RI 9699

REPORT OF INVESTIGATIONS/2015

Enhancing Mine Workers’ Self-escape by Integrating 

Competency Assessment intoTraining
Report of Investigations 9699

Enhancing Mine Workers’ Self-escape by Integrating Competency 

Assessment into Training

Emily J. Haas, Robert H. Peters, Carin L. Kosmoski

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

Office of Mine Safety and Health Research

Pittsburgh, PA • Spokane, WA

June 2015
This document is in the public domain and may be freely 

copied or reprinted.

Disclaimer

Mention of any company or product does not constitute endorsement by the National Institute for

Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). In addition, citations to Web sites external to NIOSH 

do not constitute NIOSH endorsement of the sponsoring organizations or their programs or 

products. Furthermore, NIOSH is not responsible for the content of these Web sites. All Web 

addresses referenced in this document were accessible as of the publication date.

Ordering Information

To receive NIOSH documents or more information about occupational safety and health topics, 

please contact NIOSH:

Telephone: 1–800–CDC–INFO (1–800–232–4636)

TTY: 1–888–232–6348

CDC INFO: www.cdc.gov/info

or visit the NIOSH Web site at www.cdc.gov/niosh. 

For a monthly update on news at NIOSH, subscribe to NIOSH eNews by visiting 

www.cdc.gov/niosh/eNews. 

Suggested Citation

NIOSH [2014]. Enhancing Mine Workers’ Self-escape by Integrating Competency Assessment

into Training. By Haas EJ, Peters RH, and Kosmoski CL. Pittsburgh, PA: U.S. Department of 

Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for 

Occupational Safety and Health, DHHS (NIOSH) Publication 2015–188, RI 9699. 

DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 2015–188 

June 2015 

Cover image by NIOSH. 
Contents

Executive Summary ................................................................................................................... 1

Recommendations for Mine Safety Trainers....................................................................... 1

Recommendations for Mine Operators............................................................................... 3

Summary............................................................................................................................ 3

Importance of Self-escape Competencies Assessment.............................................................. 4

Objectives .......................................................................................................................... 5

Mine Worker Self-escape Competencies and Assessment ........................................................ 5

Self-escape Competencies................................................................................................. 5

Interviews about Assessment of SEC with Mine Safety Trainers................................................ 7

Methods of Assessing Self-escape Competencies ............................................................. 8

Key Findings about Assessment Based on Interviews with Mine Safety Trainers......................10

Methods and Frequency of Self-escape Competencies Assessment.................................10

Feasibility of and Barriers to Completing Assessment .......................................................11

Recommendations for Mine Safety Trainers to Enhance Training and Assessment of 

Self-escape Competencies .......................................................................................................14

Incorporate or Enhance Simulated Training Activities........................................................15

Assess the Most Critical Self-escape Competencies .........................................................17

Include Individual Assessment and Debriefings when Possible.........................................18

Maintain Personal Knowledge of Mine Processes .............................................................19

Recommendations for Mine Operators to Enhance and Maintain Self-escape Competencies 

at Mine Sites .............................................................................................................................19

Include Remediation and Followup after Safety Training...................................................19

Provide Orientation on Mine-specific Details to New Mine Workers...................................20

Organize Mock Emergencies for New Employees.............................................................20

Conclusions ..............................................................................................................................21

References ...............................................................................................................................22

Appendix A: Resources for Teaching Coal Mine Self-escape Competencies ............................27

Appendix B: Interview Guide for Mine Trainers Regarding Self-escape Competencies.............33

Appendix C: Complete Results from Interviews with Mine Safety Trainers about SEC 

Training and Assessment..........................................................................................................39

Self-escape Competencies that Trainers Addressed in Mine Safety Training....................39

Self-escape Competencies that Trainers Assessed in Mine Safety Training......................43

Feasibility of Assessment Methods ...................................................................................50
Mine Workers’ Ability to Demonstrate Self-escape Proficiency..........................................52

