than 16% of the construction workforce in the

United States (Dong and Platner 2004).

Lack of effective safety training has been linked to the occur-

rence of occupational accidents (Brunette 2005; Takala 2002). In

the case of LEP and LL construction workers, proper communica-

tion during training is restricted by limited English ability and lack

of literacy (Evia 2011; Loosemore and Lee 2002). Pransky et al.

(2002) found that Hispanic workers, compared with the general

population, suffered higher rates of injuries and received lower rates

of safety training. In another study, Dong and Platner (2004) found

that limited English ability might be one of the contributing factors

for higher rates of Hispanic fatalities in construction. Loh and

Richardson (2004) confirmed these studies while introducing lim-

ited education and limited English proficiency as two of the factors

explaining upward trends of workplace fatalities among foreign-

born workers. Overall, many U.S. construction workers, both

foreign-born and native, have limited levels of education (BLS

2016b). Indeed, data from the NAHB (2015) indicate that approxi-

mately 48.6% of foreign-born and 12.8% of native-born construc-

tion workers in the United States were low-skilled, having an educa-

tional attainment of less than high school diploma.

Construction-related occupations had a large proportion of

workers (20–34%) with a low level of educational attainment (e.g.,

less than a high school diploma) (BLS 2016b) (Fig. 1). Among the

different occupations, those involving natural resources, construc-

tion, and maintenance had the highest percentage of male workers

with LEP (Zong and Batalova 2015) (Fig. 2).

Various studies detail the differences in management of foreign

and native workers and solutions to the differing safety and produc-

tivity problems for these two occupational groups. Most foreign

workers in the United States are Hispanic (CPWR 2013), so most

studies are about Spanish-speaking workers and their different char-

acteristics from English-speaking workers. In a study of the differ-

ences in productivity between Spanish-speaking and English-

speaking workers, Dai and Goodrum (2011) found that, compared

with English speakers, Spanish speakers more frequently experi-

enced a lack of safety, health, and skill training opportunities. The

Spanish-speaking workers also had difficulty in communicating

with their supervisors. For these reason, Hispanic workers are often

involved in simpler and more dangerous work than other workers.

This leads to wage gaps between groups and low productivity and

high accident rates among Spanish workers (Goodrum 2004).

Goodrum and Dai (2005) argued that the traditional training format

is not effective for Hispanic workers because of their limited

English-language skills and education levels.

Through focused interviews with practitioners who had been

engaged with foreign workers for several years, Han et al. (2008)

found that if training for foreign workers used well-designed com-

munication tools, their learning rates were not significantly differ-

ent from those of domestic workers. Liao et al. (2015) noted that

communication between team members was also crucial to achiev-

ing organizational-level goals regarding the safety climate. To

achieve the desired safety climate, craft workers (who have the least

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Construction and related workers, all other

Operating engineers and other construction equipment operators

Helpers, construction trades, all other

Painters, construction and maintenance

Construction laborers

Less than high school diploma High school diploma or equivalent Some college, no degree

Associate's degree Bachelor's degree or higer

Fig. 1. Educational attainment for workers (age 25 and older) in construction-related occupations, 2014–15 (data from BLS 2016b)


J. Manage. Eng., 2018, 34(2): 05017009

Dow

nlo

aded

fro

m a

scel

ibra

ry.o

rg b

y S

outh

ern C

alif

orn

ia U

niv

ersi

ty o

n 1

1/2

0/1

7. C

opyri

ght

AS

CE

. F

or

per

sonal

use

only

; al

l ri

ghts

res

erved

.

authority in the organization) need to receive pre-shift and on-the-

job safety education (Liao et al. 2015). Tezel et al. (2015) main-

tained that visual management can make it possible to effectively

communicate with and train workers who have lower education

levels.

The conventional lecture-style safety training limits the trainees’

engagement, which leads to poor hazard recognition and low

safety-risk awareness (Namian et al. 2016). Several communication

tools for improving construction workers’ safety apply digital and

mobile technology (Edirisinghe and Lingard 2016) and toolbox talk

(Olson et al. 2016). However, differences/or similarities in percep-

tions between LEP/and LL workers and others on the applied alter-

native training and communication methods in terms of its effec-

tiveness and usefulness were not investigated, which could help in

designing a new form of safety training and communication tar-

geted to the workers who are at risk (i.e., LEP and LLworkers).

Safety Training Requirements for LEP and LLWorkers

Providing effective safety training to LEP and LL construction

workers may significantly decrease the magnitude of occupational

fatalities in the sector. However, cultural and language communica-

tion barriers make this especially challenging (O’Connor et al.

2005; Evia 2011). For example, Hispanic employees working for

non-Hispanic supervisors often rely on unreliable methods, such as

sign language, to communicate safety issues with their coworkers

(O’Connor et al. 2005). In a study on the adequacy of safety training

among young Latino construction workers, O’Connor et al. (2005)

concluded that this group, compared with non-Latino workers,

received less training despite working in more hazardous environ-

ments and that workers with better language abilities were more

likely to receive training. Language, literacy, and communication

barriers are known to be the causes of the high risk of construction

fall fatalities for Hispanic workers (Dong et al. 2009). Al-Bayati

et al. (2017) pointed out that the language barrier is a treatable root

cause of Hispanic workers’ high injury and mortality rates and that

they should be provided with comprehensible and understandable

training materials. Based on interviews with experts in craft training

from U.S. construction firms and craft training centers, basic safety

training was ranked the most important topic to be covered in an in-

troductory craft workers’ skill training curriculum for both union

and nonunion workers. The language barrier was a common obsta-

cle during training, especially for the open-shop workforce (Wang

et al. 2008). Hispanic workers have the lowest union membership

rate (BLS 2017).

However, LEP and LL barriers to effective safety training (Evia

2011) are not limited to Hispanic workers and extend beyond this

group (Wallerstein 1992). Thus, there is a need to design and imple-

ment effective training methods for specific categories of LEP and

LL audiences. OSHA (2012) states that several factors should be

considered in designing and delivering safety training for construc-

tion workers, including the intended audience, training techniques

and methods, and needs assessment and evaluation of training.

Presently, safety training resources that are linguistically and cultur-

ally appropriate for these workers are limited, in both quality and

quantity (Brunette 2005; Evia 2011).When safety trainingmaterials

are available in languages other than English, many are the result of

merely translating documents originally developed for English-

speaking workers. This approach is not sufficient to train LEP and

LL construction workers (Evia 2011) because of the limited literacy

of these workers in their native language and in English, which is

the case for many Hispanic workers (Ruttenberg and Lazo 2004).

To overcome this obstacle, the use of visual aids and the facilitation

of peer discussions during training have been recommended when

developing and delivering safety training to LEP and LL construc-

tion workers (Clevenger and del Puerto 2011; Ruttenberg and Lazo

2004). These two strategies are also advocated by OSHA (2012) as

among the best practices for working with LEP or LL construction

workers. In particular, the use of actual incidents for training pur-

poses through text and static pictures might be difficult for an in-

structor because the learning experience would not be realistic and

would fail to describe the hazardous situations and contributing fac-

tors (Guo et al., 2012). However, fatality scenarios reconstructed in

the virtual world engage LEP and LL workers in safety training

(Ziegahn 1992).

