Automation in Construction 84 (2017) 31–41

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Automation in Construction
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/autcon

What drives construction workers' acceptance of wearable technologies in MARK

the workplace?: Indoor localization and wearable health devices for
occupational safety and health
Byungjoo Choia, Sungjoo Hwangb, SangHyun Leec,⁎
a
Tishman Construction Management Program, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Michigan, 2350 Hayward St., Suite 1316 G.G. Brown
Building, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, United States
b
Department of Architectural and Urban Systems Engineering, Ewha Womans University, 52 Ewhayeodae-Gil, Seodaemun-Gu, Seoul, 03760, Republic of Korea
c
Tishman Construction Management Program, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Michigan, 2350 Hayward St., Suite 2340 G.G. Brown
Building, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, United States

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The use of wearable sensing devices (e.g., GPS and physiological sensors) can open a new door toward occu-
Construction worker pational safety and health management in physically demanding and hazardous construction (e.g., tracking
Intention to use worker's locations in dangerous working area and monitoring of worker's physiological status). These potential
Occupational safety and health benefits cannot be achieved, however, if construction workers do not recognize the value of wearable devices as
Technology acceptance model
well as the details of their usage. This study thus investigates determinants for workers' adoption of wearable
Wearable technology
technology in the occupational work context. Specifically, the scope of this study is to test hypotheses regarding
workers' intention to adopt two representative wearable devices for occupational safety and health, a smart vest
with an embedded indoor GPS for location tracking, and a wristband-type wearable activity tracker (i.e.,
wristband) with physiological sensors. The research results indicate that perceived usefulness (PU), social in-
fluence (SI), and perceived privacy risk (PR) are associated with workers' intention to adopt (IA) both smart vest
and wristband. Also, workers' experiences using wearable devices positively moderates the association between
PU and IA of smart vest and negatively moderates the association between SI and IA of smart vest. In the work
context, foremen are more likely to be influenced by PU than workers with regard to using a wristband. By
considering the different functions, benefits, and challenges of each device, and by taking into account in-
dividual and job characteristics, the results of this study provide crucial insight into the process of motivating
workers to adopt each device in their work, which can promote the continued and appropriate use of wearable
technology in occupational safety and health management.

1. Introduction
In recent years, wearable technology, which is clothing or acces-
sories that incorporate computers, software, electronics, and sensors,
and that can be easily worn on the human body (e.g., smart glass, smart
watch, or smart cloth: [1–3]), has received a great deal of attention
from many industries. The major application of wearable technology
has been in the healthcare industry because wearable health devices
with embedded biosensor systems enable the continuous monitoring of
a user's physiological status (e.g., heart rate, blood pressure, and skin
temperature) and the feedback provision on a real-time basis [4]. Re-
cent wearable devices are also capable of tracking a user's location as
well as representing his/her movements by incorporating a Global
Positioning System (GPS), accelerometer, or an Inertial Measurement
Unit (IMU) into sensor systems by widening the range of wearable
technology applications [5–7].
Such potentials of wearable technology can open a new door toward
occupational safety and health management in real working conditions
by virtue of recent technological advancement in terms of sensing
capability, wearability, and low cost. One promising domain is con-
struction, one of the most dangerous and physically demanding occu-
pations with its high number of injuries and illnesses, early retirement,
and an aging workforce with high work-related musculoskeletal dis-
order and chronic diseases [8–13]. The use of wearable technology with
sensors (e.g., physiological sensors such as a heart rate sensor, motion
sensors such as IMU, and location tracking sensors such as GPS) in
construction can provide ample opportunities for effective worksite
safety and health management through continuous monitoring and

