THE STATE OF SCIENCE ON OCCUPATIONAL SLIPS, TRIPS
AND FALLS ON THE SAME LEVEL
2

3

4

Wen-Ruey Chang1, Sylvie Leclercq , Roger Haslam and Thurmon Lockhart
1

Liberty Mutual Research Institute for Safety, 71 Frankland Road, Hopkinton, MA 01748 USA
2
French National Research and Safety Institute (INRS), 54501 Vandoeuvre, Cedex, France
3
Loughborough Design School, Loughborough University, Loughborough, Leicestershire, LE11
3TU, UK
4
Grado Department of Industrial and System Engineering, Virginia Polytechnic Institute andState University, Blacksburg, VA 24061, USA

This paper summarizes the state of science on occupational slips, trips and falls on
the same level. The paper is divided by the subject areas in epidemiology,
biomechanics, human-centered approaches, tribology and injury prevention andpractices. The summary reveals that slips, trips and falls on the same level arecomplex problems that require multi-disciplinary approaches. Despite the current
progress in recent decades in understanding the mechanisms involved, research andprevention practices remain insufficient given the risk. We urgently need todevelop systematic approaches to understanding the mechanisms involved, and toevaluate and implement preventive interventions in the field.

Introduction
Slips, trips and falls (STF) are a serious problem. Substantial losses due to slip, trip and fallinjuries are reported worldwide, including Europe and the United States (Buck & Coleman,
1985; Kemmlert & Lundholm, 1998; Communauté Européenne, 2008; Liberty Mutual ResearchInstitute for Safety, 2012; Nenonen, 2013). Data from the Liberty Mutual Workplace Safety
Index (Liberty Mutual Research Institute for Safety, 2012) show that the costs for disabling
workplace injuries in 2010 due to falls on the same level in the U.S. were estimated to beapproximately 8.61 billion US dollars or 16.9% of the total cost burden. The same data also
show that the cost of falls on the same level increased by 42.3% between 1998 and 2010 after
adjusting for inflation, while the overall costs of disabling workplace injuries decreased 4.7%
over the same period. Falls on the same level continue to be a serious problem in occupational
injuries.

Epidemiology‘Occupational Slips, Trips and Falls on the Same Level’ (OSTF on SL) assumes that theaccident genesis lies wholly within the operation of a socio-technical system. The accident
process, starting with a slip or a trip, for example, is determined by accident factors related tosafety management (Bentley & Haslam, 2001), equipment usage (Kines, 2003), workorganisation (Leclercq & Thouy, 2004) or work system design (Derosier et al., 2008). Eachfactor revealed by analysis of an accident, notwithstanding its positioning in the accident
genesis, is necessary to its occurrence and, therefore, represents a possible lever for its- 33 -

