Construction Research Congress 2016 2861

Impact of Training Methods on Hazard Recognition and Risk Perception in

Construction

Carlos M. Zuluaga, S.M.ASCE1; Mostafa Namian2; and Alex Albert,

A.M.ASCE3
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 01/07/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

1
Graduate Research Assistant, Dept. of Civil, Construction and Environmental
Engineering, North Carolina State Univ., Raleigh, NC. E-mail:
cmzuluag@ncsu.edu
2
Graduate Research Assistant, Dept. of Civil, Construction and Environmental
Engineering, North Carolina State Univ., Raleigh, NC. E-mail:
mnamian@ncsu.edu
3
Assistant Professor, Dept. of Civil, Construction and Environmental Engineering,
North Carolina State Univ., Raleigh, NC. E-mail: alex_albert@ncsu.edu

Abstract
Disproportionate injury rates continue to be a major issue in the construction
industry. Complex working conditions, and the challenges associated with detecting
and managing hazards in dynamic environments are partly responsible for these high
incident rates. To improve safety performance, employers provide hazard recognition
and management training to workers. However, past research reveal that traditional
training programs are inadequately designed, and do not facilitate efficient
knowledge transfer. This study assessed the perception of training delivery methods,
its impact on worker’s hazard recognition performance, and its subsequent influence
on worker’s risk perception. Construction personnel from 49 projects in the United
States were asked to identify training methods adopted by their organizations. In
addition, the hazard recognition ability and risk perception of workers were assessed
using a random sample of construction photographs captured from real projects.
Strong statistical significance was found between the training’s level of engagement,
hazard recognition performance and risk perception. The results of the study can be
used by managers to select efficient training methods that will help improve hazard
recognition, risk perception and overall safety performance.

INTRODUCTION
Unacceptable injury rates continue to be a major concern in the construction
industry. Cases with days away from work, and the number of fatalities in
construction between 2012 and 2013 were the highest among all major private
industry sectors in the United States (Bureau of Labor Statistics 2014; 2015). A
disproportionate number of these injuries occur because workers are often unable to
identify and manage hazards in dynamic and rapidly changing work environments
(Albert and Hallowell 2012). This is exacerbated by resource limitations in small
projects, lack of standardized construction methods, and project scope changes.
Hazard recognition ( ) is the foundation for health and risk management (Bahn

© ASCE

Construction Research Congress 2016

 Construction Research Congress 2016 2862

2013) as accident prevention measures may not be established for unrecognized

hazards. Unfortunately, several studies have shown insufficient hazard recognition
levels in the construction industry. For example, Carter and Smith (2006) studied
three different industry projects, and found that an average 26% of the hazards remain
unidentified. Perlman et al. (2014) found that construction superintendents and safety
directors were unable to identify 66% of correct hazards. These unidentified hazards
compromise the safety of the workforce (Gonzalez et al. 2015). When hazards remain
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 01/07/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

unrecognized, workers will not be able to adopt appropriate safety controls to prevent
injury, thus becoming exposed to unanticipated risks with dire consequences (Albert
et al. 2014c; Zhang et al. 2015).
Risk is an abstract concept that is inherently subjective, but essential to
understand and manage hazards (Weyman and Kelly 1999). Risk is generally
quantified as a function of the expected frequency and severity of injuries that can
result from exposure to hazards (Hallowell 2010). Rodriguez-Garzon et al. (2015)
argue that higher levels of risk perception ( ) in the workplace are associated with
self-preservation and safe behaviors. Unfortunately, studies show that the perception
of risk varies widely. For instance, MacDonald (2006) concluded that well-qualified
and experienced site managers displayed different views of risk. Hallowell (2010)
found significant statistical difference between the risk tolerance of construction
workers and managers. Also, Zhang et al. (2015) found differences in risk perception
between safety professionals, construction managers, engineers and architects.
Furthermore, past research suggests that workers’ perception of risk are lower than
desirable resulting in workplace unsafe behaviors and violations (Perlman et al.
2014). To adopt coherent and coordinated safety efforts, it is important that project
participants are aligned in their perception of risk (Zhang et al. 2015).
Proper hazard recognition and the associated risk perception are fundamental
for implementing a successful safety program. To enhance hazard recognition and
risk perception, employers put workers through diverse training programs (Perlman et
al. 2014). The objective of training is to transfer safety knowledge and empower
workers to make safety conscious decisions. The importance of safety training has
been emphasized by previous research (Bahn and Barratt-Pugh 2014; Demirkesen
and Arditi 2015; McGraw Hill Construction 2013). For example, a study of 169
construction workers found that training is the only variable differentiating
individuals with high-risk perception and low-risk perception levels (Rodriguez-
Garzon et al. 2015).
While there is consensus regarding the importance of training, several studies
have identified deficiencies with traditional training programs. To illustrate, Wilkins
(2011) surveyed workers to assess their level of satisfaction with training they had
received. The results of the study revealed that 41% of the workers believed that their
trainers were ineffective. In addition, 32% of workers were unsatisfied with the
training material and resources.
Other studies focused on differentiating effective and ineffective training
methods. For example, Sacks et al. (2013) demonstrated that workers that receive
low-engaging training were more prone to distractions during training; whereas
workers that received high-engaging training were attentive for longer periods. Burke
et al. (2006) evaluated various training strategies and found statistical evidence