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: bjoochoi@umich.edu (B. Choi), hwangsj@ewha.ac.kr (S. Hwang), shdpm@umich.edu (S. Lee).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2017.08.005
Received 24 July 2016; Received in revised form 13 May 2017; Accepted 8 August 2017
Available online 30 August 2017
0926-5805/ © 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
B. Choi et al.
early identification of safety and health risks as well as timely feedback
regarding identified risks (e.g., worker's locations in dangerous working
area, risks of work-related musculoskeletal disorders and near-miss
inferred from IMU signals, worker's high physical demands and fatigue
inferred from high heart rates and skin temperature: [14–17]). Parti-
cularly, because construction workers should wear personal protective
equipment (PPE: such as a hard hat, a safety glass, and a safety vest),
the attachment of sensors not only to the body (e.g., the wristband) but
also to the PPE (e.g., a smart glass and a smart vest) would not interfere
workers ongoing work, which could maximize the usability of wearable
devices at the workplace.
Despite these potentials, it is difficult to fully benefit from wearable
technology without a construction worker's recognition of the value of
wearable devices as well as his/her adoption and use. According to the
survey on technology usage in construction conducted by the Navigant
Construction Forum™ [18], only 9.6% of construction practitioners use
wearable devices while 97.6% and 85.6% of them use smartphones and
laptops respectively. More importantly, the issues that hinder wearable
device usage in construction still exist: for example, the use of personal
information (e.g., worker's location or physiological status) may pose a
risk to personal privacy [2,19,20]. These concerns may adversely affect
a worker's perception toward the expected value for wearable device
usage even though a worker recognizes potential benefits of wearable
technology. In this regard, many previous research efforts have tried to
investigate user's acceptance of wearable technology in his/her daily
life [1,21,22]. However, they lack a consideration of the context of
occupational work and workers. This study thus investigates workers'
perception toward wearable technology at the construction workplace,
in order to establish a firm foundation to promote wide and appropriate
use of them. Based on a technology acceptance model (TAM: [23]), this
study develops models to examine which factors contribute to con-
struction workers' intention to adoption of wearable devices, with im-
plications for better use of wearable technology in occupational safety
and health management.
2. Research scope
Due to increasing large-scale construction projects, construction
workers or crews have frequently faced the possibility of isolated work
conditions in the context of large construction sites. To protect the
safety and health of workers involved in lone working, many worker
monitoring solutions have been developed in order to assess workers'
safety and health risks without close or direct supervision [24,25]. In
this regard, indoor GPS has been widely researched and commercia-
lized with a wearable technology [6]. As shown in Fig. 1, a construction
worker can wear a smart vest with an embedded indoor GPS instead of
a normal safety vest. This device keeps tracking a worker's real-time
location at the workplace, and continuously sends the location in-
formation to a manager. The manager can pre-define danger zones on
the job-site map so that workers who enter these zones can be auto-
matically notified through a wireless alerting system embedded in a
smart vest. Such potential advancements in workers' safety have en-
couraged many construction companies to adopt this technology.
The wearable technology can be adopted not only for worker's
32
Automation in Construction 84 (2017) 31–41
safety protection but also for his/her health management in physically
demanding and hazardous construction. A good example of wearable
device usage from a health perspective is a wristband-type wearable
activity tracker that can monitor a worker's physical status, as shown in
Fig. 2. Specifically, monitoring a worker's heart rate during physical
work can help to identify excessive workloads beyond a worker's phy-
sical capabilities (e.g., the percentage of heart rate reserve: [26–28]),
contributing to preventing potential health issues from high physical
demands (e.g., excessive fatigue). It can also help to detect an abnormal
HR indicating the risk of cardiovascular disease or heat-related injuries
(e.g., heart attack, heat stroke, and heat exhaustion: [29,30]). However,
it remains unclear whether workers would be comfortable with using
devices under the risk of sharing their locational or physiological in-
formation with others (e.g., construction managers or vendors).
With this background, the scope of this study is to identify de-
terminants for workers' adoption intention with regard to two re-
presentative wearable devices; a smart vest that has been used for
workers' safety and a wristband that can be used in the future for
workers' health. According to the different functions, benefits, and
challenges of the two devices, the discussion also includes the com-
parison of workers' adoption intention toward these devices.
3. Theoretical framework and research hypotheses
3.1. Theoretical models for technology acceptance
The theoretical foundation to investigate a user's technology ac-
ceptance is the technology acceptance model (TAM), introduced by
Davis [23]. TAM was originally developed based on the theory of rea-
soned action in social psychology [31], and has been widely adopted as
a basis of theoretical models for the user's acceptance of diverse tech-
nologies, such as information systems, mobile computing, wearable
devices, healthcare systems [32–35].
In TAM, the main constructs that determine an individual's beha-
vioral intention to adopt technology are perceived usefulness (PU) and
perceived ease of use (PE). PU is defined as “a prospective user's sub-
jective probability that using a specific application system will increase
his or her job performance within an organizational context [23,36],”
while PE refers to “the degree to which a prospective user expects the
target system to be free of effort [23,36].” Considering the expected
benefit of each wearable device on which this study is focused, PU of a
smart vest is based upon worker's safety improvement while PU of a
wristband can be worker's health promotion. These benefits are closely
related to one of the important sub-dimensions in PU, which is quality
of work [23] under hazardous and physically demanding construction
work conditions. PE is also an important factor in construction because
the use of wearable devices should not inconvenience workers as they
perform regular tasks. According to Davis [23], the crucial aspects of PE
include whether a technology is controllable and understandable (e.g.,
using a wristband for monitoring physiological status), or cumbersome
(e.g., wearing a smart vest). In this regard, the roles of PU and PE in
explaining users' adoption intention for diverse technologies have been
consistently validated by previous studies that adopted the TAM
[23,32–35]. However, the roles of PU and PE in adoptions of different
Fig. 1. The use of a smart vest with an indoor GPS in con-
struction [6].
B. Choi et al.
wearable technologies are unlikely to be consistent due to their dis-
tinctive functions and benefits (e.g., a smart vest and a wristband),
which needs to be further tested in this research.
On the other hand, the theoretical extensions have been made based
on the original TAM, such as TAM2 [37], unified theory of acceptance
and use of technology (UTAUT: [38]), or UTAUT2 [39]. These models
consider social influences as a critical determinant in explaining a user's
IA. Social influence (SI) is defined as “the degree to which an individual
perceives that important others believe he/she should use the new
system [38].” SI is particularly important in construction, an industry
where workers generally perform tasks with their crew members by
highly interacting and communicating with each other [40]. Although
the role of SI in technology acceptance has also been widely validated
[1,34,35], it needs to be further tested for construction workers because
of the unique nature of construction organization (i.e., transient nature
of the workforce in temporary organizations in the construction pro-
ject) [41], which may alter the role of SI in construction workers'
wearable technology acceptance.
3.2. Consideration of wearable device features: technological context
In the use of wearable devices, privacy is a critical issue because
“people tend to be sensitive toward sharing relevant information about
them especially if giving such information will bring potential harm to
them in a social sense [21].” Because collected data from wearable
devices (e.g., personal health information and personal location in-
formation) are wirelessly transferred to the receiver (e.g., smartphone)
or the base station, data security and encryption have been the most
critical issues in wearable technology development [20,21,42]. The
potential threat to the individual's privacy can make users reluctant to
use wearable devices. Specifically, construction workers could be un-
comfortable when their location information at the workplace is shared
with management during not only working time but also resting per-
iods. The use of a wearable health device also involves a risk of in-
appropriate protection of personal health information by vendors. Ac-
cording to the privacy concern, previous studies for wearable
technology adoption have incorporated perceived privacy risk (PR) into
their theoretical models as an essential construct [1,43].
In addition, many studies in consumer behavior and information
technology research found that hedonic motivation (HM) can be served
as a key indicator in user's adoption of technology [1,39,44,45]. HM is
defined as “the fun or pleasure derived from using a technology [39],”
and has included as an important factor for well-known theoretical
models such as UTAUT2 [39]. Specifically, the research area in wear-
able devices for a user's physiological monitoring and healthcare has
paid much attention to HM for the purpose of promoting intrinsic
motivations toward user's continuous use of devices, by providing ga-
mified healthcare services [1,46]. Given the functions of two target
wearable devices in this study, HM may have an explanatory power to
predict a user's acceptance of a wristband, while insignificant for a
smart vest acceptance because of its limited functions (e.g., a smart vest
only for user's location tracking and alarming).
One another specific consideration for a wristband from an occu-
pational health perspective is a user's perceived vulnerability (PV),
33
Automation in Construction 84 (2017) 31–41
Fig. 2. The use of a wristband with physiological sensors in
construction.
which is “the possibility that one will experience health threat [1,22].”
In the context of construction work with many potential health threats,
if a worker thinks the construction work (e.g., physically demanding
tasks) and the working environment (e.g., hot weather) are harmful for
his/her health, he/she would tend to believe the device would be more
beneficial.
It is noteworthy that many previous studies have also considered
other factors on wearable technology acceptance such as cost [22,32],
data accessibility [32], appearance [21], and technological complexity
[34]. From a perspective of construction project management, we ex-
cluded these factors because they are more associated with wearable
technology itself rather than occupational work and workers. Also,
considering that recent wearable devices become inexpensive (e.g., less
than $100 of a wristband) and the use of such devices in construction
has a potential to reduce project cost related to workers' safety and
health, cost would not be a significant factor.
3.3. Moderating effects: individual and job contexts
As described above, a construction worker's intention to adopt (IA)
for both a smart vest and a wristband would be differently affected by
previously identified determinants (i.e., PU, PE, SI, and PR for a smart
vest, and PU, PE, SI, PR, HM, and PV for a wristband). However, each
individual may have different perceptions on wearable technology,
which is highly associated with different levels of intention to use de-
vices. Specifically, an individual who has a lot of wearable device ex-
perience (WEX) is likely to have greater familiarity with and better
knowledge of the devices, by making WEX interact with the direct re-
lations between IA and its determinants [39,47].
Within the context of construction, the relations between IA and its
determinants can be also moderated by job-related factors, such as job
title (e.g., foremen and workers). In construction work, foremen (FRM)
are in charge of critical roles by supervising workers' performance of
tasks [48]. Due to FRM's higher responsibility in occupational safety
and health, for example, it is likely for FRM to have greater tendency to
focus on the benefits of wearable devices in terms of safety and health.
As a result, the authors expect that the relations between IA and its
determinants are moderated by WEX and FRM.
3.4. Research hypotheses and model
Based on the theoretical models on technology acceptance with a
consideration of the context of wearable devices (i.e., a smart vest and a
wristband) as well as construction work, Fig. 3 shows the theoretical
model for construction workers' acceptance of wearable devices in-
cluding a smart vest and a wristband. Specifically, our key hypotheses
include (see Fig. 3):
(1) there will be positive associations between perceived usefulness
(PU) and intention to adopt both a smart vest (SIA) and a wristband
(WIA) (hypotheses Hs1 and Hw1);
(2) there will be positive associations between perceived ease of use
(PE) and intention to adopt both a smart vest (SIA) and a wristband
(WIA) (hypotheses Hs2 and Hw2).
B. Choi et al.
Fig. 3. Research model integrating models for a smart vest and a wristband.
(3) social influence (SI) will positively affect an individual's intention
to adopt both a smart vest (SIA) and a wristband (WIA) (hypotheses
Hs3 and Hw3);
(4) perceived privacy risk (PR) is negatively associated with intention
to adopt both a smart vest (SIA) and a wristband (WIA) (hypotheses
Hs4 and Hw4);
(5) hedonic motivation (HM) is positively associated with intention to
adopt a wristband (WIA) (hypothesis Hw5);
(6) perceived vulnerability (PV) positively affects intention to adopt a
wristband (WIA) (hypothesis Hw6)
(7) wearable device experience (WEX) and foremen (FRM) will mod-
erate the effect of perceived usefulness (PU), perceived ease of use
(PE), social influence (SI), perceived privacy risk (PR), hedonic
motivation (HM), and perceived vulnerability (PV) on intention to
adopt both a smart vest (SIA) and a wristband (WIA) (hypotheses
H7a–H12a and H7b–H12b).
4. Methods
4.1. Procedure and participants
A survey questionnaire was developed and administered to measure
variables in this study. The data was collected from three construction
sites in Gary, Indiana (Site A), Ann Arbor, Michigan (Site B), and
Dayton, Ohio (Site C), U.S. The presence of a union may make this
technology adoption more complicated. The authors choose projects in
the three states where there is a strong union presence. Though Indiana
and Michigan are a right-to-work (RTW) states, they still have a strong
union presence because they only recently became RTW. Site A is a
medium sized hospital renovation project, and the survey was con-
ducted during March 2016. Site B is a large size research facility retrofit
project and the data were collected during April 2016. Site C is a large
size public library renovation project, and the survey was conducted
during May 2016. The questionnaires were filled out in the conference
34
Automation in Construction 84 (2017) 31–41
room of each site during a break time to avoid interrupting the con-
struction task. Before one week prior to the survey, a safety manager of
a general contractor advertised the purpose and process of the survey to
the foremen in a weekly meeting, and the foremen advertised the
survey to their crew members. Then, the workers at the sites voluntarily
came to the conference room to participate in the survey. A majority of
workers who attended on the survey date in each site participated in the
survey with advertisement and encouragement from the research team
and managers in the sites. 10–15 workers fill out the questionnaire each
time. Before starting the survey, the authors introduced the purpose and
process of the survey and provided detailed explanations about each
technology (i.e., smart vest and wristband) using Figs. 1 and 2 as well as
video clips representing the use of each technology. Based on the un-
derstanding and impression of each technology, the participants are
asked to answer the questionnaire. Considering that people decide to
adopt a new technology without user experience, this approach is in
line with real decision making. In this regard, many studies on TAM
have been conducted on potential users who do not have actual ex-
perience of use (e.g., [37,49]). The questionnaires were completed
anonymously, and the completed ones were collected immediately
using either a lock box or envelop to guarantee the confidentiality of
the response. The survey questionnaire does not include any questions
about personal identification to ensure the confidentiality and anon-
ymity of the response. The survey took approximately 20–30 min in
total to complete.
Total sample size was 120; there were 31 from Site A, 34 from Site
B, and 55 from Site C. All participants were field workers (73%) or
foremen (27%) at the sites. The average age of the participants is
38.53 years (SD = 10.65). Of the participants, 32% are younger than
30 years old, 31% are between 31 and 40 years old, 18% are between
41 and 50 years old, 20% are older than 50 years old. The average years
of work experience of the participants is 15.62 years (SD = 10.74).
Approximately 23% of participants have < 5 years working experience,
30% have between 6 and 15 years working experience, 27% have
B. Choi et al. Automation in Construction 84 (2017) 31–41