prevention. Studies of OSTF on SL involve focusing analysis either on the accident process
close to the injury event, without referring to the whole socio-technical system involved, or on
factors more further upstream in the accident genesis. In the latter case, the identified accident
factors are often specific to the activities or organisations, as revealed by the OSTF on SL
studies conducted in specific areas of activity.
The notion of same level leads to at least excluding falls from heights. However, this notion
is not operationally defined. This would suppose answering the question ‘What set of accidents
is it coherent to consider from the occupational safety standpoint?’ Lortie and Rizzo (1999)
proposed a categorisation for all loss of balance accidents. Based on a similar wish to embrace
the diversity of occupational accidents, Leclercq et al. (2010) proposed an operational definition
for a set of so-called ‘accidents with movement disturbance’. While accurate distinction of‘slipping’ or ‘tripping’ events is effectively necessary in the case of prevention that focuses onsuch events, it may be helpful to consider a larger set of accidents sharing explanatory factors
within the framework of a systemic approach.
Whatever the set of accidents considered, the importance of the issue represented by OSTF
on SL prevention is indisputable. The European Commission report (Communauté Européenne,2008) effectively shows that 19% of the 3,983,881 non-fatal accidents at work, which led tomore than 3 days lost in 2005, were either slips or trips with a fall on the same level or when
walking heavily, or else slips or missteps with no fall. The data from Bureau of Labor Statistics(BLS, 2012) show that, among 1,181,290 non-fatal occupational accidents and diseases
recorded at private companies and government agencies in the USA in 2011, 15.5% were falls
on the same level and 4.1% were slips or trips with no fall, causing a median number of 10 days
lost.
All workers are exposed to the risk of an OSTF on SL since this risk can manifest itself
when walking at work. The floor characteristics and the movement disturbance energy areenough to cause an injury in the event of a fall on the floor. Walking is a feature of many
accident-causing situations, but loss-of-balance occurrences are also very frequent during
materials handling operations (Manning et al., 1984). While all employees are exposed to thisrisk, in-company activity sectors and their workers are not equally affected by these accidents(Buck & Coleman, 1985; Leclercq et al., 2004).
Findings of several studies investigating the relationship between age and OSTF on SL aresometimes contradictory (Buck & Coleman, 1985; Kemmlert & Lundholm, 1998; Bentley &Haslam, 1998; Leclercq et al., 2004). This could be explained notably by the scale of the study,i.e. the more or less integration of the variability in occupational situations.
Thus, knowledge of the activity sector, occupation or age can lead to formulating
hypotheses concerning factors influencing OSTF on SL. However, they are insufficient fordeveloping in-company operational prevention strategies. Conditions in which tasks or, moregenerally, movements, are performed at work, must be considered in order to explain the
differences in OSTF on SL occurrence from one work situation to another.

Biomechanics
Human bipedal locomotion (walking) provides a challenging balance task to the central nervous
system (CNS). During a single support period which accounts for 80% of a gait cycle, the bodyis in a continuous state of falling down because the body’s center of mass is outside the foot, thebase of support (Perry, 1992). The only way that recovery is achieved is to position the swing
limb so that during double support the CNS can make any re-balancing adjustments. As such,stability is lost and recovered in a gait cycle during normal walking. This recovery is achallenging balance task which requires complex interplay of neural and motor control
mechanisms. Motor control is directly linked to the central nervous system’s processing of
sensory inputs (vision, vestibular and proprioceptive systems). The sensory systems send inputs
to the CNS to make an adjustment in real time. In essence, we use the inverse pendulum model
to modify our walking behavior. Additionally, the internal model is used to predict and adapt- 34 -

into the next step. It is clear that ‘EXPECTANCY’ is required to walk safely. There will be a
motion perturbation if expectation and reality do not match. If not controlled, this perturbation
could grow into miss-steps, slips, trips, and falls. Extrinsic and intrinsic factors that cancontribute to fall-related injuries are outlined by Gauchard et al. (2001).

Slips

Falls initiated by slips are the most prevalent level floor accidents (Courtney et al., 2001). A
slip occurs at the shoe and floor interface when the friction required to support human walking
exceeds the friction available at the shoe and floor interface.
To reduce slip and fall incidents, steps can be taken to improve identification of individuals
prone to have this type of incident and the related risk factors such as anticipation, available
coefficient of friction, and human reaction to a slip event. Furthermore, fall prevention training
programs using the ‘kinetic learning’ principle and a slip-simulator facilitated safety training
and reduction of falls in the workplace (Lockhart, 2010).
Historically, most of the literature on the biomechanical aspects of slips has investigatedhuman responses to unexpected contamination on floor surfaces. Some of the research focus
was on kinematic measurements related to human slips before a slip incident and bodily
responses to a slip event. Parameters measured included displacements, velocities and body part
positions. For kinematics before a slip event, research focused on identifying parameters
associated with the required friction coefficient measured (Kim et al., 2005) or slip outcomes(Moyer et al., 2006). More recently, accelerations and joint moments calculated from thekinematic measurements have been shown to be promising parameters (Beschorner & Cham,
2008). Whole body responses to a slip incident were summarized by Cham et al. (2007).
More recently, nonlinear dynamics was used to investigate walking stability measured withaccelerometers on a treadmill (Liu & Lockhart, 2007). Body movements for several
consecutive steps were analyzed to quantify variations in the temporal domain. The maximum
Lyapunov exponent was identified as a measurement of stability.