Brunette (2005) listed a set of guidelines for designing safety

training for immigrant workers, which stressed that safety training

should be linguistically and culturally appropriate. To start, the lan-

guage of safety training has to be familiar to the workers—literal

translations from English should be avoided. The material should

be translated by native speakers who are also field experts. When

limited literacy is expected among trainees, realistic illustrations or

photographs should be included to overcome the linguistic barrier.

Technology-Supported Visualization for Safety Training

The application of visualization in training is rooted in cognitive

theory. The combination of words and pictures is believed to be bet-

ter from a learning perspective (Mayer 2009); thus, multimedia

messages can be more successful than text-based ones in reaching

10%

13%

24%

25%

28%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%

Sales and office occupations

Management, business, science, and arts occupations

Production, transportation and material moving occupations

Service occupations

Natural resources, construction, and maintenance occupations

Fig. 2. Distribution of LEP workers (age 16 and older) in the male civilian labor force, by occupation, in 2013 (data from Zong and Batalova 2015)


J. Manage. Eng., 2018, 34(2): 05017009

Dow

nlo

aded

fro

m a

scel

ibra

ry.o

rg b

y S

outh

ern C

alif

orn

ia U

niv

ersi

ty o

n 1

1/2

0/1

7. C

opyri

ght

AS

CE

. F

or

per

sonal

use

only

; al

l ri

ghts

res

erved

.

out to learners. Mayer (2009) developed a cognitive theory of multi-

media learning and found it to be based on the three ideas of cogni-

tive science: dual-channel, limited capacity, and active learning

processing assumptions. According to Mayer’s theory, five cogni-

tive steps should take place in a meaningful multimedia learning ex-

perience: (1) selecting relevant words, (2) selecting relevant images,

(3) organizing words into a verbal mental model, (4) organizing pic-

tures into a visual mental model, and (5) integrating verbal and vis-

ual presentations (Mayer 2009).

The use of visualization technology for training material has

been successful. Indeed, Internet- and computer-based training

have received much attention and are used to augment traditional

safety training (Anger et al. 2004; Eckerman et al. 2004; Liebeskind

2005; Lin et al. 2012; OSHA 2010). When learner background

influences much of the training effectiveness, such as in the case of

Hispanic workers, the content of computer-based training material

should address the learners’ needs and preferences. Training ses-

sions should rely on animations, rather than words; use Spanish-

speaking facilitators; and incorporate some humor (Evia 2011).

Among computer-based applications, virtual reality (VR) stands

out as a promising option because it enables the use of animations.

VR uses computer simulations of the 3D environment, allowing

manipulation of the environment and its contents, and can facilitate

the training experience (Goulding et al. 2012). Virtual environ-

ments allow users to learn through exploring the environments in

roughly open-ended ways (de Freitas and Neumann 2009).

To achieve learning objectives through VR, training scenarios

and the sequence of events should be specified and scripted

(Magerko and Laird 2002) in a way that embodies real-time prob-

lems, resources, and resolutions (Goulding et al. 2012).

Specifically, there are four dimensions to immersive learning in vir-

tual environments (de Freitas and Jarvis 2006; de Freitas and Oliver

2006) for developing validated scenarios from practice (de Freitas

and Neumann 2009): (1) context (e.g., getting a particular task com-

pleted on a construction site), (2) learner specification (e.g., prefer-

ence to learn visually without much textual information), (3) repre-

sentation (e.g., realistic graphical interface that provides a snapshot

of a construction site), and (4) pedagogical model (e.g., immediate

feedback for associating with prior knowledge) (de Freitas and

Jarvis 2006; de Freitas and Oliver 2006). Based on the dimensions

and elements, narration (de Freitas and Neumann 2009) and the vis-

ual component of a virtual environment (Goulding et al. 2012)

should receive special attention to convey the message and intended

learning outcomes to the learner.

Table 1 summarizes the criteria for developing effective safety

training material targeting LEP and LL construction workers. The

literature on a learner’s linguistic characteristics, context, training

contents, and engagement suggests that visualization of safety train-

ing would overcome the limitations of conventional safety training

tools for LEP and LLworkers.

Methodology

The authors adopted a structured methodology to develop a training

suite grounded in the literature and informed by both expert judg-

ment and user inputs. Once the study objectives were clearly stated,

the authors grounded their study within safety training for LEP and

LL workers and 3D visualization for safety training. Then, the

authors designed and implemented a procedure to develop a fall-

protection training suite enhanced by 3D technology. The procedure

began with the selection and shortlisting of the scenarios to be mod-

eled from past fall-fatality incidents and essentially generated a

suite of illustrative and 3D cases for the selected scenarios. Next,

the authors developed a suite assessment process, which involved

subject experts, government authorities, and a sample of the

Table 1. Criteria for Developing Effective Training Material for LEP and LLWorkers

Criteria category Key criteria for LEP and LL training Support of visualization technology

Learner’s linguistic

characteristics

Concern for foreign-born worker’s linguistic barriers (Evia

2011; Ruttenberg and Lazo 2004)

Implementation of animations rather than words (Evia 2011)

Linguistically and culturally appropriate (Brunette 2005) Use of computers along with Spanish-speaking facilitators

(Evia 2011)

Translated by a native-speaking expert translator and kept at a

limited literacy level (Brunette 2005)

Needs of well-designed communication tools (Han et al. 2008;

Tezel et al. 2015)

Learner’s context Providing more opportunities for training to immigrant workers

(Dai and Goodrum 2011; Liao et al. 2015; O’Connor et al. 2005)

Combination of works and pictures in facilitation of learning

based on cognitive theory (Mayer 2009)

Considering the characteristic of specific categories of audien-

ces (Goodrum and Dai 2005; OSHA 2010; Wallerstein 1992)

Harmony between training context, representation, pedagogical

model, and learner’s specification (de Freitas and Jarvis 2006; de

Freitas and Oliver 2006; de Freitas and Neumann 2009)

Considering trainee’s safety knowledge (Brunette 2005)

Learner’s training

contents

Use of visual aids (Clevenger and del Puerto 2011; OSHA

2010; Ruttenberg and Lazo 2004; Tezel et al. 2015)

Use of videos with some humor (Evia 2011)

Application of realistic illustrations or photographs

(Brunette 2005)

Specified training scenarios and sequences of events to embody

real-time problems, resources and resolutions (Goulding et al.

2012)

Learner’s

engagement

Realistic learning experience (Guo et al. 2012; Ziegahn 1992) Ability to view and manipulate the environment and its contents,

and can support and facilitate the training experience (Goulding

et al. 2012)

Motivating engagement through the reconstruction of fatality

scenarios in a virtual world (Guo et al. 2012; Ziegahn 1992)

Use of visualization technology to attract trainee’s attention by

augmenting conventional safety training material (Anger et al.