Table 1 5. Result and discussion

Demographics of participants.
Study 1 examined the effects of perceived privacy risk (SPR), per-
Characteristics Number Percent
ceived usefulness (SPU), perceived ease of use (SPE), and social influ-
Age ence (SSI) on workers' intention to adopt a smart vest (SIA) and whether
≤ 30 y 38 31.7 wearable device experience or foreman moderated the impact of SPR,
31–40 y 37 30.8
SPU, SPE, and SSI. Study 2 examined the effect of perceived privacy risk
41–50 y 21 17.5
≥ 50 y 24 20.0 (WPR), perceived usefulness (WPU), perceived ease of use (WPE), social
Work experience influence (WSI), hedonic motivation (WHM), and perceived vulner-
≤5 y 28 23.3 ability (WPV) as well as the moderating effect of wearable device ex-
6–15 y 36 30.0 perience or foreman on workers' intention to adopt wristbands (WIA). A
16–25 y 32 26.7
two-phased approach was used in each study: first, the adequacy of the
≥ 26 y 24 20.0
Wearable device experience measurement items for each study is assessed by testing reliability as
With experience 18 15.0 well as convergent and discriminant validity; and second, hierarchical
No experience 102 85.0 regression analysis was conducted to identify the direct effects of in-
Job title
dependent variables and interaction effects of wearable device experi-
Foreman 32 26.7
Worker 88 73.3 ence and foreman.

between 15 and 25 years working experience, and rest 20% have >
25 years working experience. Also, 15% of participants have used a
wearable device (e.g., smart watch) before. Table 1 represents the de-
mographic details of the participants.
4.2. Measurement
The survey questionnaire consists of three sections. In the first
section, the participants were asked to indicate their level of agreement
with 15 different statements on a five point Likert scale (i.e., 1 re-
presenting “strongly disagree” and 5 representing “strongly agree”)
about the smart vest. Table 2 represents the measurement items for the
smart vest study.
The second section contains measurement items about the wrist-
band and each measurement item also applies a five point Likert scale.
The measurement items for the wristband are listed in Table 3. At the
top of the both sections, the authors provided detailed explanations
about each technology (i.e., smart vest and wristband) with examples of
the usage in order to remind participants of each technology before
answering the questions. All the measurements in the first and second
sections were adopted from those used in the previous studies and the
reliability as well as convergent and discriminant validity of them was
checked before testing research hypotheses. The wordings were ad-
justed to make them relevant to the context of each technology (i.e.,
smart vest and wristband). In the third section, the participants were
asked to provide their demographic information including age, job
experience, job title, and wearable device experience.
5.1. Study 1—smart vest
The Cronbach's α test was conducted to assess the reliability of each
construct in the smart vest study. As shown in Table 4, the value of
Cronbach's α was between 0.83 and 0.97 which is above the acceptable
threshold of 0.70 [51]. In addition, a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA)
was performed by use of LISREL 8.8 to test convergent and discriminant
validity of the constructs. A CFA model with five latent constructs (i.e.,
SPR, SPU, SPE, SSI, and SIA) and 15 measures was built. In this study,
five different goodness of indices are used for assessing the CFA model:
χ2 / degree of freedom (df), the root means error approximation
(RMSEA), standardized root mean square residual (SRMR), non-normed
fit index (NNFI), and comparative fit index (CFI). The criteria for a good
fit are as follows: χ2 / df < 3.00 [52], RMSEA < 0.07, CFI < 0.95,
NNFI < 0.95, SRMR < 0.07 [53]. The model fits the data satisfacto-
rily. The goodness-of-fit indices for the model are as follows: χ2 /
df = 1.43 (χ2 = 62.88, df = 44), RMSEA = 0.062, CFI = 0.99,
NNFI = 0.99, SRMR = 0.034. Convergent validity was evaluated by
examining the average variance extracted (AVE) and composite relia-
bility (CR). To ensure adequate convergent validity, the value of AVE
should be > 0.50 [54] and a value of 0.70 or greater was recommend
for CR [51]. As shown in Table 4, the AVE for all constructs ranges from
0.63 to 0.87 and the CR ranges from 0.84 to 0.95. Moreover, the factor
loadings for all constructs were > 0.50 exceeding the acceptable level
suggested by Hair et al. [54]. Construct validity, therefore, is achieved
in this study. According to Bagozzi and Yi [53], the discriminant va-
lidity is established if the correlations among the latent variables are
significantly < 1.00. The authors constructed 95% confidence intervals

Table 2
Measurement items used in smart vest study.

Construct Itema Measurement items Sources

Perceived privacy risk (SPR) SPR1 It would be safe to disclose my work location. [43]
SPR2 I am comfortable in letting management know about my location.
SPR3 I am comfortable in letting co-workers know about my location.
Perceived usefulness (SPU) SPU1 Using this vest in my job will help improve my safety. [23,37]
SPU2 I think this vest will be helpful for my job.
SPU3 Using this vest would enable me to work safely.
Perceived ease of use (SPE) SPE1 This vest would be easy to carry. [23]
SPE2 Wearing this vest would not interfere with my work.
SPE3 I expect to feel comfortable doing my work when wearing this vest.
Social influence (SSI) SSI1 People who are important to me would think that I should use this vest. [37,50]
SSI2 People who influence my behavior would think that I should use this vest.
SSI3 My co-workers would think using this vest is a good idea.
Intention to adopt (SIA) SIA1 I intend to use this vest when I′m on the jobsite. [50]
SIA2 I plan to use this vest in the future.
SIA3 All things considered, I will use this vest.

a
Note: Character ‘S’ at the beginning of the name of variable refers to smart vest.

35
B. Choi et al. Automation in Construction 84 (2017) 31–41

Table 3
Measurement items used in wristband study.

