Lawani, K; Hare, B and Cameron, I (2019) Evaluating wind technicians' performance on safety-critical rescue steps. Proceedings of Institution of Civil Engineers: Management, Procurement and Law, 172(1), pp. 17-24. ISSN 17514304
Abstract
This paper reports the results of an analysis on the performance levels of wind technicians at 1 month and 3 months on safety-critical steps using situational judgement tests (SJTs) and job knowledge tests (JKTs) to assess their emergency rescue and evacuation proficiency. The research design is a repeat-measures study (longitudinal), using SJTs and JKTs to assess job-specific knowledge and job-related situations. It measured procedural knowledge in addition to aspects of declarative knowledge and fluid abilities, and this was considered as a good predictor of performance for wind technicians. The results indicate that rescue and evacuation skills decay within 1 month and 3 months after wind turbine rescue and evacuation training with 47 and 20% of technicians experiencing such decay in their skills and knowledge. These findings have practical implications for activities involving rescue and evacuation of workers-for example, crane driver rescue. The implementation of SJTs and JKTs indicates that skill decay takes place within the first 4 weeks after acquisition. Likewise, job knowledge is more resistant to decay compared with skill tasks over the 3 months' retention time frame for both refresher and new wind technicians.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | health & safety/knowledgemanagement/safety & hazards |
| Index terms: | retention, research design, acquisition, implementation, crane driver |
| Subjects: | practitioner, contractual arrangements, research design and methodology, business, management |
| Topics: | Procurement, Human Resources, Business Strategy, Research Practice, Roles and Professions |
| Descriptive scope: | 2 PC |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here