2004; Eckerman et al. 2004; Liebeskind, 2005; OSHA 2010)

Facilitation of peer discussion (Ruttenberg and Lazo 2004)


J. Manage. Eng., 2018, 34(2): 05017009

Dow

nlo

aded

fro

m a

scel

ibra

ry.o

rg b

y S

outh

ern C

alif

orn

ia U

niv

ersi

ty o

n 1

1/2

0/1

7. C

opyri

ght

AS

CE

. F

or

per

sonal

use

only

; al

l ri

ghts

res

erved

.

targeted audience. Finally, the effectiveness of the fall-protection

training suite was validated through a series of training sessions.

These standard methodological procedures are well documented

and validated by previous literature and widely applied in research

of various disciplines (Lucko and Rojas 2010).

Designing 3D-Enhanced Safety Training Material

The authors first reviewed the important criteria for training mate-

rial development, as identified in Table 1, and then used these crite-

ria to prepare an initial illustrative prototype of a real fatal-fall inci-

dent. The incident’s details were extracted from FACE reports

(NIOSH 2017), which are publicly available reports of occupational

fatalities.

This initial prototype was used to solicit user input through two

group sessions. Each session was attended by two subject experts,

acting as prospective trainers, and two targeted workers, acting as

prospective trainees. One of the experts consulted for this study was

a certified industrial hygienist who has worked for over 30 years in

the industry and teaches OSHA courses. This expert also delivered

one of the training sessions described in the validation section.

Another expert was a safety director from a contractor association

in the region with experience in workforce training. These experts

were selected because of their extensive knowledge about the sub-

ject matter and experience in adult education.

These sessions also helped the team verify the logistic require-

ments for safety trainers. Developing the initial prototype and

receiving feedback from users resulted in a series of improvements.

These improvements helped to refine the authors’ methodology for

developing the trainingmaterial and are thus described here.

First, the team realized that overly in-depth information should

be avoided, and the incident scenario should be modeled so that the

main task or field activity is straightforward and understandable to

the audience. Although FACE reports (NIOSH 2017) on the inci-

dents were sufficient to develop training scenarios, not enough

details were available from these reports to fully describe the spe-

cific events leading to the incident, creating uncertainties. These

uncertainties could be avoided by adding assumptions to the sce-

nario or by revising the scenario to make it clearer. In addition,

some types of details (e.g., dimensions of tools used, type of tools

or materials used) are not usually addressed in a FACE case report

because they are not usually germane to the incident. These details,

however, are required for modeling objects related to a case and

thus need to be assumed. The authors revised and adopted the meth-

odology informed by the process of prototyping. The methodology,

as shown in Fig. 3, consisted of five major steps, with some further

comprising substeps. Each step of the methodology is examined in

the following sections.

Selection of the Cases Based on the Project Scope

Safety training effectiveness is improved by applying a platform of

events and problems that simulate likely real events (OSHA 2010).

The authors, therefore, focused their efforts on creating training sce-

narios based on real events. Because the scope of the project was

limited to fall-related fatalities in the construction sector, at this

stage, the authors identified and examined such events within the

United States. To this end, the FACE reports (NIOSH 2017)

became the major resource for the selection of cases.

The review of existing literature and available statistics had al-

ready revealed that roof-, scaffold-, and ladder-related falls are

prevalent contributing events to construction fatalities. The authors

crosschecked this pattern with the cases available in the FACE

reports (NIOSH 2017). From the reports, 15 construction fall fatal-

ities were initially selected for the scenario development base.

Several criteria influenced the selection of these real cases. The sub-

ject experts further reinforced the validity of the criteria, which

were derived from literature. The first selection criterion was the

location of the incident. The goal was to select cases that had

occurred in some of the most common locations in a construction

site where fall hazards take place. Although a fall incident could

happen at almost any location, even at the ground level (as a result

of floor openings or bad housekeeping, for example), roofs, ladders,

and scaffolds were identified as the three most common hazardous

locations in this type of incident; thus, the team decided to address

Fig. 3. Training material development methodology


J. Manage. Eng., 2018, 34(2): 05017009

Dow

nlo

aded

fro

m a

scel

ibra

ry.o

rg b

y S

outh

ern C

alif

orn

ia U

niv

ersi

ty o

n 1

1/2

0/1

7. C

opyri

ght

AS

CE

. F

or

per

sonal

use

only

; al

l ri

ghts

res

erved

.

them in the safety training suite. The second selection criterion was

the hazard scenario in an attempt to select some of the most typical

fall-triggering hazardous scenarios associated with working on

roofs, ladders, and scaffolds. For example, overarching and

improper positioning are commonly reported as the cause of ladder

falls. The third selection criterion was the construction trades that

take up the highest proportion of fall fatalities among the targeted

workers. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS

2016a), construction laborers, roofers, carpenters, painters, electri-

cians, and ironworkers are the five occupations with the highest

numbers of fall fatalities in construction. In addition, these occupa-

tions are usually the ones occupied by immigrant workers, espe-

cially Hispanic workers. Selecting fall-fatality incidents reflective

of typical work activities in these trades (e.g., using a ladder to paint

the interior of a structure) would make the developed training suite

more relevant to the targeted audiences.

Shortlisting of the Selected Cases Based on the Scope Diversity

The next step of the methodology dealt with shortlisting the model

cases. Six cases of the initial 15 cases were selected for developing

training materials. The selection aimed to guarantee a homogeneous

representation of various types of locations, fall scenarios, and trade

work activities. As a result, two cases for each location (i.e., ladder,

roof, and scaffold) were selected. To further diversify the training

materials, cases that represented similar scenarios (e.g., ladder) and

diverse tools were selected. For instance, the two ladder-related

cases selected included a case that involved extension ladders and

another that involved A-frame ladders instead of having two similar

cases (e.g., two A-frame ladder-related incidents). Table 2 includes

the list of final six cases selected based on the scope diversity.

Development of Fall Scenario and Illustrative Cases

After selecting the cases, the authors focused their efforts on devel-

oping fall scenarios and then on generating illustrative (i.e., picto-

rial) cases for the developed scenario, as shown by the example in

Fig. 4. This step, as shown in Fig. 1, consisted of 10 substeps, which

are described in Table 3. This methodology was followed for each

of the selected incident cases listed in Table 2.

This process produced a set of pictorial cases like the one shown

in Fig. 4. These cases were intended as a useful training resource for

the trainees and a guidance tool for the trainers. In addition, they

were intended to facilitate the 3D modeling process. In fact, they

provided the modeler with snapshots of the actual events to create a

shared understanding of the incident between the 3D modeler and

the rest of the team. They also reduced at minimum what could be

left to the imagination and interpretation of the 3D modeler and the

rest of the team. A snapshot of one of the English-version illustra-

tive cases is provided in Fig. 4.

Development of Interactive 3D Training Models

Following the development of these illustrative cases, the team

started 3D modeling of the incident. A popular game-development

platform, Unity, was chosen for this purpose because of its capabil-

ity to deploy on multiple platforms; capability to support common

3D object formats; affordable platform and library object cost; rela-

tively lower demand of hardware resources; well-documented user

manuals and developer forums; and finally, ease of use. This fourth

step of methodology consisted of 10 substeps, described in Table 4,

which were usually accompanied by a back-and-forth iteration pro-

cess to clarify the comments received. Fig. 5 demonstrates an exam-

ple of the output of this process in a series of juxtaposed screenshots

of one of the 3Dmodels.