Construct Itema Measurement items Sources

Perceived privacy risk (WPR) WPR1 I am comfortable in letting management know about my physiological conditions. [43]
WPR2 I am comfortable in letting co-workers know about my physiological conditions.
Perceived usefulness (WPU) WPU1 I find the wristband useful in my job. [23,37]
WPU2 Using this wristband would improve the quality of my daily life.
Perceived ease of use (WPE) WPE1 It would be easy for me to read data on this wristband. [23]
WPE2 Learning how to use this wristband is easy for me.
Social influence (WSI) WSI1 My co-workers would think using this wristband is a good idea. [37,50]
WSI2 People who are important to me would think that I should use this wristband.
Hedonic motivation (WHM) WHM1 Using this wristband would provide more fun for daily work. [37]
WHM2 Using this wristband would be entertaining.
Perceived vulnerability (WPV) WPV1 I am at risk of suffering health problems on the work site. [22]
WPV2 It is likely that I will suffer health problems during my work.
Intention to adopt (WIA) WIA1 I intend to use this wristband in the future. [50]
WIA2 I plan to use this wristband in the future.
WIA3 All things considered, I will use this wristband.

a
Note: Character ‘W’ at the beginning of the name of variable refers to wristband.

Table 4 = 1.365, p > 0.230)] on SIA, the regression analysis also does not
Reliability and convergent validity of smarty vest study. include the site and trade information of the participants.
To examine the direct effect of independent variables and the in-
Construct Alpha AVE CR
teraction effects of the moderators (i.e., wearable devices experience
Perceived privacy risk (SPR) 0.88 0.72 0.89 and foreman), a hierarchical multiple regression was performed. First,
Perceived usefulness (SPU) 0.92 0.79 0.92 SPR, SPU, SPE, SSI, and WEX were entered as independent variables to
Perceived ease of use (SPE) 0.84 0.63 0.84 the regression equation to predict SIA at Step 1 to identify the direct
Social influence (SSI) 0.88 0.69 0.87
Intention to adopt (SIA) 0.95 0.87 0.95
effects of them. Then, interaction terms between WEX and independent
variables (i.e., SPR, SPU, SPE, and SSI) were entered added to the re-
AVE (average variance extracted), CR (composite reliability). gression equation at Step 2 in order to examine the interaction effect of
WEX and other variables. To minimize the multicollinearity issue, in-
for each correlation coefficient and checked whether the confidence teraction terms are calculated using the centered values [55]. Since the
intervals include 1.00. Because all the confidence intervals do not in- interaction terms of WEX and SPR as well as WEX and SPE are not
clude 1.00, the discriminant validity is achieved for all constructs in this significant predictors of SIA, they are excluded in the regression ana-
study. lysis. Table 6 represents the result of hierarchical multiple regression
Table 5 represents the descriptive statistics and correlation coeffi- analysis. As shown in Table 6, the combination of SPR, SPU, SPE, SSI,
cients among the variables in the research model as well as demo- and WEX account for a significant proportion of variance in SIA. Spe-
graphic variables. Table 5 shows that four independent variables (i.e., cifically, SPR (β = 0.16, t = 2.68, p = 0.009), SPU (β = 0.32,
SPR, SPU, SPE, and SSI) are strongly correlated with dependent variable t = 3.92, p = 0.000), SPE (β = 0.18, t = 2.63, p = 0.000), and SSI
(i.e., SIA) with correlation coefficient range from 0.65 to 0.82. Because (β = 0.35, t = 4.22, p = 0.010) have significant effects on SIA. How-
the measurements for SPR were intended to investigate worker's tol- ever, direct effect of WEX on SIA is not statistically significant
erance toward privacy risks, a positive correlation between SPR and SIA (β = 0.00, t = 0.02, p = 0.981). The addition of an interaction term at
implies that workers who are less concerned about his/her privacy step 2 also accounts for significant increase in variance in SIA. Speci-
shows a higher level of SIA. The results also indicate that workers who fically, negative regression coefficient of interaction between WEX and
show higher levels of SPU, SPE, and SSI show higher SIA. There are no SPU (β = − 0.18, t = −2.58, p = 0.011) indicates that relationship
significant correlation coefficients between SIA and all demographic between perceived usefulness and intention to adopt smart vest is di-
variables, and thus they were not included in the regression analysis. In minished for workers who have previous experience using wearable
addition, since the analysis of variance (ANOVA) shows no significant devices. This effect is illustrated in Fig. 4. On the other hand, positive
effect of site [(F(2, 115) = 2.097, p = 0.12)] and trade [(F(7, 87) regression coefficient of interaction between WEX and SSI (β = 0.23,
t = 3.07, p = 0.003) implies that social influence has greater

Table 5
Descriptive statistics and correlation matrix of smart vest study.

Variable Mean Std SIA SPR SPU SPE SSI Age FRM JEX WEX

SIA 2.66 1.33 1.00

SPR 3.71 1.28 0.65⁎⁎ 1.00
SPU 2.88 1.34 0.82⁎⁎ 0.60⁎⁎ 1.00
SPE 3.16 1.29 0.74⁎⁎ 0.60⁎⁎ 0.68⁎⁎ 1.00
SSI 3.01 1.25 0.82⁎⁎ 0.57⁎⁎ 0.81⁎⁎ 0.71⁎⁎ 1.00
AGE 38.53 10.65 0.13 0.13 0.20⁎ 0.08 0.24⁎ 1.00
FRM 0.27 0.45 0.07 0.13 0.15 0.10 0.01 0.07 1.00
JEX 15.62 10.74 − 0.02 0.01 0.02 − 0.02 0.06 0.85⁎⁎ 0.22⁎ 1.00
WEX 0.15 0.35 − 0.02 − 0.01 0.02 0.03 −0.09 − 0.17 − 0.09 −0.18 1.00

Note: N = 120.
FRM (forman), JEX (job experience), WEX (wearable device experience).
⁎
p < 0.05.
⁎⁎
p < 0.01.

36
B. Choi et al. Automation in Construction 84 (2017) 31–41

Table 6 Table 7
Hierarchical regression analyses predicting intention to adopt smart vest. Reliability and convergent validity of wristband study.