Trips

Statistical distributions of the minimum foot clearance during mid-swing of repeated walking of
the same participant were investigated by Begg et al. (2007) and the probability of a trip eventat different obstacle heights could be calculated from the statistical distributions.
For trips that occurred in early swing and late swing phases, common responses were anelevating strategy of the swing limb to clear the obstacle and a lowering strategy to shorten thestep length, respectively (Eng et al., 1994). The results from Grabiner et al. (1993), Owings etal. (2001) and Pijnappels et al. (2005) indicate that a recovery from a trip depended on factors
such as the lower extremity muscular power, ability to restore control of the flexing trunk,
reaction time, step length and walking speed. Strength training for the lower limbs might help
reduce fall risk.

Human-centered approaches
Human-centered approaches include the psychophysical and organizational. Psychophysics
involves perception of slipperiness with visual and tactile cues, while organizational approaches
could include macroergonomics and safety climate.

Perception of slipperiness

Perceptions, based on factors such as visual cues and proprioceptive feedback, can be used toassess slipperiness and can supplement objective measurements of slipperiness. Whenpotentially hazardous conditions are perceived through visual and tactile sensation, or are
expected to exist in a walking person's perceptual field, walking gait is adjusted accordingly(Capellini et al., 2010).
The visual field is an important psychophysiological parameter involved in gait regulation.

- 35 -

Studies of the human visual mechanism have indicated that only a small part of the effective
visual field is attended to. Therefore, if a slippery condition is not detected within one's
effective visual field (usually 10-15 feet ahead), the likelihood of fall accidents is significantly
increased (Zohar, 1978). Visual control of locomotion has been classified into both avoidance
and accommodation strategies (Patla, 1991).
Joh et al. (2006) reported that people rely on ‘shine’ information in forming judgments ofslipperiness despite variations as a function of surface color, viewing distance, and lighting
conditions. Lesch et al. (2008) found perceived ‘reflectiveness’ to be the strongest predictor ofvisually-based ratings of perceived slipperiness, but that visually-based judgments of texture
and traction were also highly predictive of perceived slipperiness.
Perceived slipperiness can be quantified on a psychophysical scale using foot movement or
postural instability as the physical stimulus. One is often not fully aware of the slip between the
footwear and the floor on contaminated surfaces, and even on dry non-slippery surfaces, in thevery beginning of the heel contact during walking (Perkins, 1978). The results reported by
Leamon and Li (1990) indicated that any slip distance less than three cm would be detected inonly 50% of the occasions, and that a slip distance in excess of three cm would be perceived asa slippery condition.
Objective measures of slipperiness include kinematic measurements of gait and may also
include ground reaction forces obtained with force plates. Results of subjective rating or
ranking have been correlated with the static or dynamic coefficient of friction (COF) and slip
distance as summarized by Chang et al. (2008). The results from Cohen and Cohen (1994)
showed that the sense of touch by bare feet, under the conditions of the study, agreed best withthe measured ACOF compared with that of seeing the tiles and hearing fingernails dragging
across them.

Organization approaches

The roles of macroergonomics in reducing slip, trip and fall incidents were outlined by Maynard
and Robertson (2007) who proposed a continuum based on socio-technical system approaches.
Key elements in this continuum included management leadership, education and training,hazard surveillance, floor slipperiness assessment, incident and injury reports, floor surface
selection, floor surface treatments, mats, housekeeping and maintenance, warning signs andinstructions, and slip-resistant footwear.
Safety climate, which is a multilevel factor, is defined as employees’ shared perceptions of
their organization’s safety policies, procedures, and practices regarding the relative value andimportance of safety (Zohar, 2003). Safety climate has been demonstrated to predict safety
behavior and safety-related outcomes, such as incidents and injuries, in the workplace and could
be related to workers’ perceptions of injury risk (Huang et al., 2007; Mearns & Flin, 1996).
Safety climate has been linked to overall injury outcomes in general, but not to particular injury
types. However, Kaskutas et al. (2010) reported that safer work climate scores had significant
links with safer crew behavior scores and fall injuries.