Validation of Training Suite

As previously stated, the developed training cases underwent a

review phase by the two subject experts at the third and fourth steps

of the methodology. Additionally, the developed training material

underwent a final and more formal validation. The objective of this

additional validation was to verify that the methodology was able to

generate effective and suitable training materials for the specific au-

dience (e.g., meeting language and cultural barriers, addressing

challenges such as workers’ low literacy and lack of English-

language skills).

The validation phase was multilayered. First, trainers reviewed

the training suite before it was used as an instructional tool. Two

expert trainers—who possessed significant experience and exper-

tise in construction safety, with years of involvement in the training

of LL and LEP construction workers—were invited to evaluate the

material. This prevalidation was not totally independent from the

review done as part of Steps 3 and 4 because one of the two expert

trainers was also one of the two subject experts. These trainers also

delivered the two training sessions that are described later in the ar-

ticle. Then, subject experts at OSHA’s regional and national offices

performed an additional preinstruction review as required by the

Susan Harwood Grant Program. This review was focused on con-

tent and length of the developed material and passed the sponsor

requirement satisfactorily.

Finally, trainers and trainees submitted a postinstruction eval-

uation of the training suite. A total of 43 workers were recruited

through two partner organizations to participate in the training

sessions, a nonprofit for Latino seasonal workers and a vocational

Table 2. Shortlisted Fall-Fatality Incidents

Number Location Tradea Activity Scenario

1 Roof opening Roofing, siding, and sheet metal

work

Removing roof panels Stepping backward on a roof opening

covered only with insulation

2 Roof edge Roofing, siding, and sheet metal

work

Helping roofer Trying to prevent a bundle of shingles

from sliding off a roof edge

3 A-frame ladder Plastering, drywall, acoustical,

and insulation work

Attaching wood block Overreaching

4 Extension ladder Painting and paper hanging Doing touch-up painting and

installing roof tie-downs

Ladder tip-over

5 Stepladder on a rolling

scaffold

Plastering, drywall, acoustical,

and insulation work

Drywall finishing Scaffold rolling

6 Top stage of a tubular

scaffold

Painting and paper hanging Painting Slipping off unsecured boards on scaffold

aNote: Trade classification based on OSHA (n.d.) Major Group 17: Construction special trade contractors.


J. Manage. Eng., 2018, 34(2): 05017009

Dow

nlo

aded

fro

m a

scel

ibra

ry.o

rg b

y S

outh

ern C

alif

orn

ia U

niv

ersi

ty o

n 1

1/2

0/1

7. C

opyri

ght

AS

CE

. F

or

per

sonal

use

only

; al

l ri

ghts

res

erved

.

trade school. The nonprofit organization helped to recruit 14

Hispanic workers among its clients who could be representative

of the LEP construction worker population. The vocational

school helped to recruit 29 domestic workers who could be

representative of the LL construction worker population.

Individuals in these two groups were recruited because they fell

into the targeted LEP and LL profiles. The two organizations that

the trainees were affiliated with helped confirm such matching by

Fig. 4. Pictorial illustration of a sample incident

Table 3. Development of Fall Scenario and Illustrative Cases

Substep of

step 3 Description of substep

3a The description may include background information about the incident, investigation results, prevention recommendations, and visual

information of the incident location.

3b The long description includes the scenario and enough details (e.g., dimensions, materials used, or tools adopted) to comprehend the

incident and to generate training materials.

3c At this time, subject-matter experts could be asked to review the case description for gaps.

3d Generic as well as trade-specific learning objectives should be defined to incorporate the main safety topics for each incident.

3e The long description of the case is used to establish the model scenario to achieve the learning objectives.

3f Frequent assumptions include physical dimensions of the location, types of materials or tools used, and safety culture.

3g These questions provides a way to assess whether the model allows trainees to understand the cause of the incident and to select safe

practices.

3h An illustrative narration of the incident is drafted to graphically represent the incident.

3i At this time, subject-matter experts are asked to review the whole training package.

3j Experts’ feedback is used to revise and finalize the training package.


J. Manage. Eng., 2018, 34(2): 05017009

Dow

nlo

aded

fro

m a

scel

ibra

ry.o

rg b

y S

outh

ern C

alif

orn

ia U

niv

ersi

ty o

n 1

1/2

0/1

7. C

opyri

ght

AS

CE

. F

or

per

sonal

use

only

; al

l ri

ghts

res

erved

.

facilitating recruitment of the individuals to participate in the

training sessions.

The first group of trainees was recruited among foreign-born,

Spanish-speaking immigrant workers, and the second group of

trainees was recruited among native-born, English-speaking

apprentices. Each of the two trainers used the 3D suite to deliver a

training session on fall protection to the two groups. At the comple-

tion of each session, input from both trainers and workers was

Table 4. Development of Interactive 3D Training Models

Substep of step 4 Description of substep

4a Prepare a storyboard of the incident based on the illustrative cases: This storyboard works as the initial foundation of the 3D modeling

and helps the 3D modeler identifying vagueness in the scenario that illustrative cases cannot shed light on. This substep was especially

important because illustrative cases usually provided the background information and specific dimensions for the on-site setups, but

they did not describe the color, textures, shapes, and sizes of the objects that were necessary to create a complete 3D model, including

the human avatars, their construction gear, and any other objects in the surrounding environment. As another example, the 3D viewing

aspects (e.g., from what angle the job setup should be presented and what the transitions between the different view angles are) are of-

ten missing in illustrative 2D cases, which need to be further determined during 3D modeling.

4b Prepare a list of the objects to be modeled in a 3D environment: Some of these objects (e.g., the building where the incident happened)

had to be constructed by the 3D modeler based on the available information in the modeling software (e.g., 3ds Max). Other objects

could be obtained through Internet-based object databases.

4c Modify the objects found from the Internet, if needed, to fit the requirements of the scenario.

4d Implement the object animations in 3ds Max environment and design and apply the motions of the human avatars in each time frame of

the scenario.

4e Specify the desired 3D features, such as objects’ positions, orientation, scale, interaction, and motions to be later implemented in

Unity software.

4f Design the software structure in Unity: Two important aspects are code flexibility and code extendibility, which would make it easier

to change the sequence of scenes in response to a specific requirement without the need to make too many modifications to the code.

Intensive C# or JavaScript coding tasks were needed to implement and animate avatars or construction equipment and to transform

camera viewpoints to show a sequential hazardous scenario.

4g Implement the 3D features specified in Substep 4e in the framework of a predesigned software structure.

4h Review the initially prepared modeling for matching with the requirements of the scenario and the project.

4i Present the model to the subject experts for their potential input.

4j Finalize the 3D model after addressing subject experts’ comments.

Fig. 5. Screenshots of the 3Dmodel


J. Manage. Eng., 2018, 34(2): 05017009

Dow

nlo

aded

fro

m a

scel

ibra

ry.o

rg b

y S

outh

ern C

alif

orn

ia U

niv

ersi

ty o

n 1

1/2

0/1

7. C

opyri

ght

AS

CE

. F

or

per

sonal

use

only

; al

l ri

ghts

res

erved

.

formally collected. Two types of assessments were used with the

workers/trainees: (a) an assessment of the learning materials by the

workers, and (b) an assessment of the trainees’ knowledge after

training. To this end, 18 validation questions were used.