Variables SIA Construct Alpha AVE CR

Step 1 Step 2 Perceived privacy risk (WPR) 0.92 0.86 0.92

Perceived usefulness (WPU) 0.89 0.80 0.87
β β Perceived ease of use (WPE) 0.88 0.79 0.86
Social influence (WSI) 0.85 0.75 0.84
⁎⁎
SPR 0.16 0.15⁎⁎ Hedonic motivation (WHM) 0.95 0.91 0.95
SPU 0.32⁎⁎ 0.43⁎⁎ Perceived vulnerability (WPV) 0.85 0.74 0.84
SPE 0.18⁎⁎ 0.15⁎ Intention to adopt (WIA) 0.98 0.94 0.98
SSI 0.35⁎ 0.24⁎
WEX 0.02 0.04 AVE (average variance extracted), CR (composite reliability).
WEX × SPU − 0.18⁎
WEX × SSI 0.23⁎⁎
Adjusted R2 0.77 0.68
with seven latent constructs (i.e., WPR (perceived privacy risk), WPU
ΔR2 0.78 0.02 (perceived usefulness), WPE (perceived ease of use), WSI (social influ-
ΔF 79.63⁎⁎ 4.79⁎⁎ ence), WHM (hedonic motivation), WPV (perceived vulnerability), and
WIA (intention to adopt)) and 15 measures was built in order to test
Note: N = 120. convergent and discriminant validity. The model fits the data sa-
⁎
p < 0.05.
⁎⁎
p < 0.01.
tisfactorily. The goodness-of-fit indices for the model are as follows:
χ2 / df = 1.70 (χ2 = 117.44, df = 69), RMSEA = 0.066, CFI = 0.99,
NNFI = 0.98, SRMR = 0.030. As shown in Table 7, the AVE for all
constructs ranges from 0.74 to 0.94, which are greater than acceptable
threshold of 0.50 [54], and the CR ranges from 0.85 to 0.98, which are
also greater than acceptable threshold of 0.70 [51]. The convergent
validity, therefore, is established in this study. Also, discriminant va-
lidity is achieved because 95% of the confidence intervals for correla-
tion coefficients among the all constructs do not include 1.00.
Table 8 displays the descriptive statistics and correlation matrix
among the variables in this study as well as demographic variables. As
shown in Table 8, there are strong correlations (ranges from 0.45 to
0.76) between our independent variables (i.e., WPR, WPU, WPE, WSI,
WHM, and WPV) and dependent variable (i.e., WIA). It implies that
Fig. 4. Interaction between wearable device experience and perceived usefulness. workers who show higher level of WPR, WPU, WPE, WSI, WHM, or
WPV show higher level of WIA. Here, a high level of WPR indicates
worker's high tolerance toward privacy risks. There are no significant
correlation coefficients between WIA and all demographic variables,
and thus they were not included in the regression analysis. Also, the
result of ANOVA shows no significant effect of trades on WIA [(F(7, 88)
= 1.879, p > 0.082)], and thus trades was not included in the re-
gression analysis. However, the regression analysis included site in-
formation of the participants by using two dummy variables because
the result ANOVA showed a significant effect of site on WIA [(F(2, 117)
= 4.59, p = 0.012)].
A hierarchical regression was performed to examine the direct effect
of independent variables (i.e., WPR, WPU, WPE, WSI, WHM, and WPV)
and interaction effects of wearable device experience and foremen on
the dependent variable (i.e., WIA). WPR, WPU, WPE, WSI, WHM, WPV,
Fig. 5. Interaction between wearable device experience and social influence.
and FRM as well as two dummy variables for site information (i.e., Site
1 and Site 2) were entered in the first step and a significant proportion
association with intention to adopt smart vest for workers who have of variation in prediction of WIA was accounted for at Step 1. As shown
previous experience using wearable devices (Fig. 5). However, the in- in Table 9, WPR (β = 0.22, t = 3.24, p = 0.002), WPU (β = 0.27,
clusion of an interaction term between foremen and independent t = 2.83, p = 0.006), and WSI (β = 0.28, t = 2.64, p = 0.009) are
variables (i.e., SPR, SPU, SPE, and SSI) do not add significantly to the significant predictors in Step 1, but WPE (β = 0.15, t = 1.87,
prediction of SIA. After the regression analysis, the white test was p = 0.064), WHM (β = 0.04, t = 0.55, p = 0.581), and WPV
performed to test the homoscedasticity assumption of the regression (β = 0.04, t = 0.64, p = 0.522) are not significant predictors. Then, to
analysis, and no heteroscedasticity was found. Also, the authors com- test interaction effect between FRM and independent variables, multi-
puted variance inflation factors (VIFs) to examine the multicollinearity plicative terms, based on centered score [55], were entered at Step 2. As
issue in the regression. The value of VIF for all variables range from 1.1 shown in Table 9, the inclusion of the interactions at Step 2 is asso-
to 4.2, which are far below the threshold of 10.0 [56], thus suggesting ciated with a significant increase in the variance explained. Since in-
that multicollinearity was not a major issue in this study. teraction between FRM and WPR, and between FRM and WPE as well as
between FRM and WHM are not significant predictors, they are ex-
5.2. Study 2—wristband cluded in the regression analysis. After all variables are entered into the
regression equation, the significant predictors are WPR (β = 0.19,
To examine the reliability of each construct, the Cronbach's α test t = 2.91, p = 0.004), WSI (β = 0.36, t = 3.79, p = 0.000), Site 2
was conducted. As shown in Table 7, Cronbach's α for all constructs (β = − 0.14, t = −2.61, p = 0.010), FRM × WPU (β = 0.35,
range from 0.85 to 98, which are satisfactory [51]. Also, CFA model t = 3.13, p = 0.002), and FRM × WSI (β = − 0.35, t = −3.17,

37
B. Choi et al. Automation in Construction 84 (2017) 31–41

Table 8
Descriptive statistics and correlation matrix of wristband study.

Variables Mean Std WIA WPR WPU WPE WSI WHM WPV AGE FRM JEX WEX

WIA 2.69 1.41 1.00

WPR 2.97 1.40 0.66⁎⁎ 1.00
WPU 3.10 1.43 0.76⁎⁎ 0.58⁎⁎ 1.00
WPE 3.40 1.33 0.68⁎⁎ 0.55⁎⁎ 0.71⁎⁎ 1.00
WSI 3.01 1.21 0.75⁎⁎ 0.64⁎⁎ 0.76⁎⁎ 0.66⁎⁎ 1.00
WHM 2.70 1.38 0.63⁎⁎ 0.47⁎⁎ 0.74⁎⁎ 0.57⁎⁎ 0.63⁎⁎ 1.00
WPV 2.62 1.32 0.45⁎⁎ 0.31⁎⁎ 0.46⁎⁎ 0.47⁎⁎ 0.54⁎⁎ 0.34⁎⁎ 1.00
AGE 38.53 10.65 0.03 0.08 − 0.01 − 0.10 0.13 − 0.08 0.04 1.00
FRM 0.27 0.44 0.17 0.02 0.09 0.17 0.04 0.14 0.03 0.07 1.00
JEX 15.62 10.74 − 0.09 − 0.14 − 0.09 − 0.18 − 0.06 − 0.17 − 0.07 0.85⁎⁎ 0.21⁎ 1.00
WEX 0.15 0.35 0.09 0.08 0.02 0.10 0.02 0.05 − 0.12 − 0.17 − 0.08 − 0.18 1.00

Note: N = 120.
FRM (forman), JEX (job experience), WEX (wearable device experience).
⁎
p < 0.05.
⁎⁎
p < 0.01.

Table 9
Hierarchical regression analyses predicting intention to adopt wristband.

Variables WIA

Step 1 Step 2

β β

⁎⁎
WPR 0.22 0.19⁎⁎
WPU 0.27⁎⁎ 0.21⁎
WPE 0.15 0.14
WSI 0.24⁎⁎ 0.36⁎⁎
WHM 0.04 0.01
WPV 0.04 0.03
Fig. 7. Interaction between foreman and social influence.
Site 1 0.06 0.06
Site 2 −0.10 − 0.14⁎
FRM 0.09 0.09 5.25 which are far below the threshold of 10.0 [56].
FRM × WPU 0.35⁎⁎
FRM × WSI − 0.35⁎⁎
Adjusted R2 0.700 0.722 5.3. Discussion
ΔR2 0.722 0.025
ΔF 31.79⁎⁎ 5.347⁎⁎
This study developed and tested theoretical models to identify fac-
Note: N = 120. tors influencing construction workers' acceptance of two different
⁎
p < 0.05. wearable technologies (i.e., smart vest and wristband) by extending the
⁎⁎
p < 0.01. previously validated technology acceptance model (TAM). To do this,
the authors have reviewed previous studies on acceptance of other
technologies and considered unique nature of each technology. As a
result, several factors (i.e., SPR, SSI, WPR, WSI, WHM, and WPV) have
been selected and added to TAM to predict construction workers' ac-
ceptance of each technology. Since construction workers' acceptance of
wearable devices has unique contexts and attributes, theoretical models
in this study will provide more specific intuition to construction prac-
titioners who plan to introduce the wearable technologies to promote
workers' safety and health. In addition, the present study also includes
the moderating effects of characteristics of users (i.e., wearable device
experience, job position) on the relationship between independent
variables and dependent variables. Although previous studies on TAM
have examined direct effects of independent variables, there is limited
Fig. 6. Interaction between foreman and perceived usefulness.
consideration of the moderating effect of individual differences in
previous studies. The moderating effects help explain why relative
p = 0.002). Specifically, a positive regression coefficient of interaction importance of different independent variables of construction workers'
between FRM and WPU implies that the association between WPU and acceptance of each technology can vary across different workers.
WIA is greater for foremen than ordinary workers (Fig. 6). Also, a ne- This study employed four factors (i.e., SPU, SPE, SSI, and SPR) re-
gative regression coefficient of interaction between FRM and WSI im- lated to construction workers' intention to adopt a smart vest (SIA).
plies that the association between WSI and WIA is weaker for foremen Consistent with findings from the previous studies, four hypotheses
than ordinary workers (Fig. 7). However, the inclusion of an interaction regarding the effects of perceived usefulness (SPU) (Hs1), perceived
term between WEX and independent variables (i.e., WPR, WPU, WPE, ease of use (SPE) (Hs2), social influence (SSI) (Hs3), and perceived
WSI, WHM, and WPV) does not add significantly to the prediction of privacy risk (SPR) (Hs4) are supported. The results indicate that use-
WIA. The result of white test suggests that there is no heteroscedasticity fulness and comfortableness of the smart vest are associated with
issue. In addition, the values of VIFs for all variables range from 1.06 to workers' acceptance of the smart vest. In this regard, construction