© ASCE

Construction Research Congress 2016

 Construction Research Congress 2016 2863

suggesting that active and high-engaging training methods were associated with
desirable outcomes. Furthermore, high-engaging training methods are associated with
better safety knowledge acquisition and safety performance (Burke et al. 2011). In
response to these findings, several innovative training methods that focus on
effectively engaging workers have been proposed (Albert et al. 2014a; Occupational
Safety & Health Administration 2014; Sacks et al. 2013).
To ensure the effective transfer of safety knowledge, Dermikesen and Arditi
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 01/07/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(2015) encourage employers to pay attention to training approaches and their

effectiveness. In this line of thought, the objective of this study is to assess the impact
of training methods and engagement levels on worker’s hazard recognition ability
and risk perception. The results of this study will provide construction professionals
guidance for implementing comprehensive and efficient safety training programs to
improve overall safety performance.

RESEARCH METHODS
To evaluate the impact of training methods on hazard recognition and risk
perception, data were gathered from 49 projects in the United States. From each of
these projects, one management employee and one construction worker were
interviewed. The information sought from the management employee included
project demographic details, specifically contract type, delivery method, dollar value
and accumulated worker-hours. In addition, traditional safety performance metrics
such as number of workers injured, and recordable injury rates (RIR) were gathered.
Subsequently, the worker was interviewed. First, the worker was asked to
provide sociodemographic information such as age, experience, and trade focus.
Second, the worker was asked to assess the hazard recognition training approach that
was provided by their employer based on the criteria presented in Table 2 (Robson et
al. 2010). Finally, the hazard recognition ability and the risk perception of the worker
was assessed using four construction photographs randomly assigned from a pool of
16 photographs. All 16 photographs depicted construction activities captured from
real projects in the United States. These were pre-identified by a group of
construction experts, and were successfully used to measure hazard recognition in
previous studies (Albert et al. 2014a; 2014b; 2014c). For each one of the four
pictures, the worker was asked to indicate and briefly describe all the hazards in the
depicted scenario. Following the hazard recognition activity, the worker filled a
subjective risk assessment form as presented in Table 1.

Table 1 - Subjective risk assessment form

Injury frequency
Injury type Once every Once every ten
Once every month Once every year
week years
1. Discomfort / Pain
2. First aid
3. Medical case
4 .Lost work time
5. Permanent disablement
or fatality

© ASCE

Construction Research Congress 2016

 Construction Research Congress 2016 2864

Later, the data were examined using descriptive and inferential statistical
methods to assess the impact of training approaches on the hazard recognition ability
and risk perception of workers. The software of choice was Matlab R2015a.

RESULTS
Project and worker’s demographic statistics are shown in Table 3 through
Table 5. The data included projects located in 12 different states, with the majority
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 01/07/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

located in North Carolina (59%) followed by Virginia (8%). Project scope value
ranged between $96,000 and $200,000,000 with an average of $33,420,000. On
average, the projects were 73% complete. The case projects were representative of
the construction industry and workforce in the U.S., and included a variety of project
types, contracting methods, and project sizes.