Remediation......................................................................................................................53

Appendix D: SCSR Donning Sequence Evaluation Sheet.........................................................55

Appendix E: Description of Methods and Remediation Efforts Used by NIOSH to Assess 

a Self-escape Competency .......................................................................................................57

Description of Field Test....................................................................................................58

Behavioral Assessment.....................................................................................................58

Written Matching Tests......................................................................................................59

Frequent Mistakes and Misconceptions.............................................................................60

Recommendations for Lifeline Tactile Signal Training .......................................................60
Figures

Figure D1. SCSR donning sequence evaluation sheet..............................................................55

Figure E1. Lifeline Signals sticker. ............................................................................................57

Figure E2. Map used for the written matching test. ...................................................................59

Tables

Table 1. NIOSH list of coal mine self-escape competencies....................................................... 6

Table 2. Self-escape competencies for which mine workers need better training ......................17

Table C1. “Knowing” SEC on which trainers provided formal training (N=9)..............................40

Table C2. “Where to Find” SEC on which trainers provided formal training (N=9).....................41

Table C3. “How to Use” SEC on which trainers provided formal training (N=9).........................41

Table C4. “How to Decide” SEC on which trainers provided formal training (N=9) ....................42

Table C5. “Before Evacuating” SEC on which trainers provided formal training (N=9) ..............42

Table C6. Frequency of “Knowing” SEC individual and group level assessment (N=9).............46

Table C7. Frequency of “How to Use” SEC individual and group level assessment (N=9) ........47

Table C8. Frequency of “How to Decide” SEC individual and group level assessment (N=9)....47

Table C9. Perception of best methods to assess individuals’ competencies of 

“Knowing” something (N=9) ......................................................................................................48

Table C10. Perception of best methods to assess individuals’ competencies of 

“How to Use” something (N=9)..................................................................................................49

Table C11. Perception of best methods to assess individuals’ competencies of 

“How to Decide” something (N=9).............................................................................................49

Table C12. Trainers’ perceived feasibility of assessment methods (N=9)..................................51

Table C13. Trainers’ perceived proficiency of mine workers’ skills (N=9) ..................................52

Table C14. Reasons why a mine worker cannot self-escape during an emergency ..................53

Table E1. Behavioral assessment scores breakdown ...............................................................58

Table E2. Scores on written matching test ................................................................................60
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

ART Annual Refresher Training

ASPH Association of Schools of Public Health

ATLDP Army Training and Leader Development Panel

BARS Behaviorally anchored rating scales

CDC Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

DCAP Demonstration Competency Assessment Program

IRB Institutional Review Board

KSA Knowledge, skills, and abilities

KSAO Knowledge, skills, abilities, and other personal attributes

MSHA Mine Safety and Health Administration

MSTTC Mine Safety Technology and Training Commission

NAS National Academy of Sciences

NIOSH National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

OMSHR Office of Mine Safety and Health Research

SCSR Self-contained self-rescuer

SEC Self-escape competencies

SMEs Subject matter experts
Enhancing Mine Workers’ Self-escape by Integrating 

Competency Assessment into Training

Emily J. Haas, Ph.D.,1

1 Research scientist, Behavioral Interventions Team, Human Factors Branch, Office of Mine Safety and 

Health Research (OMSHR), NIOSH, Pittsburgh, PA. 

Robert H. Peters,

2

2 Manager, Behavioral Interventions Team, Human Factors Branch, OMSHR, NIOSH, Pittsburgh, PA.

Carin L. Kosmoski, Ph.D.3

3 Research scientist, Behavioral Interventions Team, Human Factors Branch, OMSHR, NIOSH, 

Pittsburgh, PA.