38
B. Choi et al.
practitioners who are willing to introduce the smart vest to promote
workers' safety in their sites should try to ensure that workers have a
clear understanding of the benefits of the technology. Training session
at the site where workers learn how the smart vest works and how it
prevents their access to the hazardous area by experiencing the smart
vest in an actual working environment would be a promising approach
to increase workers' perceived usefulness and comfort of the smart vest.
Despite the temporary nature of the construction workforce, the result
implies that beyond the objective features of the technology itself, the
social aspect has a significant association with acceptance of the smart
vest. This finding is in line with recent findings that workers' behaviors
in construction sites are under the influence of social controls [57,58].
Also, the result shows the construction workers' concern about their
privacy can be an obstacle to introduce the smart vest in construction
sites. Although the smart vest aims to prevent workers' access to ha-
zardous locations in construction sites, workers could be reluctant to
reveal their location because the location information can be used for
monitoring their idling time. Construction managers, therefore, should
pay more attention to how to relieve workers' privacy concerns before
introducing the smart vest.
In addition to the direct effects of the four factors (i.e., SPU, SPE,
SSI, and SPR), this study found that wearable device experience mod-
erates associations between perceived usefulness and the intention to
adopt a smart vest (H7a) and between social influence and intention to
adopt smart vest (H9a). The result indicates that construction workers
who have experience using wearable devices show a weaker association
between perceived usefulness and intention to adopt smart vest and a
stronger association between social influence and intention to adopt
smart vest. A possible explanation for this result might be that the
characteristics of wearable devices contribute to the moderating effect
of wearable device experience. Considering that we are still in an early
stage of wearable technology in the technology life cycle [49], con-
struction workers who already had experiences using a wearable device
might be placed in the category of early adopters. According to the
diffusion of innovation theory, five groups have been delineated in-
cluding innovator, early adopter, early majority, late majority, and
laggard regarding adoption of innovation [59]. Innovators and early
adopters are less cautious and more willing to take risks to test a new
technology than other groups [60,61]. It implies that curiosities re-
garding the technology leads early adopters to adopt the technology
even if they do not have a clear perception of the usefulness of the
technology. On the other hand, followers (i.e., early majority, late
majority, and laggard) make their decision to adopt a new technology
based on the expected benefits (i.e., perceived usefulness). Early
adopters, therefore, would be less sensitive to perceived usefulness than
other groups if they have curiosity about the technology. On the other
hand, early adopters are more sensitive to social influence than other
groups [62]. These characteristics of early adopters might contribute to
moderating the association between perceived usefulness and accep-
tance of smart vest and between social influence and intention to adopt
smart vest. Construction practitioners, therefore, are recommended to
apply different approaches for workers who have experience using
wearable devices. Emphasizing the popularity of wearable technologies
in society would be a more effective means for those workers.
Regarding the wristband, the effects of six factors (i.e., WPR, WPU,
WPE, WSI, WHM, and WPV) on the intention to adopt (WIA) are ex-
amined in this study. The results of this study confirm the influence of
perceived usefulness (WPU) (Hw1), social influence (WSI) (Hw3), and
perceived privacy risk (WPR) (Hw4) on WIA, which is consistent with
previous studies and the results from the smart vest study. However,
this study found that perceived ease of use (WPE) (Hw2) and hedonic
motivation (WHM) (Hw5) do not have significant associations with
WIA. A possible explanation for this result may be the lack of partici-
pants' adequate experience using the wearable devices. Because most
participants do not have experience regarding the wearable devices,
they might not be clear about difficulty and enjoyment of using the
39
Automation in Construction 84 (2017) 31–41
wristband. Therefore, it can be difficult for them to connect perceived
usefulness and ease of use to the acceptance of the wristband. However,
in the case of the smart vest, workers easily conceive how to use the
smart vest system because it only requires to wear the vest and to ob-
serve the alert light from the vest. In this regard, workers might be able
to associate the perceived ease of use and intention to adopt the smart
vest. The simplicity of the technology can make differences in the re-
lationship between perceived ease of use and intention to adopt the
technology. However, it might be conceivable that WPE and WHM af-
fect to intention to continue to use the wristband after adopting the
technology. Construction practitioners, therefore, are recommended to
adopt two-step approaches. Benefits from the wristband and the po-
pularity of the wearable technologies should be emphasized to en-
courage construction workers to adopt the wristband at the first step.
After achieving the satisfactory acceptance rate, construction practi-
tioners should consider perceived ease of use and hedonic motivation at
the second step to maintain the acceptance rate. Developing and pro-
viding gamification services would be an effective means to promote
construction workers' hedonic motivation.
Also, the result found no significant association between perceived
vulnerability (WPV) and WIA. As aforementioned, perceived vulner-
ability refers to “the possibility that one will experience health threat
[1,22].” If the users are able to connect the physiological information
provided by the wristband (e.g., heart rate and skin temperature) and
their health threat, WPV will affect their intention to adopt the wrist-
band. However, raw data about users' heart rate or skin temperature
from the wristband might not be enough to link to their health issue.
This vague link between physiological information from the wristband
and health issue might be a possible explanation for this result.
Finally, this study found the moderating effect of foremen (FRM) on
the association between WPU and WIA (H7b) and between WSI and
WIA (H9b). The results indicate that foremen show stronger association
between perceived usefulness and intention to adopt and weaker as-
sociation between social influence and intention to adopt a wristband.
The role of foremen in construction projects may contribute to the
moderating effect of foremen on intention to adopt the wristband. As
previously mentioned, foremen in construction sites manage and su-
pervise their crew and are responsible for the performance of their
crew. They, therefore, may pay more attention to the functionality of
the technology and less focus on social influence.
Although findings from this study extend our understandings of
workers' intention to adopt wearable technologies, some limitations
should be acknowledged. First, since all three construction sites from
which participants were recruited for this study were building con-
struction project, conducting the same survey and data collection from
other project types such as highway, tunnel, bridge, etc. and comparing
the results will be helpful to generalize the findings. In this regard, the
authors plan to conduct future surveys in these project types to extend
this study and ultimately to generalize the findings. Also, the results of
this study are based on a cross sectional design which is limited for
drawing causal relationship among the variables. Therefore, long-
itudinal studies could be used to gain a greater validity of the results in
future research. Finally, this study used a self-reported questionnaire to
measure variables and thus we cannot rule out a possibility that
common method bias attenuates the theoretical significance of the
findings. Because of the concerns about common method bias, this
study examined the adequacy of the measurement items (i.e., relia-
bility, convergent validity, and discriminant validity) before testing
research hypotheses and examined the homoscedasticity assumption
and multicollinearity issue after the regression analysis. However, these
approaches may not be enough to fully address the common method
bias, and thus it is recommend to apply proactive methods such as
multitrait-multimethod (MTMM) procedure or a marker variable to
address the common method bias in future studies (see [63,64] for
more details).
B. Choi et al.
6. Conclusions