Table 2 - Training type choices

Type Training method characteristics
A Very low engagement Trainer centric Minor discussions
training Requires only attentiveness Offsite
(VLET) No feedback

B Low engagement Trainer centric Discussion encouraged

training Moderate interaction Offsite
(LET) No feedback

C High engagement Trainee centric Discussion and activity

training High-level of interaction oriented
(HET) Feedback provided Offsite

D Very high engagement Trainee centric mentor Discussion and activity

training High-level interactivity oriented
(VHET) Feedback provided Onsite
Mentoring/shadowing

Table 3 – Projects’ demographic data

Location Type of project Contract method
NC VA Others Commercial Residential Infrastructure Others D-B-B GC D-B Others
29 4 16 14 10 8 17 19 15 8 6
Notes: D-B-B: Design-Bid-Build; GC: General Contractor; D-B: Design-Build.

Table 4 – Projects’ demographic data, continued

Approx. value Approx. completion Project recordable injuries OSHA RIR*
<1mil 1 - 10 mil >10 mil ≤50% >50% 0-1 2-4 >5 0-1 1-4 >4
7 17 22 4 45 38 6 5 3 12 4
* Information provided by 19 projects only.

Table 5 – Workers’ demographic data

Age (years) Experience (years) Trade
18 - 29 30 - 50 >50 0 - 10 11 - 25 >25 Civil Carpenter Mechanical Others
10 32 7 21 23 5 14 8 5 22

© ASCE

Construction Research Congress 2016

 Construction Research Congress 2016 2865

Based on the workers’ responses, a hazard recognition index was calculated

for each photograph as described by Albert et al. (2014b) using the following
equation:
(%) = 100%

Where, are the number of hazards identified by the worker, and

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 01/07/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

is the total number of hazards present in the photograph. is based on hazards

identified by a panel of 17 construction professionals, more than 100 workers
evaluated in previous studies, and the workers that participated in this specific study.
The index could theoretically vary from as low as 0% when no hazards were
identified up to 100% when all hazards were identified. While it is impossible to be
absolutely certain that all identifiable hazards ( ) were accounted for, this
methodology still provides a benchmark level to which the workers can be compared
meaningfully (Carter and Smith 2006).
Minimum, average, and maximum values of hazard recognition classified by
training engagement level are shown on Figure 1. As training methods with higher
engagement level were adopted, the overall hazard recognition performance of
corresponding workers were higher on average. The only exception was that workers
who received low engagement training performed more poorly, on average, than
those that received very low engagement training. However, the difference between
the two groups was not statistically significant (see Table 6).

100%
90.91% 93.75%
90%
Hazard recognition level (%)

85.71%
80% 77.78%
70%
64.39%
60% 59.28%
50% 51.66%
47.86%
40%
30% 27.27%
23.53% 25.00%
20%
16.67%
10%
VLET (n=64) LET (n=48) HET (n=56) VHET (n=28)
Training engagement level (number of data points)

Figure 1 - Minimum, average and maximum values for hazard recognition

The numerical analysis for risk perception was performed in terms of unit risk
as described by Hallowell (2010). The severity scale proposed by the previous author
was used for each injury type ( ), in combination with the frequency selection (in
worker-hours) made by the worker. A risk perception score was calculated for each
one of the photographs assessed by each worker in accordance with the equation
below.

© ASCE

Construction Research Congress 2016

 Construction Research Congress 2016 2866

= ( ) ∗ ( − ℎ)

Z-scores were calculated for the risk perception data to better represent risk
levels. Workers with z-scores above zero perceived risk to be above average, whereas
z-scores below zero indicated that workers perceived risk to be lower than average.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 01/07/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Z-scores were first calculated within-photograph and subsequently within-sample as

introduced by Leung and Bond (as cited in Fischer 2004). Therefore, the risk
perception mean value across the 16 photograph groups and across all risk perception
data was zero. Minimum, average, and maximum values for each training
engagement level are presented on Figure 2.