During the training sessions, trainers fluent in trainees’ native

languages first presented the training materials and then provided

the validation questions to trainees (i.e., training materials were pro-

vided in Spanish to Spanish-speaking workers). Matching the two

levels of OSHA-required assessments, the validation questions were

split into two parts. The first part included 12 questions on a 5-point

Likert scale to evaluate the suitability of training materials concern-

ing various factors, including length, clarity, and training style.

The difference of opinions between the English-speaking and

Spanish-speaking workers was assessed with a Kruskal–Wallis

one-way ANOVA test. The Kruskal–Wallis test is considered an

appropriate approach for dealing with small sample sizes that are

larger than five (McDonald 2008; Mundry and Fischer 1998). The

null hypothesis of the test was that all populations of English-

speaking workers and Spanish-speaking workers would have the

samemean score on the selected question. The second part included

questions that evaluated whether or not the construction workers

had gained the specific knowledge presented through the training

materials. These six questions assessed learning on general fall

safety hazards and regulations in the scenarios of training material

and were designed to have similar levels of difficulty across cases

(see Table 5).

Discussion

The authors can now shed light on the suitability and effectiveness

of training materials developed with the methodology. Both

English- and Spanish-speaking construction workers expressed

general satisfaction with the training materials. This satisfaction

was more evident in the group of Spanish-speaking workers, as

greater percentages indicated satisfaction with a larger number of

validation items (Table 6). Indeed, 100% of Spanish-speaking

workers expressed satisfaction (through their yes or somewhat yes

responses) with the training material’s clarity of purpose, relation to

practice, usefulness, novelty of content, effectiveness of training

style, and achievement of training purpose. Additionally, all

Spanish-speaking workers reported that they would recommend

using the training materials to their fellow workers (Table 6).

Overall, the responses of Spanish-speaking workers were positive

across the board.

English-speaking workers were more diverse in their opinions

about the training materials. Between 82 and 93% of these workers

were satisfied (responses of yes or somewhat yes) with the materi-

al’s length, clarity of purpose, relation to practice, and impact of vis-

ual aspect on training improvement; the value of the instructor’s

contribution; and the instructor’s knowledge. However, only 46%

of these workers were willing to recommend the materials to other

fellow workers. This striking difference from the Spanish-speaking

group can be explained by other differences in responses between

the two groups. For instance, English-speaking workers seemed

more familiar with the training content (only 43% found it to be

novel), which also affected their evaluation of its effectiveness

(only 62% gave positive responses). The authors could argue that

they did not feel confident to recommend the training to other

English-speaking workers because they assumed that those workers

would also be familiar with the content. The test result from the

Kruskal–Wallis one-way ANOVA is shown in Table 7, suggesting

that the English- and Spanish-speaking workers had different opin-

ions on many of the assessment items, especially when in regard to

recommending the training to others.

This disparity between English- and Spanish-speaking construc-

tion workers is in line with the contributions of existing literature,

which highlights the cultural sensitivity of training materials

(Brunette 2005). In other words, this disparity may be attributed to

cultural differences between these two groups in their interest in

various aspects of training materials. However, because the training

materials in the validation were provided to the Hispanic workers in

Spanish, the authors could not conclude that it was Hispanic work-

ers’ language barriers that led to the favorable opinion of the

Table 5. Assessment Questions for Validating Trainees’ Knowledge

Question number Question description Response options

1 What can be done to prevent the biggest hazard in this

example?

(a) Use a higher ladder

(b) Use a guardrail to protect the edge

(c) Use a light bulb extension tool

(d) I don’t know

2 Is the use of guardrail a proper way of fall protection in the

image below?

(a) Yes

(b) No

(c) It depends

(d) I don’t know

3 Besides setting up the ladder at a 4:1 angle, what else can

you do to secure the ladder?

(a) Tie off the ladder on the top

(b) Place the ladder on level footing

(c) Maintain three points of contact

(d) All the above

4 For metal decking replacement on the roof, what is a

proper method for fall protection?

(a) Use guardrails

(b) Cover up the openings

(c) Use personal fall-arrest system

(d) All of the above

5 The use of ladders on scaffolds is okay, as long as the

scaffold is secured and the ladder is properly set up.

(a) Open the step ladder fully

(b) Replace the step ladder with an extension ladder

(c) Do not use a ladder; use a taller scaffold instead

6 What can be done to improve the scaffold safety in the

image below?

(a) Make sure the planks are approved by OSHA

(b) Provide guardrails at the ends

(c) A competent person must inspect the scaffold before use


J. Manage. Eng., 2018, 34(2): 05017009

Dow

nlo

aded

fro

m a

scel

ibra

ry.o

rg b

y S

outh

ern C

alif

orn

ia U

niv

ersi

ty o

n 1

1/2

0/1

7. C

opyri

ght

AS

CE

. F

or

per

sonal

use

only

; al

l ri

ghts

res

erved

.

developed 3D, game-based training. This study assumed that LEP

workers are challenged by not only the limitation of their English-

language skills but also by cultural barriers, fewer opportunities for

training, lack of appropriate safety instructors, and low-

socioeconomic-status level in the United States. In reflection of

these assumptions, the preference for the 3D, game-based training

materials among the LEP workers—who experienced relative lin-

gual, cultural, and socioeconomic difficulties—provides a crucial

lesson to the construction industry that is composed of an increas-

ingly high portion of immigrant workers. This preference suggests

that the scenario-based, 3D training materials can play a role in

engaging LEPworkers in safety training.

Regarding the worker’s knowledge after training (Tables 5 and 8),

64–90% of English-speaking workers were able to achieve the

intended results in all questions. Conversely, 73–83% of Spanish-

speaking workers responded correctly to half of the questions

(Question 3, 5, and 6), 50% of them selected the correct response on

two other questions (Question 2 and 4), and only 17% of them were

able to find the right response to the remaining question (Question 1).

The lower performance of Spanish-speaking workers on these ques-

tions may be related to workers’ lower perception of their instructor’s

level of knowledge; if so, this could highlight the higher importance

of the role of trainers in mediating the knowledge transfer between

materials and workers. This performance may also be attributed to the

difference between these two groups in their exposure to the U.S. con-

struction industry and its fundamental principles.

With respect to technicality, no Spanish-speaking worker

believed that the materials were too technical, whereas 7% of

English-speaking workers responded that the teaching materials

were too technical. Whereas 50% of the Spanish-speaking workers

believed that the materials were at the right technical level

(Table 9), a higher percentage (69%) of English-speaking workers

held the same view. However, 50% of the Spanish-speaking work-

ers also expressed that the training material was not technical

enough versus only 24% of English-speaking workers believing so,

which may suggest that Spanish-speaking workers had a higher

desire to learn more than what was offered.