Executive Summary

Mine workers’ self-escape competencies (SEC) need to be better assessed during mine safety 

training to be sure that every underground mine worker possesses the competencies needed to 

successfully escape from emergencies that could occur in their mine. In response, researchers 

from the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) sought to learn how 

mine safety trainers are teaching and assessing SEC in mine safety training. To accomplish their 

objectives, NIOSH researchers completed in-depth interviews with nine coal mine safety trainers 

about teaching and assessing SEC. Based on the results of these interviews, recommendations 

are provided in this document for mine safety trainers and mine operators to improve the 

training, assessment, and maintenance of SEC. 

Recommendations for Mine Safety Trainers 

1. Incorporate or Enhance Simulated Training Activities 

All mine safety trainings should include simulated activities or hypothetical scenarios 

whenever applicable to teach and assess SEC. Incorporating more hands-on activities and 

spending more time probing what students learned is important to increase the effectiveness of 

trainings. Additional research both inside and outside of the mining industry also recommends 

realistic, scenario-based activities within simulated environments to help cultivate effective 

decisionmaking skills during an emergency or stressful situation [e.g. Beilock 2010; McKinney 

and Davis 2003]. However, if access to a simulated mine environment is not possible, trainers 

can still set up activities in classrooms that require demonstration of skills. For example, one 

trainer said that he sets up a lifeline in the hallway outside the classroom and has students 

maneuver the path of the lifeline and indicate what each signal means. Therefore, options are 

available for trainers with more limited resources. 

2. Draft Assessment Tools for Simulated Activities

Trainers did not reference an assessment tool for consistently evaluating and documenting 

competence while watching students. Other fields have made efforts to develop robust workbased assessment tools such as checklists, behaviorally anchored rating scales (BARS), and 

behavioral observation scales [Muchinsky 1990]. These tools have helped improve the rater 

reliability evaluations of individual performance. The same methods should be employed in the 

mining industry for a variety of scenario-based training activities that may be necessary during 

an emergency such as taking refuge, wayfinding, or reading a mine map. 

 
2 

If behavioral checklists exist for more skills, trainers may be able to quantitatively assess 

each individual during trainings with more ease. Subsequently, if a cumulative sheet for each 

mine worker documented scores for each activity, this recording could be provided to the mine. 

This information would allow mine management to have more accurate documentation about 

individual skill sets. For instance, although an individual could demonstrate donning an SCSR, 

he/she may have had trouble ventilating a mine. Then, this deficiency could be further developed 

on the job. 

3. Assess the Most Critical Self-escape Competencies

Because there are often only 8 to 32 hours to cover training content, depending on the type of 

training, tasks should be prioritized and, at the least, mine workers may be able to participate in 

hands-on activities for the most crucial SEC. According to safety trainers interviewed, 

competencies in which mine workers are in need of more training and assessment include: SCSR 

donning, switching, and expectations; shapes of lifeline signals; firefighting skills; ventilation; 

escapeway training and escape routes from mines; reading a mine map; communication systems; 

and barricading and refuge shelters.

4. Include Individual Assessment and Debriefings when Possible

Even though there is a trend toward conducting assessments during group-based activities, 

especially in simulated activities, it is crucial that each individual participates in each training 

activity [Gredler 1992]. A common fault in using group activities or simulations is that a trainer 

primarily examines the group and overlooks the experiences of each individual [Vernon 1990]. 

Because simulated activities are not self-teaching, trainers need to debrief the activities so that 

students can reflect on their decisions and subsequent actions in a similar future situation. 

Structured debriefings, in the form of a standard set of questions, questionnaires, discussions, 

etc., are useful. These activities should consist of empowering dialogue to help and support mine 

workers’ self-escape skill development.

In addition, because assessing individual competency can be difficult for one trainer, fellow 

coworkers should be encouraged to help. Trainers can place a greater focus on group learning 

and teamwork during debriefings to encourage peers to continue these discussions on the job. 