4.00
Standarized risk perception scores

3.29 3.46
3.00
2.53
2.00 1.94

1.00 0.84
0.00 -0.09 -0.08 -0.24
-0.74
-1.00 -1.06 -1.04
-1.25
-2.00
VLET (n=64) LET (n=48) HET (n=56) VHET (n=28)
Training engagement level (number of data points)

Figure 2 - Standardized minimum, average and maximum values for risk

perception
Although Figure 1 and Figure 2 depict VHET as having the highest overall
scores in both hazard recognition and risk perception, a more complete understanding
of these results was desired. Before selecting the statistical method for comparison,
the data were assessed for normality using normal probability plots in combination
with Chi-squared goodness of fit, Jarque-Bera, Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Lilliefors
tests. The hazard recognition data adequately fit a normal distribution but the risk
perception data did not satisfy the requirements for normality. For this reason, the
hazard recognition data were tested using a one-way ANOVA and the risk perception
with the Kruskal-Wallis H-test (KW), its nonparametric counterpart. In each case, a
post hoc or multiple comparison test using Bonferroni method followed to understand
which pairs of training types were significantly different. For all methods, a
significance level =0.05 was chosen.
The null hypothesis for the one-way ANOVA was that the hazard recognition
mean values between the four groups were equal. The null hypothesis was rejected [F
(3,192) = 8.09, MSB = 0.2154, p <0.01] indicating that the hazard recognition mean
of at least one group was significantly different. The multiple comparison test

© ASCE

Construction Research Congress 2016

 Construction Research Congress 2016 2867

confirmed which pairs of training engagement levels differ significantly, as shown in

Table 6.
The results suggest that there are significant differences between VLET and
LET compared to HET and VHET, suggesting that higher training engagement levels
have a positive influence in the hazard recognition performance of workers.
In regard to risk perception, the KW test null hypothesis stated that there was
no tendency for risk perception to rank higher or lower for any of the training
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 01/07/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

methods. The results revealed a rejection of the null hypotheses [ (3,192) =

21.3793, MSB = 2.289e4, p = <0.01] and the multiple comparison test (Table 7)
indicated that there is a significant difference in the risk perception scores of the
VHET group versus all other three training methods. However, no statistical
difference between the risk perception scores of VLET, LET and HET was proven.

Table 6 – Results for multiple Table 7 - Results for multiple

comparison procedure for hazard comparison procedure for risk
recognition perception
LET HET VHET LET HET VHET
VLET No No Yes VLET No No Yes
LET - Yes Yes LET - No Yes
HET - - No HET - - Yes
Note: ‘Yes’ indicates difference with a Note: ‘Yes’ indicates difference with a
p-value <= 0.01 p-value <= 0.01

Lastly, the hazard recognition data was sorted and categorized. The
standardized risk perception mean for each category were calculated as illustrated on
Figure 3. The data shows that increased risk perception levels are associated with
better hazard recognition performance.

1.00 0.90
Stadnarized risk perception scores

0.80 0.70

0.60
0.40
R² = 0.8624
0.15
0.20 0.09
0.01
0.00
-0.20
-0.14 -0.19
-0.40
-0.38
-0.60 -0.37
0 - 20 20 - 30 30 - 40 40 - 50 50 - 60 60 - 70 70 - 80 80 - 90 90 - 100
Hazard recognition levels (%)

Figure 3 - Standardized risk perception scores by hazard recognition categories

DISCUSSION
The majority of the workers in this study classified their training as low
engaging (57.1%). This is evidence that the majority of the workers perceive they are

© ASCE

Construction Research Congress 2016

 Construction Research Congress 2016 2868

not required to actively participate in training sessions, and receive little or no

feedback from their trainers and managers regarding their performance.
The analysis of the association between the training engagement levels and
hazard recognition concluded that there is a positive correlation between the two
variables as shown on Figure 1. The results of the ANOVA and subsequent multiple
comparison test exhibit that there is significant difference between means of VLET
and LET compared to HET and VHET (p < 0.01). In other words, the scores between
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 01/07/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