Tribology
Correlation between the level of friction and subjective perception of slipperiness was shown to
be statistically significant as summarized by Chang et al. (2006). The potential for slip and fall
incidents can be increased by local variations in friction due to unexpectedly encountering anabrupt reduction in friction across floor surfaces (Strandberg, 1985). Chang et al. (2008)
reported that two friction reduction variables evaluated could have a slightly better correlation
with the perception rating score than the mean COF of each working area based on the results
obtained from a field study.
Surface texture of nominally flat floors and shoe surfaces has been shown to influencefriction at the shoe and floor interface under liquid contaminated conditions (Chang et al.,2001b). Surface roughness and waviness parameters that had strong correlations with the- 36 -

measured friction were identified (Chang et al., 2004).
Tread patterns on shoe surfaces also affect friction, especially when surfaces arecontaminated with solid particles or liquid. SATRA published guidelines, without supporting
scientific data, for selecting proper tread patterns on shoe soles (Wilson, 1990). The results
obtained by Li and Chen (2005) and Li et al. (2006) showed that the measured COF was
significantly affected by the tread depth, width and orientation.
Wear development and characteristics of shoe and floor surfaces remains a critical issue.
Kim et al. (2001) reported that progressive wear on the shoe sole was initiated by plowing,
which was followed by simultaneous plowing and abrasion.
Although human movements during slip incidents have been reported in the literature(Perkins, 1978), when slip measurement devices to measure various types of friction at the shoeand floor interface were constructed, design and reproducibility issues necessitated some
simplifications in shoe movements. More drastic simplifications were made with portable
slipmeters than with laboratory-based devices due to constraints of weight and portability.
These simplifications resulted in significant differences in the results measured with various
devices. The measurement conditions of these devices are still far from perfect and areinconsistent across various devices (Chang et al., 2001a).
Friction modelling has been widely used in tribology. Beschorner et al. (2009) developed afriction model for steady sliding between the shoe and floor interface and their results wereconfirmed by experimental data.
Scientific investigations on the operating protocols and performance of slipmeters focusedon surfaces with liquid contaminants. Solid contaminants such as sand, sugar or flour particles
are an understudied potential slip hazard. Friction measurement on surfaces covered with sandparticles was investigated by Li et al. (2007).
A statistical model was introduced by Chang (2004) to estimate the probability of slip
incidents by comparing the stochastic distributions of the required and available friction
coefficients. In contrast to typical biomechanical experiments in which human participants are
asked to walk on a walkway on which a section is covered with contaminants, this statisticalmodel is an alternative way to investigate slip incidents when unexpectedly encountering a low
friction coefficient area with a reduced gait bias. With this approach, human participants walkon only dry surfaces for the required coefficient of friction measurements, and the available
friction coefficient is measured with a slipmeter.
Floor cleaning has received very little attention despite the efforts by Underwood (1991)
and Quirion et al. (2008). Underwood (1991) developed a procedure to produce realisticallyfouled tiles in a laboratory environment with which cleaning procedures and products could be
evaluated. Cleaning procedures observed at work sites were used to evaluate their effectivenesson different quarry tiles and porcelain tiles in a laboratory environment by Quirion et al. (2008)
and improved procedures were identified.

Injury prevention and practices
The causes of occupational falls on the same level are well understood, but fall and injury
prevention is another matter. Attention has been given in the literature to specific hazards andcontrolling of risks. For example, the use of proper slip- resistant footwear and floor surfaces
can increase the friction at the foot-floor interface (e.g. Aschan et al. 2009; Verma et al. 2011).
There remain notable gaps in our knowledge on occupational falls prevention. For example,
knowledge about floor cleaning, the level and character of lighting, and the effectiveness of
training, education and improved awareness to reduce fall related injuries is underdeveloped.
Moreover, only limited research has adopted an ergonomics systems approach that addresses the‘…important latent failures or the upstream organisational and cultural contexts within which
workplace STF occur’ (Bentley, 2009). Another, perhaps surprising, aspect is the paucity ofprospective studies and evaluated occupational fall prevention intervention programs.
For occupational falls, however, our evidence base of evaluated, multi-factorial- 37 -