Despite the positive prospective and functionality of wearable
technologies, little is known about user acceptance of the technology.
Although a few studies have investigated factors affecting user accep-
tance of wearable technologies, no previous study to our knowledge has
been conducted in an occupational safety and management context in
construction. In this regard, this study investigates factors that influ-
ence construction workers' intention to adopt wearable technologies in
their work. Based on the current status of commercialization and po-
tentials of the technologies, smart vests and wristbands were selected to
test the hypotheses. The results represent a number of relationships that
predict acceptance of wearable technologies by construction workers
during their work. The results of hypotheses testing find that perceived
usefulness, social influence, and perceived privacy risk are associated
with workers' intention to adopt smart vest as well as wristband. While
there is a significant association between perceived ease of use and
intention to adopt the smart vest, the association is not significant in the
case of the wristband. Also, wearable devices use experience positively
moderates association between social influence and intention to adopt
smart vest and negatively moderate relationship between perceived
usefulness and intention to adopt a smart vest.
On the other hand, in the case of the wristband, foremen positively
moderate the relationship between perceived usefulness and intention
to adopt and negatively moderate the relationship between social in-
fluence and intention to adopt. The results of this study provide crucial
insights into the role of various factors to motivate construction
workers to adopt wearable technologies in their work. This study is the
first step to explore construction workers' acceptance of wearable de-
vices in the contexts of occupational safety and health management.
Specifically, by considering the context of construction work (e.g.,
safety and health issues in dangerous and demanding work) and con-
struction workers (e.g., foreman and workers) as well as the detailed
functions and benefits of two different wearable devices in construc-
tion, this study provided more clear insights on construction workers'
acceptance of different and specific wearable devices (e.g., a smart vest
for workers' safety, a wristband for workers' health). As such, the results
of this study can help construction managers devise better means to
encourage workers to rapidly adopt various wearable technologies in
order to deploy new devices for advanced and automated construction
management (e.g., automated jobsite hazard notification using a smart
vest, automated health risk notification using a wristband). To develop
a full picture of construction workers' acceptance of wearable tech-
nologies, additional studies are needed to investigate external variables
affecting factors identified in this study (e.g., organizational support for
social influence, training for perceived ease of use, etc.).
Acknowledgment
The authors would like to acknowledge their industry partners for
their help in data collection, as well as anonymous participants who
participated in the survey. Also, the authors wish to thank Haiwei Luo
and Rishabh Mahimtura, a graduate student at the University of
Michigan for their assistance in collecting survey data. The authors also
wish to acknowledge financial support from the University of Michigan
third century initiative.
References
[1] Y. Gao, H. Li, Y. Luo, An empirical study of wearable technology acceptance in
healthcare, Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 115 (9) (2015) 1704–1723, http://dx.doi.org/
10.1108/IMDS-03-2015-0087.
[2] H. Jiang, X. Chen, S. Zhang, X. Zhang, W. Kong, T. Zhang, Software for wearable
devices: challenges and opportunities, Proceedings of Computer Software and
Applications Conference (COMPSAC), IEEE, Taichung, Taiwan, 2015, http://dx.doi.
org/10.1109/COMPSAC.2015.269.
[3] K. Tehrani, A. Michael, Wearable technology and wearable devices: everything you
40
Automation in Construction 84 (2017) 31–41
need to know, Wearable Devices Magazine (2014), http://www.wearabledevices.
com/what-is-a-wearable-device (June 20, 2016).
[4] S. Led, L. Azpilicueta, M. Martínez-Espronceda, L. Serrano, F. Falcone, Operation,
analysis and optimization of wireless sensor devices in health oriented monitoring
systems, Mobile Health, Springer International Publishing AG, Gewerbestrasse,
Switzerland, 2015, pp. 245–263, , http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-12817-7_
11 (ISBN: 978-3-319-12816-0).
[5] H. Jebelli, C. Ahn, T. Stentz, Comprehensive fall-risk assessment of construction
workers using inertial measurement units: validation of the gait-stability metric to
assess the fall risk of iron workers, J. Comput. Civ. Eng. 30 (3) (2015) 04015034, ,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CP.1943-5487.0000511.
[6] RPC—Redpoint Positioning Corporation, Indoor GPS for industrial construction.
http://www.redpointpositioning.com/rtls-for-vertical-industries/rtls-for-
construction, (2015) (January 12, 2016).
[7] C. Torres-Huitzil, A. Alvarez-Landero, Accelerometer-based human activity re-
cognition in smartphones for healthcare services, Mobile Health: A Technology
Road Map, Springer International Publishing AG, Gewerbestrasse, Switzerland,
2015, pp. 147–169, , http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-12817-7_7.
[8] T.S. Abdelhamid, J.G. Everett, Physiological demands during construction work, J.
Constr. Eng. Manag. 128 (5) (2002) 427–437, http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)
0733-9364(2002)128:5(427) (ASCE).
[9] M. Jones, M. Saad, Managing Innovation in Construction, Thomas Telford, London,
UK, 2003 (ISBN: 978-0727730022).
[10] M. Loosemore, A. Dainty, H. Lingard, Human Resource Management in
Construction Projects: Strategic and Operational Aspects, Taylor and Francis, New
York, NY, 2003 (ISBN: 978-0415261630).
[11] S.T. Ng, Z. Tang, Labour-intensive construction sub-contractors: their critical suc-
cess factors, Int. J. Proj. Manag. 28 (7) (2010) 732–740, http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.ijproman.2009.11.005.
[12] J.S. Peterson, C. Zwerling, Comparison of health outcomes among older construc-
tion and blue-collar employees in the United States, Am. J. Ind. Med. 34 (3) (1998)
280–287, http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TSMCC.2009.2032660.
[13] J. Xiang, P. Bi, D. Pisaniello, A. Hansen, Health impacts of workplace heat exposure:
an epidemiological review, Ind. Health 52 (2) (2014) 91–101, http://dx.doi.org/10.
2486/indhealth.2012-0145.
[14] A. Aryal, A. Ghahramani, B. Becerik-Gerber, Monitoring fatigue in construction
workers using physiological measurements, Automation in Construction, Elsevier,
2017, , http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2017.03.003 (Available online 23
March 2017).
[15] S. Hwang, J. Seo, H. Jebelli, S. Lee, Feasibility analysis of heart rate monitoring of
construction workers using a photoplethysmography (PPG) sensor embedded in a
wristband-type activity tracker, Autom. Constr. 71 (2) (2016) 372–381, http://dx.
doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2016.08.029 (Elsevier).
[16] X. Yan, H. Li, A.R. Li, H. Zhang, Wearable IMU-based real-time motion warning
system for construction workers' musculoskeletal disorders prevention, Autom.
Constr. 74 (2017) 2–11, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2016.11.007
(Elsevier).
[17] H. Yang, J. Yu, H. Zo, M. Choi, User acceptance of wearable devices: an extended
perspective of perceived value, Telematics Inform. 33 (2) (2016) 256–269, http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2015.08.007.
[18] J. Zack, Trends in construction technology: the potential impact on project man-
agement and construction claims, A Research Perspective, The Navigant
Construction Forum™, 2016 https://www.navigant.com/insights/construction/
2016/trends-in-construction-technology (January 9, 2017).
[19] S. Adibi (Ed.), Mobile Health: A Technology Road Map, Springer International
Publishing AG, Gewerbestrasse, Switzerland, 2015, , http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/
978-3-319-12817-7 (ISBN: 978-3-319-12817-7).
[20] A. Pantelopoulos, N.G. Bourbakis, A survey on wearable sensor-based systems for
health monitoring and prognosis, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. Part C Appl. Rev.
40 (1) (2010) 1–12, http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TSMCC.2009.2032660.
[21] C. Buenaflor, H.C. Kim, Six human factors to acceptability of wearable computers,
Int. J. Multimed. Ubiquit. Eng. 8 (3) (2013) 103–114 (ISSN: 1975-0080).
[22] Y. Sun, N. Wang, X. Guo, Z. Peng, Understanding the acceptance of mobile health
services: a comparison and integration of alternative models, J. Electron. Commer.
Res. 14 (2) (2013) 183–200 (ISSN: 1526-6133).
[23] F.D. Davis, Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of