Table 6. Construction Workers’ Evaluation of Validation Items

Validation item Worker group No way (%) Not really (%) Maybe (%) Somewhat yes (%) Yes (%) Total positive (%)a

Right length English-speaking 0 5 11 16 68 84

Spanish-speaking 0 0 30 10 60 70

Clarity of purpose English-speaking 0 3 3 31 62 93


Relation to practice English-speaking 3 10 3 24 59 83


Usefulness English-speaking 17 14 7 21 41 62


Training improved by visual/animation English-speaking 7 4 7 11 71 82


Novelty of content English-speaking 21 21 14 11 32 43


Effectiveness of training style English-speaking 14 7 7 17 55 72


Value of instructor’s contribution English-speaking 7 0 4 7 82 89


Knowledgeable instructor English-speaking 3 0 10 7 79 87


Achievement of training purpose English-speaking 28 7 10 21 34 55


Recommending to other workers English-speaking 21 18 14 7 39 46


aTotal positive (%) = Somewhat yes (%) + Yes (%).

Table 7. Analysis of Responses by the Two Subject Groups

Validation item (Sorted by rank) Chi-squared value n

Recommending to other workers 11.273*** 40

Novelty of content 10.256** 40

Usefulness 9.977** 40

Achievement of training purpose 7.536** 41

Relation to practice 6.639** 41

Effectiveness of training style 5.265* 41

Clarity of purpose 5.063* 39

Knowledgeable instructor 1.708 41

Training improved by visual/animation 1.568 40

Right length 0.267 29

Valuableness of instructor’s contribution 0.145 40

Note: Degrees of freedom = 1; * indicates p< 0.05, ** indicates p< 0.01,

and *** indicates p< 0.001.

Table 8. Assessment Results for Trainees’ Knowledge after Training

Question Worker group Incorrect (%) Correct (%)

1 English-speaking 21 79

Spanish-speaking 83 17












J. Manage. Eng., 2018, 34(2): 05017009

Dow

nlo

aded

fro

m a

scel

ibra

ry.o

rg b

y S

outh

ern C

alif

orn

ia U

niv

ersi

ty o

n 1

1/2

0/1

7. C

opyri

ght

AS

CE

. F

or

per

sonal

use

only

; al

l ri

ghts

res

erved

.

Finally, the authors recognized that even with the same training

materials, having different trainers might yield different learning

outcomes or perceptions because of the style of communication,

interpersonal relations, or other factors; these elements were not in

the original scope of work of the case study. Therefore, the training

materials were evaluated based on the workers’ perceptions, and the

authors focused the discussion on how the two worker groups had

similar or dissimilar evaluations of the materials. Despite differen-

ces between these two groups of workers in their assessment of the

training materials, both groups were generally satisfied with the

materials; therefore, the researchers’ goal of developing materials

suitable for the target group was achieved. The differences between

the worker groups indicate the complexity of effective worker train-

ing, which opens more avenues for further research in this area

(e.g., role of trainers in mediating the knowledge transfer, cultural

sensitivity, and how such factors might potentially interact with

each other to create compounding effects on learning). In the

authors’ study, the LL and LEP workers were limited to Hispanics

because this group was the focus of the OSHA project. However,

workers from other ethnic groups are also present in the U.S. con-

struction workforce and could require culturally tailored training

strategies. Still, the authors’ conclusions provide a case for using

visual trainingmethods to overcome language barriers.

Conclusions and FutureWork

Construction has historically been one of the most dangerous

industries, with falls being the most common type of fatal hazard.

Therefore, the continuous development of numerous fall-

protection training materials is unsurprising. There are, however,

criticisms of the effectiveness of the existing safety training mate-

rials and their suitability for the construction workers with a lack

of English proficiency and/or low levels of literacy. The use of

visual aids is an important means to meeting these criticisms.

This article presents a methodology for developing visualized

and scenario-based fall-protection training materials for LEP and

LL workers. This contributes to the body of knowledge by provid-

ing and illustrating a structured, operable, and effective process

for the development of training material. The methodology

included the review and analysis of previous fall-fatality inci-

dents; development of descriptive scenarios and two-dimensional

(2D) scenario illustration training material on a foundation of the

real incidents; 3D modeling of the scenarios; and finally, validat-

ing the developed materials. Following the methodology, six

cases were developed to illustrate ladder-, scaffold-, and roof-

related fall scenarios.

The output of the validation process revealed that the participat-

ing construction workers were able to easily connect with the gener-

ated materials and engage in the learning process, as noted in the

existing literature (Anger et al. 2004; Eckerman et al. 2004;

Liebeskind 2005; OSHA 2010; Ruttenberg and Lazo 2004).

Because the 3D models provided realistic and easily comprehensi-

ble graphical representations of real incidents, the trainees and train-

ers were able to interact based on their shared understanding of the

scenario; thus, they readily communicated the contents of the mate-

rials. In some cases, the trainees were able to make recommenda-

tions for safer practices even before the trainers did. Thus, the new

training materials provided the trainees with opportunities to view

and manipulate the environment, solve real-time problems, and

facilitate training experiences to come up with hazard-mitigation

solutions; this was expected based on the existing literature

(Goulding et al. 2012). In addition, the authors realized that includ-

ing an interpreter whowas a native speaker of the trainee audience’s

language—Spanish, in this case—would significantly improve the

quality of the training materials.

Overall, Spanish-speaking workers were positive across the

board, whereas English-speaking workers were more diverse in

their opinions about the training materials. This disparity

between English- and Spanish-speaking construction workers in

the evaluation of the training materials is in line with the existing

literature (Brunette 2005; Evia 2011) that highlights the cultural

sensitivity of training materials. The validation outputs support

the findings of the existing literature (Evia 2011; OSHA 2010;

Wallerstein 1992) that emphasize the effectiveness of visualized

and game-based safety training for specific groups of construc-

tion workers.

The reported research, however, also has several limitations

that need to be addressed in the future. First, the project team

reviewed and analyzed construction fall-fatality incidents in the

United States. only. Although the hazard-recognition logic em-

bedded in the training suite developed by the authors is generally

applicable, construction means and methods modeled in the train-

ing material might not always apply to regions that have very dif-

ferent construction approaches. Second, the training materials

and their development methodology were designed to augment

existing training deliveries with the participation of qualified and

effective trainers. For this reason, the selection of trainers is cru-

cial to the maximization of benefits that could be potentially

achieved by the training. In addition, this project developed train-

ing materials for limited types of incidents. It is recommended

that future research diversifies this attempt by focusing on more

diverse roots, locations, and scenarios leading to occupational

fatalities and also on a larger sample of incidents. Furthermore,

the lack of resources and time restrictions prevented the team

from developing a variety of 3D avatars to be used for better cul-

tural connection with the audience. Although the authors tried to

use avatars reasonably similar in appearance to Hispanic workers

(the sample audience of this research), future attempts could bet-

ter address this issue by generating popular as well as physically

similar avatars for the audience. Finally, collaborative efforts are

recommended in the development of a shared library of 3D con-

struction avatars and objects so that future projects can focus their

efforts on generating new ideas and materials instead of develop-

ing models that are repeatedly created by research teams.

Therefore, the next step would be to assess the impact of the mate-

rials developed through this research on improvement of safety

practices in the construction industry. Future research should

include a longitudinal impact assessment so that its success in the

promotion of construction safety can be evaluated.

Acknowledgments

This manuscript was produced as an outcome of a larger project

funded by the OSHA Susan Harwood Training and Educational

Material Development Grant, U.S. Department of Labor (Grant

SH22317-11-60-F-53).