interventions is formed of the sole, important study by Bell et al. (2008) who applied acomprehensive package of interventions to three hospitals in the United States which werebased on analysis of the historical accident reporting data and on-site risk assessment. Theirresults showed that the overall workers compensation STF injury claims rate for the hospitals
declined more than 50% during the post-intervention time period. A major success of theintervention showed that a comprehensive and sustained intervention can have a major effect inreducing occupational fall- related injuries. However, the study was unable to reveal the
relative effect or interdependency of the intervention components.
Without evidence from evaluated interventions, a structured risk management approach tooccupational falls reduction is needed with three overarching components: primary prevention,
residual risk reduction, and measures to maximise individual capability (Haslam & Stubbs,
2006).

Primary prevention

The purpose of primary prevention is to eliminate fall hazards at source, through the design ofthe built environment and work/activity systems. Flooring should offer appropriate slip
resistance for the different conditions. Walkways and walking areas should be designed andconstructed to avoid trip hazards. In addition, primary prevention involves attention to theequipment used (e.g. to avoid spillages and other walkway contamination), the manner in which
equipment is arranged and stored, the tasks workers need to perform, and the extent to which
each of these might affect the risk of falling. Provision of sufficient, accessible storage is ameasure to reduce trip hazards. The provision of sufficient lighting is important to allow
monitoring of the walking surface. Walking surfaces and pathways will need to be properly
designed and installed, then cleaned and maintained. In addition, installations should be durable
and resistant to damage.

Risk reduction

Even with primary prevention, fall hazards will still be present in the environment. Risk
reduction aims to reduce the likelihood of injuries arising from these hazards. An important
starting point is to raise awareness of the problem and, through education, promote
understanding of risk factors for falling and how they can be improved with proactive risk
assessment and management.
It is important that adequate procedures are implemented to detect slip or trip hazards and to
remedy the situation. During the floor cleaning process, fall hazards might be introduced.
Routine inspection programs should be arranged for walking areas. In all cases, housekeeping
procedures should be designed to be sustainable, so that initial good practices do not deteriorate.
Where fall hazards cannot be removed immediately, signage warning of a slip risk should
be used. Both carrying items and hurrying should be discouraged in circumstances where otherfall risk factors are present. Poor weather with ice or snow is frequently accompanied by anincrease of falls, unless appropriate precautions have been taken.

Maximise capability

A third strand of the fall prevention process is to maximise individual ability to negotiate theworkplace environment. Use of footwear commensurate with underfoot conditions is a measurethat can reduce slipping. Protective clothing, such as respirators and hearing protection, canrestrict movement and cause sensory impairment. Protective eyewear can distort vision. Thus,
consideration needs to be given to safety from falls when specifying and managing the use ofworkplace apparel.
Promoting regular eyesight testing among workers, along with encouragement to use
spectacles appropriately, could reduce the risk of falling. Encouraging exercise can help
improve balance. Certain medications that may be prescribed for individual workers for healthconditions can cause drowsiness, dizziness, unsteadiness and blurred vision, all undesirablefrom a falls prevention perspective. Tiredness, as may arise among shiftworkers, can affectconcentration and attention. Although the effects of alcohol on coordination and balance are- 38 -

well known, there is a particular need to avoid the existence of fall hazards in workplacelocations where alcohol is consumed regularly (e.g. in bars and clubs).

Conclusions
This paper summarized the state of science on occupational slips, trips and falls on the samelevel. The summary revealed the complexity of these problems that would require multidisciplinary system approaches. Despite the current research progress in recent decades, we
still urgently need to develop systematic approaches to understanding the mechanisms
involved, and to evaluate and implement preventive interventions in the field.