VLET and LET do not differ significantly, nor do HET and VHET. To illustrate, the
average hazard recognition score of the sample of workers was 54%. Worker’s
hazard recognition performance among those that received VLET and LET were
below average, while those who received HET and VHET performed above average
(See Figure 1). Like other studies in the construction industry that used high-
engaging training methods (Albert et al. 2014a; Sacks et al. 2013), and studies for
industries other than construction (Burke et al. 2006), this study finds that high-
engaging training methods are associated with higher hazard recognition levels of
construction workers.
Similar to companies that cannot establish control measures for unrecognized
hazards, workers cannot judge how severe and probable risky situations are when the
hazards themselves have not been identified in the first place. This is illustrated by
Figure 3. The analysis shows a positive correlation between hazard recognition and
risk perception. Our findings reinforce the suggestions by Perlman et al. (2014). They
suggest that risk perception of workers is influenced by their hazard recognition
ability. Moreover, they argue that hazard recognition performance improves as a
function of effective training.
The risk perception score for the VHET group, as shown on Figure 2, is
higher than the other three training groups. The succeeding multiple comparison test
shown in Table 7 exhibit that these differences are statistically significant. We
expected to find a correlation where higher training engagement levels were
associated with increased levels of risk perception. This was not the case. However,
the data suggests that an indirect relationship between training methods and risk
perception exists. As previously explained, more engaging training methods are
associated with higher levels of hazard recognition; and in turn, hazard recognition
positively influences risk perception.
Past studies have identified engaging training methods to be more effective
than traditional methods (Burke et al. 2006; Demirkesen and Arditi 2015). Even more
effective in high-hazard scenarios (Burke et al. 2011); which is the case of most
construction sites. Other studies suggested that training increases hazard recognition
in construction workers (Albert et al. 2014a; 2014b; 2014c), and others suggested that
more training is associated with high-risk perception (Rodriguez-Garzon et al. 2015).
These studies point to the conclusion that better understanding of training methods
and best practices can potentially lead to improvements in overall safety performance.
This study contributes to the body of knowledge by describing the relationship
between hazard recognition, risk perception and training methods; more specifically,
details about the qualities of these methods.

© ASCE

Construction Research Congress 2016

 Construction Research Congress 2016 2869

CONCLUSION
The primary contribution of this paper is to assess the impact of training
methods on both hazard recognition and risk perception of workers in the
construction industry.
The average hazard recognition score of 54% for the entire dataset points out
that there are still deficiencies in the hazard recognition ability of construction
workers. This is not surprising considering past studies with similar findings (Albert
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 01/07/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

et al. 2014c; Bahn 2013; Perlman et al. 2014). This research demonstrates that
training can effectively improve hazard recognition and risk perception, both of
which are important predictors of safety performance. This research finds that
workers who are trained with high-engaging methods are able to identify a larger
proportion of hazards, and in turn, also perceive risk levels to be higher in
comparable cases. This is an important advancement from past research which had
studied these topics independently from each other. We emphasize the need to invest
in more effective and engaging training methods. If high-engaging training
interventions are widely implemented, the construction industry should experience a
reduction in the rate of accidents as a higher number of hazards are expected to be
recognized and adequately managed.
Further research should focus on characterizing specific elements used in
construction training methods. Proper understanding of effective training elements
should provide safety professionals with the knowledge to tailor and create effective
training programs. Once these elements have been identified, baseline studies should
follow to validate how the implementation of effective training elements influence 1)
the hazard recognition and risk perception of workers, 2) injury rates and 3) the return
on investment.

REFERENCES
Albert, A., and Hallowell, M. (2012). "Hazard recognition methods in the
construction industry." Proc., Construction Research Congress 2012,
American Society of Civil Engineers, West Lafayette, IN, 407-416.
Albert, A., Hallowell, M., Kleiner, B., Chen, A., Golpavar-Fard, M. (2014a).
"Enhancing Construction Hazard Recognition with High-Fidelity Augmented
Virtuality." J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 140(7).
Albert, A., Hallowell, M., Kleiner, B. (2014b). "Enhancing Construction Hazard
Recognition and Communication with Energy-Based Cognitive Mnemonics
and Safety Meeting Maturity Model: Multiple Baseline Study." J. Constr.
Eng. Manage., 140(2).
Albert, A., Hallowell, M., Kleiner, B. (2014c). "Experimental Field Testing of a Real-
Time Construction Hazard Identification and Transmission Technique."
Constr. Manage. Econ., 32(10), 1000-1016.
Bahn, S., and Barratt-Pugh, L. (2014). "Safety Training Evaluation: The Case of
Construction Induction Training and the Impact on Work-Related Injuries in
the Western Australian Construction Sector." International Journal of
Training Research, 12(2), 148-157.
Bahn, S. (2013). "Workplace Hazard Identification and Management: The Case of an
Underground Mining Operation." Saf. Sci., 57, 129-137.