Table 9. Construction Workers’ Evaluation of the Training Material’sTechnical Level

Validation

item Worker group

Too technical

(%)

Right technical

level (%)

Not technical

enough (%)

Technical

level

English-speaking 7 69 24

Spanish-speaking 0 50 50


J. Manage. Eng., 2018, 34(2): 05017009

Dow

nlo

aded

fro

m a

scel

ibra

ry.o

rg b

y S

outh

ern C

alif

orn

ia U

niv

ersi

ty o

n 1

1/2

0/1

7. C

opyri

ght

AS

CE

. F

or

per

sonal

use

only

; al

l ri

ghts

res

erved

.

References

Al-Bayati, A. J., Abudayyeh, O., Fredericks, T., and Butt, S. E. (2017).

“Reducing fatality rates of the Hispanic workforce in the U.S. con-

struction industry: Challenges and strategies.” J. Constr. Eng.

Manage., 10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001269, 04016105.

Anger, W. K., Tamulinas, A., Uribe, A., and Ayala, C. (2004). “Computer-

based training for immigrant Latinos with limited formal education.”

Hisp. J. Behav. Sci., 26(3), 373–389.

BLS (Bureau of Labor Statistics). (2015). “Fatal falls in the private con-

struction industry, 2003–2013.” hhttps://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2015/fatal-falls-in-the-private-construction-industry-2003-2013.htmi (Mar.

10, 2017).

BLS (Bureau of Labor Statistics). (2016a). “Census of fatal occupational

injuries.” hhttp://www.bls.gov/iif/oshcfoi1.htmi (Mar. 10, 2017).

BLS (Bureau of Labor Statistics). (2016b). “Educational attainment for

workers 25 years and older by detailed occupation.” hhttps://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_table_111.htm#1i (Mar. 18, 2017).

BLS (Bureau of Labor Statistics). (2017). “Union Members—2016.”

hhttps://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/union2.pdfi (June 17, 2017).Brunette, M. J. (2004). “Construction safety research in the United States:

Targeting the Hispanic workforce.” Inj. Prev., 10(4), 244–248.

Brunette, M. J. (2005). “Development of educational and training material

on safety and health: Targeting Hispanic workers in the construction

industry.” Fam. Community Health, 28(3), 253–266.

Clevenger, C., and del Puerto, C. L. (2011). “Using 3D visualization to train

Hispanic construction workers.” Proc., 47th Annual Int. Conf. of the

Associated Schools of Construction, Associated Schools of

Construction, Fort Collins, CO.

CPWR (Center to Protect Workers Rights). (2013). The construction chart

book, 5th Ed., Silver Spring, MD.

Dai, J., and Goodrum, P. M. (2011). “Differences in perspectives regarding

labor productivity between Spanish-and English-speaking craft work-

ers.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862

.0000329, 689–697.

de Freitas, S. (2006). “Learning in immersive worlds: A review of game-

based learning.” Technical Rep. Prepared for JISC e-Learning

Programme, JISC, Bristol, U.K.

de Freitas, S., and Jarvis, S. (2006). “A framework for developing serious

games to meet learner needs.” Proc., Interservice/Industry Training,

Simulation and Education Conf., I/IT, SEC, Arlington, VA.

de Freitas, S., and Neumann, T. (2009). “The use of ‘exploratory learning’

for supporting immersive learning in virtual environments.” Comput.

Educ., 52(2), 343–352.

de Freitas, S., and Oliver, M. (2006). “How can exploratory learning with

games and simulations within the curriculum be most effectively eval-

uated?”Comput. Educ., 46(3), 249–264.

de Freitas, S., Savill-Smith, C., and Attewell, J. (2006). Computer games

and simulations for adult learning: Case studies from practice,

Learning and Skills Research Centre, London.

Dong, X., and Platner, J. W. (2004). “Occupational fatalities of Hispanic

construction workers from 1992 to 2000.” Am. J. Ind. Med., 45(1),

45–54.

Dong, X. S., Fujimoto, A., Ringen, K., and Men, Y. (2009). “Fatal falls

among Hispanic construction workers.” Accid. Anal. Prev., 41(5),

1047–1052.

Eckerman, D. A., Abrahamson, K., Ammerman, T., Fercho, H., Rohlman,

D. S., and Anger,W. K. (2004). “Computer-based training for food serv-

ices workers at a hospital.” J. Safety Res., 35(3), 317–327.

Edirisinghe, R., and Lingard, H. (2016). “Exploring the potential for the use

of video to communicate safety information to construction workers:

Case studies of organizational use.” Constr. Manage. Econ., 34(6),

366–376.

Evia, C. (2011). “Localizing and designing computer-based safety training

solutions for Hispanic construction workers.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage.,

10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000313, 452–459.

Goodrum, P. M. (2004). “Hispanic and non-Hispanic wage differentials:

Implications for United States construction industry.” J. Constr. Eng.

Manage., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2004)130:4(552), 552–559.

Goodrum, P. M., and Dai, J. (2005). “Differences in occupational inju-

ries, illnesses, and fatalities among Hispanic and non-Hispanic con-

struction workers.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733

-9364(2005)131:9(1021), 1021–1028.

Goulding, J., Nadim, W., Petridis, P., and Alshawi, M. (2012).

“Construction industry offsite production: A virtual reality interactive

training environment prototype.” Adv. Eng. Inf., 26(1), 103–116.

Guo, H., Li, H., Chan, G., and Skitmore, M. (2012). “Using game tech-

nologies to improve the safety of construction plant operations.”

Accid. Anal. Prev., 48, 204–213.

Han, S. H., Park, S. H., Jin, E. J., Kim, H., and Seong, Y. K. (2008).

“Critical issues and possible solutions for motivating foreign construc-

tion workers.” J. Manage. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)0742-597X(2008)24:

4(217), 217–226.

Huang, X., and Hinze, J. (2003). “Analysis of construction worker fall acci-

dents.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2003)129:

3(262), 262–271.

ILO (International Labor Organization). (1995). “Social and labor issues

concerning migrant workers in the construction industry.” Technical

Rep. Prepared Tripartite Meeting, International Labor Organization

(ILO), Geneva.

Janicak, C. A. (1998). “Fall-related deaths in construction industry.” J.

Safety Res., 29(1), 35–42.

Jiang, W., Lu, Y., and Le, Y. (2016). “Trust and project success: A twofold

perspective between owners and contractors.” J. Manage. Eng., 10.1061

/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000469, 04016022.

Karjalainen, A. (2004). “A statistical portrait of health and safety at work in

the construction industry.” Actions to improve safety and health in con-

struction, European Agency for Safety and Health at Work,

Luxembourg, 1–2.

Li, H., Chan, G., and Skitmore, M. (2012). “Visualizing safety assessment by

integrating the use of game technology.”Autom. Constr., 22, 498–505.

Liao, P.-C., Lei, G., Xue, J., and Fang, D. (2015). “Influence of person-

organizational fit on construction safety climate.” J. Manage. Eng., 10

.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000257, 04014049.

Liebeskind, K. (2005). “With open arms.”Occup. Health Saf., 74(11), 72.