References
Aschan, C., Hirvonen, M., Rajamäki, E., Mannelin, T., Ruotsalainen, J. & Ruuhela, R. (2009). Performance of slippery and slipresistant footwear in different wintry weather conditions measured in situ. Safety Science, 47, 1195-1200.
Begg, R., Best, R., Dell’Oro, L. & Taylor, S. (2007). Minimum foot clearance during walking: Strategies for the minimisation of
trip-related falls. Gait and Posture, 25, 191-198.
Bell, J.L., Collins, J.W., Wolf, L., Grönqvist, R., Chiou, S., Chang, W.R., Sorock, G.S., Courtney, T.K., Lombardi, D.A. & Evanoff,
B. (2008). Evaluation of a comprehensive slip, trip and fall prevention programme for hospital employees. Ergonomics, 51(12), 1906-1925.
Bentley, T.A. & Haslam, R.A. (1998). Slip, trip and fall accidents occurring during the delivery of mail. Ergonomics, 41 (12), 18591872.
Bentley, T.A. & Haslam, R.A. (2001). Identification of risk factors and countermeasures for slip, trip and fall accidents during
delivery of mail. Applied Ergonomics, 32, 127-134.
Bentley, T. (2009). The role of latent and active failures in workplace slips, trips and falls: An information processing approach.
Applied Ergonomics, 40, 175-180.
Beschorner, K. & Cham, R. (2008). Impact of joint torques on heel acceleration at heel contact, a contributor to slips and falls.
Ergonomics, 51 (12), 1799-1813.
Beschorner, K., Lovell, M., Higgs III, C.F. & Redfern, M.S. (2009). Modeling mixed-lubrication of a shoe-floor interface applied toa pin-on-disk apparatus. Tribology Transactions, 52 (4), 560-568.
Buck, P.C., & Colman, V.P. (1985). Slipping, tripping and falling accidents at work: a national picture. Ergonomics, 28 (7), 949958.
Bureau of Labor Statistics, (2012). Table 5. Number, incidence rate, and median days away from work for nonfatal occupational
injuries and illnesses involving days away from work by selected injury or illness characteristics and private industry, state
government, and local government, 2011. Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor. Available at:
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/osh2.t05.htm. Assessed 09/12/2013.
Cappellini, G., Ivanenko, Y.P., Dominici, N., Poppele, R.E. & Lacquaniti, F. (2010). Motor patterns during walking on a slippery
walkway. Journal of Neurophysiology, 103 (2), 746 – 760.
Cham, R., Beschorner, K. & Redfern, M.S. (2007). Whole body postural responses to slips. The Proceedings of the International
Conference on Slips, Trips and Falls 2007: From Research to Practice, 30-34. Hopkinton, MA, USA: The IEA Press.
Chang, W.R. (2004). A statistical model to estimate the probability of slip and fall incidents. Safety Science, 42 (9), 779-789.
Chang, W.R., Grönqvist, R., Leclercq, S., Brungraber, R., Mattke, U., Strandberg, L., Thorpe, S., Myung, R., Makkonen, L. &Courtney, T.K. (2001a). The role of friction in the measurement of slipperiness, part 2: survey of friction measurement devices.
Ergonomics, 44 (13), 1233-1261.
Chang, W.R., Kim, I.J., Manning D. & Bunterngchit, Y. (2001b). The role of surface roughness in the measurement of slipperiness.
Ergonomics, 44 (13), 1200-1216.
Chang, W.R., Grönqvist, R., Hirvonen, M. & Matz, S. (2004). The effect of surface waviness on friction between Neolite and quarrytiles. Ergonomics, 47 (8), 890-906.
Chang, W.R., Huang, Y.H., Li, K.W., Filiaggi, A. & Courtney, T.K. (2008). Assessing slipperiness in fast-food restaurants in the
USA using friction variation, friction level and perception rating. Applied Ergonomics, 39 (3), 359-367.
Cohen, H.H. & Cohen, D.M. (1994). Psychological assessment of the perceived slipperiness of floor tile surfaces in a laboratory
setting. Journal of Safety Research, 25, 19-26.
Communauté Européenne (2008). Causes et circonstances des accidents du travail dans l’UE. Luxembourg: Office des publications
officielles des communautés européennes.
Courtney, T.K., Sorock, G.S., Manning, D.P., Collins, J.W. & Holbein-Jenny, M.A. (2001). Occupational slip, trip, and fall-related
injuries - can the contribution of slipperiness be isolated? Ergonomics, 44 (13), 1118-1137.
Derosier, C., Leclercq, S., Rabardel, P. & Langa, P. (2008). Studying work practices: a key factor in understanding accident on thelevel. Ergonomics, 51 (12), 1926-1943.
Di Pilla, S. (2003). Slip and Fall Prevention: A Practical Handbook. Boca Raton, FL: Lewis Publishers.
Eng, J.J., Winter, D.A. & Patla, A.E. (1994). Strategies for recovery from a trip in early and late swing during human walking.
Experimental Brain Research, 102, 339–349.
Gauchard, G., Chau, N., Mur, J.M. & Perrin, P. (2001). Falls and working individuals: role of extrinsic and intrinsic factors.
Ergonomics, 44 (14), 1330-1339.
Grabiner, M.D., Koh, T.J., Lundin, T.M. & Jahnigen, D.W. (1993). Kinematics of recovery from a stumble. Journal of Gerontology,
48 (3), M97-M102.
Haslam, R. & Stubbs, D. (2006). Understanding and Preventing Falls. Boca Raton, Florida: Taylor & Francis, CRC Press.

