Safety sign comprehension by students, adult workers and disabled persons with cerebral palsy

Abstract This research carried out comprehension testing on a set of symbol-based safety signs using three diverse groups of participants that included adult workers, college students and persons afflicted with cerebral palsy. Few studies have examined “differently abled” populations with respect to safety signs. Open comprehension testing of a set of 17 ISO (International Organization for Standardization) symbol-based safety signs was carried out using ISO 9186 criteria. The intended message for each safety sign was conveyed via two components, a graphical symbol and a surrounding shape–color background. Results showed that most of the signs were not well understood. In some cases, participants were able to correctly understand the meaning of the symbol, but failed to understand the meaning of the shape–color code or vice versa. In general, the adult workers and college students achieved higher comprehension scores than individuals with cerebral palsy. Despite the lower scores obtained by the cerebral palsy group, the pattern of comprehension levels for the “good” and “bad” signs were similar across the three groups. Other findings included statistically significant associations between comprehension and the individual/experience variables (e.g., age, gender, and have a driver’s license). Issues associated with categorizing participant responses, including the use of criteria for separately evaluating the meaning of the symbols and color–shape codes, are discussed.

[1]  The Influence of Pictorials on the Comprehension and Recall of Pharmaceutical Safety and Warning Information , 2011 .

[2]  David B. Boles,et al.  The Effect of Symbols on Warning Compliance , 1990 .

[3]  Tonya L Smith-Jackson,et al.  Cultural Ergonomics in Ghana, West Africa: A Descriptive Survey of Industry and Trade Workers’ Interpretations of Safety Symbols , 2002, International journal of occupational safety and ergonomics : JOSE.

[4]  Michael W. Riley,et al.  An Investigation of Preferred Shapes for Warning Labels , 1982 .

[5]  Michael S. Wogalter,et al.  Comprehension of Pictorial Symbols: Effects of Context and Test Method , 1998, Hum. Factors.

[6]  Michael S. Wogalter,et al.  Handbook of Warnings , 2006 .

[7]  Holly E. Hancock,et al.  Understanding Age-Related Differences in the Perception and Comprehension of Symbolic Warning Information , 1999 .

[8]  W J Horrey,et al.  Age-related differences in warning symbol comprehension and training effectiveness: effects of familiarity, complexity, and comprehensibility , 2011, Ergonomics.

[9]  H. Hoonhout.  Evaluating Graphical Messages for Mentally Retarded Adults; Do Pictures Get the Intended Information Across? , 2000 .

[10]  Michael S. Wogalter,et al.  Behavioral compliance with warnings: effects of voice, context, and location , 1993 .

[11]  Michael S. Wogalter,et al.  Users' Hazard Perceptions of Warning Components: An Examination of Colors and Symbols , 2000 .

[12]  P Cairney,et al.  Communication effectiveness of symbolic safety signs with different user groups. , 1982, Applied ergonomics.

[13]  Alan H S Chan,et al.  The guessability of traffic signs: effects of prospective-user factors and sign design features. , 2007, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[14]  M. Wogalter,et al.  Comprehension and Memory of Instruction Manual Warnings: Conspicuous Print and Pictorial Icons , 1990 .

[15]  Keyla Friedmann,et al.  The effect of adding symbols to written warning labels on user behavior and recall , 1988 .

[16]  Gavriel Salvendy,et al.  Design of Icons for Use by Chinese in Mainland China , 1998, Interact. Comput..

[17]  N. Clayton Silver,et al.  Comprehension of Aviation Safety Pictograms: Gender and Prior Safety Card Reading Influences , 1997 .

[18]  Anne Marsden,et al.  International Organization for Standardization , 2014 .

[19]  Michael S. Wogalter,et al.  Measuring Visual Search Time for a Product Warning Label as a Function of Icon, Color, Column and Vertical Placement , 1999 .

[20]  Michael S. Wogalter,et al.  Pharmaceutical container labels: enhancing preference perceptions with alternative designs and pictorials , 1996 .

[21]  Rosa García Couto.  Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (GHS) , 2009 .

[22]  Holly E. Hancock,et al.  Safety Symbol Comprehension: Effects of Symbol Type, Familiarity, and Age , 2004, Hum. Factors.

[23]  Michael S. Wogalter,et al.  Comprehension and Memory , 1999 .

[24]  Shirley M. Otsubo.  A Behavioral Study of Warning Labels for Consumer Products: Perceived Danger and Use of Pictographs , 1988 .

[25]  Kent P. Vaubel,et al.  The Noticeability of Warnings on Alcoholic Beverage Containers , 1993 .

[26]  Hyeon K. Lim,et al.  Cognition of Hazard Levels with Safety Signs and Pictograms in Korea , 2000 .

[27]  Jennifer L. Fabbi,et al.  Comprehensibility of Pharmaceutical Pictorials among People with Mental Retardation , 1998 .

[28]  Anand K. Gramopadhye,et al.  Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society , 2008 .

[29]  J R Wilson,et al.  Safety pictograms: are they getting the message across? , 1998, Applied ergonomics.

[30]  R. Mishra.  Perception and Comprehension of Some Pictorial Symbols as a Function of Familiarity and Nature of Depicted Object , 1982, Perceptual and motor skills.

[31]  M. Wogalter,et al.  Comprehension and retention of safety pictorials , 1997 .

[32]  E. L. Ringseis,et al.  The Comprehensibility and Legibility of Twenty Pharmaceutical Warning Pictograms , 1995 .