information technology, Manag. Inf. Syst. Q. 13 (3) (1989) 319–340, http://dx.doi.
org/10.2307/249008.
[24] W. Brennan, Safer lone working: assessing the risk to health professionals, Br. J.
Nurs. 19 (22) (2010) 1428–1430, http://dx.doi.org/10.12968/bjon.2010.19.22.
1428.
[25] HSE—Health and Safety Executive, Working alone: health and safety guidance on
the risks of lone working. http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/indg73.pdf, (2013) (June
20, 2016).
[26] U.C. Gatti, G.C. Migliaccio, S.M. Bogus, S. Schneider, An exploratory study of the
relationship between construction workforce physical strain and task level pro-
ductivity, Constr. Manag. Econ. 32 (6) (2014) 548–564, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
01446193.2013.831463.
[27] S.O. Ismaila, K.T. Oriolowo, O.G. Akanbi, Cardiovascular strain of sawmill workers
in south-western Nigeria, Int. J. Occup. Saf. Ergon. 19 (4) (2013) 607–611, http://
dx.doi.org/10.1080/10803548.2013.11077016.
[28] K. Rodahl, The Physiology of Work, Taylor & Francis, London, UK, 1989 (ISBN: 978-
0850664836).
[29] J. Achten, A.E. Jeukendrup, Heart rate monitoring, Sports Med. 33 (7) (2003)
517–538, http://dx.doi.org/10.2165/00007256-200333070-00004.
[30] M.J. Buller, W.A. Latzka, M. Yokota, W.J. Tharion, D.S. Moran, A real-time heat
B. Choi et al.
strain risk classifier using heart rate and skin temperature, Physiol. Meas. 29 (12)
(2008) N79–N85, http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0967-3334/29/12/N01.
[31] M. Fishbein, I. Ajzen, Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to
Theory and Research, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1975 (ISBN: 978-
0201020892).
[32] K.J. Kim, D.H. Shin, An acceptance model for smart watches: implications for the
adoption of future wearable technology, Int. Res. 25 (4) (2015) 527–541, http://dx.
doi.org/10.1108/IntR-05-2014-0126.
[33] S. Lee, J. Yu, D. Jeong, BIM acceptance model in construction organizations, J.
Manag. Eng. 31 (3) (2015) 04014048, http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-
5479.0000252 (ASCE).
[34] H. Son, Y. Park, C. Kim, J.S. Chou, Toward an understanding of construction pro-
fessionals' acceptance of mobile computing devices in South Korea: an extension of
the technology acceptance model, Autom. Constr. 28 (2012) 82–90, http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.autcon.2012.07.002.
[35] T. Wang, C.H. Jung, M.H. Kang, Y.S. Chung, Exploring determinants of adoption
intentions towards Enterprise 2.0 applications: an empirical study, Behav. Inform.
Technol. 33 (10) (2014) 1048–1064, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2013.
781221.
[36] F.D. Davis, R.P. Bagozzi, P.R. Warshaw, User acceptance of computer technology: a
comparison of two theoretical models, Manag. Sci. 35 (8) (1989) 982–1003, http://
dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.35.8.982.
[37] V. Venkatesh, F.D. Davis, A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance
model: four longitudinal field studies, Manag. Sci. 46 (2) (2000) 186–204, http://
dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926.
[38] V. Venkatesh, M.G. Morris, G.B. Davis, F.D. Davis, User acceptance of information
technology: toward a unified view, Manag. Inf. Syst. Q. 27 (3) (2003) 425–478
(ISSN: 2162-9730).
[39] V. Venkatesh, J.Y. Thong, X. Xu, Consumer acceptance and use of information
technology: extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology,
Manag. Inf. Syst. Q. 36 (1) (2012) 157–178 (ISSN: 2162-9730).
[40] P. Mitropoulos, B. Memarian, Team processes and safety of workers: cognitive,
affective, and behavioral processes of construction crews, J. Constr. Eng. Manag.
138 (10) (2012) 1181–1191, http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.
0000527 (ASCE).
[41] B. Choi, S. Ahn, S. Lee, Role of social norms and social identifications in safety
behavior of construction workers. I: theoretical model of safety behavior under
social influence, J. Constr. Eng. Manag. (2016) 04016124, http://dx.doi.org/10.
1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001271.
[42] O.R. Kurkovsky, O. Rivera, J. Bhalodi, Classification of privacy management tech-
niques in pervasive computing, Int. J. u-and e-Service Sci. Technol. 11 (1) (2007)
55–71 (ISSN: 2005-4246).
[43] H. Li, A. Gupta, J. Zhang, R. Sarathy, Examining the decision to use standalone
personal health record systems as a trust-enabled fair social contract, Decis.
Support. Syst. 57 (2014) 376–386, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2012.10.043.
[44] S.A. Brown, V. Venkatesh, Model of adoption of technology in the household: a
baseline model test and extension incorporating household life cycle, Manag. Inf.
Syst. Q. 29 (3) (2005) 399–426 (ISSN: 2162-9730).
[45] M.B. Holbrook, E.C. Hirschman, The experiential aspects of consumption: consumer
fantasies, feelings, and fun, J. Consum. Res. 9 (2) (1982) 132–140, http://dx.doi.
org/10.1086/208906.
[46] J. Hamari, J. Koivisto, Why do people use gamification services? Int. J. Inf. Manag.
41
Automation in Construction 84 (2017) 31–41
35 (4) (2015) 419–431, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2015.04.006.
[47] A.S. Notani, Moderators of perceived behavioral control's predictiveness in the
theory of planned behavior: a meta-analysis, J. Consum. Psychol. 7 (3) (1998)
247–271, http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327663jcp0703_02.
[48] W.F. Maloney, J.M. McFillen, Influence of foremen on performance, J. Constr. Eng.
Manag. 113 (3) (1987) 399–415, http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-
9364(1987)113:3(399).
[49] K. Yang, C.R. Ahn, M.C. Vuran, S.S. Aria, Semi-supervised near-miss fall detection
for ironworkers with a wearable inertial measurement unit, Autom. Constr. 68
(2016) 194–202, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2016.04.007 (Elsevier).
[50] I. Ajzen, The theory of planned behavior, Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 50 (2)
(1991) 179–211, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T.
[51] J.C. Nunnally, Psychometric Theory, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, 1978 (ISBN-13:
978-0071070881).
[52] B. Wheaton, Assessment of fit in overidentified models with latent variables, Sociol.
Methods Res. 16 (1) (1987) 118–154, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
0049124187016001005.
[53] R. Bagozzi, Y. Yi, Specification, evaluation, and interpretation of structural equation
models, J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 40 (1) (2012) 8–34, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11747-
011-0278-x.
[54] J.F. Hair, R.L. Tatham, R.E. Anderson, W. Black, Multivariate Data Analysis,
Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 2006 (ISBN: 978-0138132637).
[55] L.S. Aiken, S.G. West, Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions,
CA, Sage Publications, Newbury Park, 1991 (ISBN: 978-0761907121).
[56] J.C. Nunnally, I.H. Bernstein, Psychometric Theory, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY,
1994 (ISBN: 978-0070478497).
[57] S. Ahn, S. Lee, R. Steel, Construction workers' perceptions and attitudes toward
social norms as predictors of their absence behavior, J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 140 (5)
(2014) 04013069, , http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000826.
[58] B. Choi, S. Lee, How social norms influence construction workers? Safety behavior:
a social identity perspective, Proceedings of Construction Research Congress 2016,
San Juan, Puerto Rico, American Society of Civil Engineers, 2016, , http://dx.doi.
org/10.1061/9780784479827.284.
[59] E.M. Rogers, Diffusion of Innovations, Free Press, New York, NY, 2003 (ISBN: 978-
0743222099).
[60] G.A. Aarons, Measuring provider attitudes toward evidence-based practice: con-
sideration of organizational context and individual differences, Child Adolesc.
Psychiatr. Clin. N. Am. 14 (2) (2005) 255–271, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chc.
2004.04.008.
[61] M.E. Schramm, K.J. Trainor, M. Shanker, M.Y. Hu, An agent-based diffusion model
with consumer and brand agents, Decis. Support. Syst. 50 (1) (2010) 234–242,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2010.08.004.
[62] L. De Marez, P. Vyncke, K. Berte, D. Schuurman, K. De Moor, Adopter segments,
adoption determinants and mobile marketing, J. Target. Meas. Anal. Mark. 16 (1)
(2007) 78–95, http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jt.5750057.
[63] N.K. Malhotra, S.S. Kim, A. Patil, Common method variance in IS research: a
comparison of alternative approaches and a reanalysis of past research, Manag. Sci.
52 (12) (2006) 1865–1883, http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1060.0597.
[64] P.M. Podsakoff, S.B. Mackenzie, J.-Y. Lee, N.P. Podsakoff, Common method biases
in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended re-
medies, J. Appl. Psychol. 88 (5) (2003) 879–903 http://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.
1037/0021-9010.88.5.879.