© ASCE

Construction Research Congress 2016

 Construction Research Congress 2016 2870

Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2015). Revision to the 2013 Census of Fatal

Occupational Injuries (CFOI) Counts.
Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2014). Employer-Reported Workplace Injuries and
Illnesses.
Burke, M. J., Sarpy, S. A., Smith-Crowe, K., Chan-Serafin, S., Salvador, R. O.,
Islam, G. (2006). "Relative Effectiveness of Worker Safety and Health
Training Methods." Am. J. Public. Health, 96(2), 315-324.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 01/07/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Burke, M. J., Salvador, R. O., Smith-Crowe, K., Chan-Serafin, S., Smith, A., Sonesh,
S. (2011). "The Dread Factor: How Hazards and Safety Training Influence
Learning and Performance." J. Appl. Psychol., 96(1), 46-70.
Carter, G., and Smith, S. (2006). "Safety Hazard Identification on Construction
Projects." J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 132(2), 197-205.
Demirkesen, S., and Arditi, D. (2015). "Construction Safety Personnel's Perceptions
of Safety Training Practices." Int. J. Project Manage., 33(5), 1160-1169.
Fischer, R. (2004). "Standardization to Account for Cross-Cultural Response Bias: A
Classification of Score Adjustment Procedures and Review of Research in
JCCP." Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 35(3), 263-282.
Gonzalez, E. A., Presto, R. S., Remacha, A. C., Santos, A. N. (2015). "A model
describing hazard identification effectiveness of workers in the construction
and maintenance industry." Proc., GCC Conference and Exhibition
(GCCCE), 2015 IEEE 8th, Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers,
Muscat, Oman, 1-5.
Hallowell, M. (2010). "Safety Risk Perception in Construction Companies in the
Pacific Northwest of the USA." Construction Management & Economics,
28(4), 403-413.
MacDonald, G. (2006). "Risk Perception and Construction Safety." Proceedings of
the ICE - Civil Engineering, 159(6), 51-56.
McGraw Hill Construction. (2013). Safety Management in the Construction Industry:
Identifying Risks and Reducing Accidents to Improve Site Productivity and
Project ROI, McGraw Hill Construction, Bedford, MA.
Occupational Safety & Health Administration. (2014). "Hazard identification training
tool." <https://www.osha.gov/hazfinder/> (07/13, 2015).
Perlman, A., Sacks, R., Barak, R. (2014). "Hazard Recognition and Risk Perception
in Construction." Saf. Sci., 64(0), 22-31.
Robson, L., Stephenson, C., Schulte, P., Amick, B., Chan, S., Bielecky, A., Wang,
A., Heidotting, T., Irvin, E., Eggerth, D. (2010). A Systematic Review of the
Effectiveness of Training & Education for the Protection of Workers. Institute
for Work & Health; National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health,
Toronto, ON; Cincinnati, OH.
Rodriguez-Garzon, I., Lucas-Ruiz, V., Martinez-Fiestas, M., Delgado-Padial, A.
(2015). "Association between Perceived Risk and Training in the
Construction Industry." J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 141(5).

© ASCE

Construction Research Congress 2016

 Construction Research Congress 2016 2871

Sacks, R., Perlman, A., Barak, R. (2013). "Construction Safety Training using
Immersive Virtual Reality." Construction Management & Economics, 31(9),
1005-1017.
Weyman, A. K., and Kelly, C. J. (1999). Risk Perception and Risk Communication: A
Review of Literature, Health and Safety Laboratory, Sheffield.
Zhang, P., Lingard, H., Blismas, N., Wakefield, R., Kleiner, B. (2015). "Work-Health
and Safety-Risk Perceptions of Construction-Industry Stakeholders using
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 01/07/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Photograph-Based Q Methodology." J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 141(5),

04014093.

© ASCE

Construction Research Congress 2016