- 39 -

Huang, Y.H., Chen, J.C., DeArmond, S., Cigularov, K. & Chen, P.Y. (2007). Roles of safety climate and shift work on perceived
injury risk: A multi-level analysis. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 39, 1088-1096.
Joh, A.S., Adolph, K.E., Campbell, M.R. & Eppler, M.A. (2006). Why walkers slip: Shine is not a reliable cue for slippery ground.
Perception and Psychophysics, 68, 339-352.
Kaskutas, V., Dale, A.M., Lipscomb, H., Gaal, J., Fuchs, M. & Evanoff, B. (2010). Fall prevention among apprentice carpenters.
Scandinavian Journal of Work Environmental Health, 36 (3), 258-265.
Kemmlert, K., & Lundholm, L. (1998). Slips, trips and falls in different work groups with reference to age. Safety Science, 28 (1),59-75.
Kim, I.J., Smith, R. & Nagata, H. (2001). Microscopic observations of the progressive wear on shoe surfaces that affect the slip
resistance characteristics. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 28 (1), 17-29.
Kim, S., Lockhart, T. & Yoon, H.Y. (2005). Relationship between age-related gait adaptations and required coefficient of friction.
Safety Science, 43, 425-436.
Kines, P. (2003). Case studies of occupational falls from heights: cognition and behavior context. Journal of Safety Research, 34,
263-271.
Leamon, T.B. & Li, K.W. (1990). Micro length and the perception of slipping. Proceedings of 23rd International Advances inIndustrial Congress on Occupational Health, 17.
Leclercq, S., Monteau, M. & Cuny, X. (2010). Avancée dans la prévention des «chutes de plain-pied» au travail. Proposition dedéfinition opérationnelle d’une nouvelle classe: «les accidents avec perturbation du mouvement (APM)». PISTES, 12(3), 16p.
Leclercq, S. & Thouy, S. (2004). Systemic analysis of so-called “accidents on the level” in a multi trade company. Ergonomics, 47(12), 1282-1300.
Lesch, M.F., Chang, W.R. & Chang, C.C. (2008). Visually-based perceptions of slipperiness: underlying cues, consistency, andrelationship to coefficient of friction. Ergonomics, 51 (12), 1973-1983.
Li, K.Y. & Chen, C.J. (2005). Effects of tread groove orientation and width of the footwear pads on measured friction coefficients.
Safety Science, 43 (7), 391-405.
Li, K.W., Wu, H.H. & Lin, Y.C. (2006). The effect of shoe sole tread groove depth on the friction coefficient with different tread
groove widths, floors and contaminants. Applied Ergonomics, 37 (6), 743-748.
Li, K.W., Hsu, Y.W., Chang, W.R. & Lin, C.H. (2007). Friction measurements on three commonly used floors on a college campus
under dry, wet, and sand-covered conditions. Safety Science, 45 (9), 980-992.
Liberty
MutualResearch
Institute for
Safety(2012).
2012
Workplace
Safety Index.
available at
http://www.libertymutual.com/researchinstitute. From Research to Reality, 15 (3), Hopkinton, MA.
Liu, J. & Lockhart, T.E. (2008). Differentiating fall-prone and healthy adults using local dynamic stability. Ergonomics, 51 (12),1860-1872.
Lockhart, T.E. (2010). Kinetic learning in occupational fall prevention training. The Proceedings of the 2010 International
Conference on Fall Prevention and Protection. Morgantown, WV, USA.