Lin, K.-Y., Migliaccio, G., Azari, R., Lee, C. H., and de la Llata, J. (2012).

“Developing 3D safety training materials on fall related hazards for lim-

ited English proficiency (LEP) and low literacy (LL) construction work-

ers.” Proc., Int. Conf. on Computing Civil Engineering, ASCE, Reston,

VA, 113–120.

Lin, K.-Y., Son, J. W., and Rojas, E. M. (2011). “A pilot study of a 3D game

environment for construction safety education.” J. Inf. Tech. Constr.,

16, 69–84.

Loh, K., and Richardson, S. (2004). “Foreign-born workers: Trends in fatal

occupational injuries, 1996–2001.”Mon. Labor Rev., 127, 42–53.

Loosemore, M., and Lee, P. (2002). “Communication problems with ethnic

minorities in the construction industry.” Int. J. Project Manage., 20(7),

517–524.

Lucko, G., and Rojas, E. M. (2010). “Research validation: Challenges and

opportunities in the construction domain.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 10

.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000025, 127–135.

Luo, L., He, Q., Xie, J., Yang, D., and Wu, G. (2017). “Investigating the

relationship between project complexity and success in complex con-

struction projects.” J. Manage. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479

.0000471, 04016036.

Magerko, B., and Laird, J. (2002). “Towards building an interactive,

scenario-based training simulator.” Proc., Computer-Generated Forces

and Behavior Representation Conf., Simulation Interoperability

Standards Organization, Orlando, FL.

Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multimedia learning, Cambridge Univ., Cambridge,

U.K.

McDonald, J. H. (2008). Handbook of biological statistics, Sparkey House,

Baltimore, MD.

Mitchell, A., and Savill-Smith, C. (2004). The use of computer and video

games for learning. A review of the literature, Learning and Skills

Development Agency, London.

Mundry, R., and Fischer, J. (1998). “Use of statistical programs for nonpara-

metric tests of small samples often leads to incorrect P values: Examples

from animal behaviour.” Anim. Behav., 56(1), 256–259.


J. Manage. Eng., 2018, 34(2): 05017009

Dow

nlo

aded

fro

m a

scel

ibra

ry.o

rg b

y S

outh

ern C

alif

orn

ia U

niv

ersi

ty o

n 1

1/2

0/1

7. C

opyri

ght

AS

CE

. F

or

per

sonal

use

only

; al

l ri

ghts

res

erved

.

NAHB (National Association of Homebuilders). (2013). “Immigrant work-

ers in the construction labor force.” hhttps://www.nahb.org/generic.aspx?sectionID=734&genericContentID=200529&channelID=311i (June

28, 2014).

NAHB (National Association of Homebuilders). (2015). “Immigrant workers

in the construction labor force.” hhttps://www.nahbclassic.org/fileUpload_details.aspx?contentTypeID=3&contentID=241345&subContentID=

637756&channelID=311i (Mar. 10, 2017).

Namian, M., Albert, A., Zuluaga, C. M., and Behm, M. (2016). “Role of

safety training: Impact on hazard recognition and safety risk per-

ception.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862

.0001198, 04016073.

NIOSH (National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health). (2017).

“Fatality Assessment and Control Evaluation (FACE) program.”

hhttps://www.cdc.gov/niosh/face/default.htmli (Mar. 10, 2017).

O’Connor, T., Loomis, D., Runyan, C., dal Santo, J. A., and Schulman,

M. (2005). “Adequacy of health and safety training among young

Latino construction workers.” J. Occup. Environ. Med., 47(3),

272–277.

Olson, R., Varga, A., Cannon, A., Jones, J., Gilbert-Jones, I., and Zoller, E.

(2016). “Toolbox talks to prevent construction fatalities: Empirical de-

velopment and evaluation.” Saf. Sci., 86, 122–131.

OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration). (n.d.). “Major

group 17: Construction special trade contractors.” hhttps://www.osha.gov/pls/imis/sic_manual.display?id=12&tab=groupi (Nov. 2, 2017).

OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration). (2010). “Best

practices for the development, delivery, and evaluation of Susan

Harwood training grants.” hhttp://www.osha.gov/dte/sharwood/best-practices.html#_Toc273454944i (Nov. 2, 2017).

Pransky, G., Moshenberg, D., Benjamin, K., Portillo, S., Thackrey, J. L.,

and Hill-Fotouhi, C. (2002). “Occupational risks and injuries in non-

agricultural immigrant Latino workers.” Am. J. Ind. Med., 42(2),

117–123.

Rathod, J. (2009). “Immigrant labor and the occupational safety and health

regime. Part I: A new vision for workplace regulation.” N.Y. Univ. Rev.

Law Social Change, 33(4), 479–560.

Ruttenberg, R., and Lazo, M. (2004). “Spanish-speaking construction work-

ers discuss their safety needs and experiences.” Residential

Construction Training Program Evaluation Rep., Center to Protect

Workers’Rights, Silver Springs,MD.

Swider, S. C. (2008). “Behind great walls: Modes of employment among

migrant construction workers in China’s informal labor market.” Ph.D.

thesis, Univ. ofWisconsin–Madison, Madison,WI.

Takala, J. (2005). “Introductory report: Decent work—Safe work.” Proc.,

XVIth World Congress on Safety and Health at Work, International

Labour Organization, Geneva.

Tezel, A., Koskela, L., Tzortzopoulos, P., Formoso, C. T., and Alves, T.

(2015). “Visual management in Brazilian construction companies:

Taxonomy and guidelines for implementation.” J. Manage. Eng.,

10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000354, 05015001.

3dsMax [Computer software]. Autodesk, San Rafael, CA.

Unity [Computer software]. Unity Technologies, San Francisco.

Wallerstein, N. (1992). “Health and safety education for workers with low-

literacy or limited-English skills.” Am. J. Ind. Med., 22(5), 751–765.

Wang,Y., Goodrum, P.M.,Haas, C. T., andGlover, R.W. (2008). “Craft train-

ing issues in American industrial and commercial construction.” J. Constr.

Eng.Manage, 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2008)134:10(795), 795–803.

Yuan, J., Wang, C., Skibniewski, M. J., and Li, Q. (2012). “Developing

key performance indicators for public-private partnership projects:

Questionnaire survey and analysis.” J. Manage. Eng., 10.1061

/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000113, 252–264.

Ziegahn, L. (1992). “Learning, literacy, and participation: Sorting out prior-

ities.” Adult Educ. Q., 43(1), 30–50.

Zong, J., and Batalova, J. (2015). “The limited English proficient population

in the United States.” hhttp://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/limited

-english-proficient-population-united-statesi (Mar. 18, 2017).


J. Manage. Eng., 2018, 34(2): 05017009

Dow

nlo

aded

fro

m a

scel

ibra

ry.o

rg b

y S

outh

ern C

alif

orn

ia U

niv

ersi

ty o

n 1

1/2

0/1

7. C

opyri

ght

AS

CE

. F

or

per

sonal

use

only

; al

l ri

ghts

res

erved

.

Documents

Training of Low-Literacy and Low-English-Proficiency ... · LL workers within construction have not been validated. Although computer-based training material is recommended for training