Lortie, M. & Rizzo, P. (1999) Reporting and classification of loss of balance accidents. Safety Science, 33, 69-85.
Manning, D.P., Mitchell, R.G. & Blanchfield, P.L. (1984). Body movements and events contributing to accidental and nonaccidental back injuries. Spine, 9 (7), 734-739.
Maynard, W.S. & Robertson, M.M. (2007). Application of tribology research: Prevention of slips, trips and falls. The Proceedings ofthe International Conference on Slips, Trips and Falls 2007: From Research to Practice, 103-107. Hopkinton, MA, USA: The
IEA Press.
Mearns, K. & Flin, R. (1996). Risk perceptions in hazardous industries. Psychologist, 9 (9), 401-404.
Moyer, B.E., Chambers, A.J., Redfern, M.S. & Cham R. (2006). Gait parameters as predictors of slip severity in young and oldadults. Ergonomics, 49 (4), 329-343.
Nenonen, N. (2013). Analysing factors related to slipping, stumbling, and falling accidents at work: Application of data mining
methods to Finnish occupational accidents and diseases statistics database. Applied Ergonomics, 44 (2), 215-224.
Owings, T.M., Pavol, M.J. & Grabiner, M.D. (2001). Mechanisms of failed recovery following postural perturbations on a
motorized treadmill mimic those associated with an actual forward trip. Clinical Biomechanics, 16, 813-819.
Patla, A.E. (1991). Visual control of human locomotion. In A.E. Patla (ed.), Adaptability of Human Gait: Implications for theControl of Locomotion, 55-97. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Perkins, P.J. (1978). Measurements of slip between the shoe and ground during walking. In C. Anderson and J. Senne (Eds.),
Walkway Surfaces: Measurement of Slip Resistance, ASTM STP 649, 71-87. Philadelphia: American Society for Testing andMaterials.
Pijnappels, M., Bobbert, M.F. & van Dieën, J.H. (2005). How early reaction in the support limb contribute to balance recovery after
tripping. Journal of Biomechanics, 38, 627-634.
Perry, J. (1992) Gait Analysis. Thorofare, NJ: Slack Inc.
Quirion, F., Poirier, P. & Lehane, P. (2008). Improving the cleaning procedure to make kitchen floors less slippery. Ergonomics, 51(12), 2013-2029.
Strandberg, L. (1985). The effect of conditions underfoot on falling and overexertion accidents. Ergonomics, 28, 131-147.
Underwood, D.C. (1991). Effect of floor soil on coefficient of friction in foodservice operations. Ceramica Acta, 3 (6), 21-26.
Verma S.K., Chang W.R., Courtney T.K., Lombardi D.A., Huang Y.H., Brennan, M.J., Mittleman, M.A., Ware, J.H. & Perry, M.J.
(2011). A prospective study of floor surface, shoes, floor cleaning and slipping in US limited-service restaurant workers.
Occupational Environmental Medicine, 68, 279-285.
Wilson, M.P. (1990). Development of SATRA slip test and tread pattern design guidelines. In B.E. Gray (Ed.), Slips, Stumbles andFalls: Pedestrian Footwear and Surfaces (STP 1103), 113-123. Philadelphia: American Society for Testing and Materials.
Zohar, D. (1978). Why do we bump into things while walking? Human Factors, 20 (6), 671-679.
Zohar, D. (2003). Safety climate: conceptual and measurement issues. In J.C. Quick & L.E. Tetrick (Eds.), Handbook of
Occupational Health Psychology, 123-142. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

- 40 -