5. Maintain Personal Knowledge of Mine Processes

The trainers who we interviewed noted that the time allotment to prepare for training and to 

stay current on mining topics is difficult. One trainer exclaimed that the effort to continually 

provide new topics that are tailored to the specific mine and to that mine’s training preferences is 

challenging. Other trainers had similar feedback, remarking that safety trainers do not know as 

much as they should about the present mining environment and that better methods are needed in 

order for trainers to obtain and maintain their certification. Therefore, it is important for safety 

trainers to keep abreast of new mining processes and technology and, if possible, review the 

mine layout for a specific organization before the start of an annual refresher training. Obtaining 

this information would entail a prior visit to each respective mine site and possibly an 

underground visit to evaluate the training needs for a specific session. Although it may be 

difficult, knowing more mine-specific information may help guide more informed dialogue with 

mine workers throughout the training. 
3 

Recommendations for Mine Operators

1. Include Remediation and Followup After Safety Training

A mine operator may generally assume that a mine worker who has completed a new miner

or annual refresher training may be prepared for an emergency. Although it may be difficult to 

schedule, followup training within a mine workers’ particular mining environment is important 

after completion of new miner training. Particularly, mine operators could inquire with mine 

safety trainers to check if a specific student or students had problems demonstrating proficiency

in a task so that they could, if necessary, continue to work with employees to further instill 

specific SEC. Even having a general discussion with their workforce immediately after training

about the new skills that mine workers learned, or relearned, could help instill the SEC recently

acquired. In addition, followup exercises may allow new mine workers to become more 

comfortable communicating and making decisions with their coworkers to better manage 

emergencies. 

2. Provide Orientation on Mine-specific Details to New Mine Workers

Although individual mine workers should take personal responsibility to ask questions about 

the mine upon starting a new job, mine operators should also continue to emphasize the 

importance of learning about the mine and notifying new miners of questions to ask management

and coworkers. The likelihood of the same team that worked together during a training 

simulation to work together to manage a real emergency in the future is low [Borodzicz and van 

Haperen 2002]. Therefore, followup exercises would allow new miners to become more 

comfortable communicating and making decisions with their coworkers to better manage 

emergencies. Also, providing opportunities for new mine workers and veteran workers to relearn

specific SEC whenever mine locations change may help employees to retain a mental map of 

their specific mine and, as a result, be able to respond quickly and safely during an emergency. 

An example of such an activity is discussed in Appendix E. 

3. Organize Mock Emergencies 

Because mine safety trainers may not have access to mines to facilitate such activities, it is 

recommended that mine operators organize mock emergency drills on a regular basis to help 

mine workers maintain their SEC. By organizing annual simulated trainings or mock drills, 

trainers explained during this study that miners could be trained on all possible contingencies 

like a fire, roof fall, or some other condition that may block their primary escape route. The 

trainers who we interviewed said this experience is invaluable because it builds self-efficacy and

speed in making emergency response decisions. In addition, incorporating regular mock 

emergency drills would satisfy a recommendation in the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) 

report that advised the implementation of annual self-escape scenario exercises at every 

underground mine. Using any state resources that provide scenarios or drills for mock 

emergencies may help address this need.

Summary

Mine safety trainers in this study were in agreement that improving methods of assessing 

miners’ SEC may not only better prepare mine workers for self-escape, but may also help 

identify gaps in current training protocols and support the need for additional training resources. 
4 

Tracking individuals’ proficiency assessments during mine safety trainings and comparing 

results between different training facilities may provide information about the specific resources 

that aid in the development of SEC. 

Importance of Self-escape Competencies Assessment

Emergencies in underground coal mines that may necessitate rapid self-escape of mine 

workers include fires, explosions, and inundations of water and gas. During these types of 

emergencies it is imperative that mine workers possess the necessary knowledge, skills, abilities, 

and other personal attributes (KSAOs) in order to evacuate from their mine quickly and safely. 

Several mine disasters in 2006 initiated investigative studies that revealed several deficiencies in 

coal miner readiness to self-escape. These deficiencies were linked to coal miner safety training 

on self-escape. The studies identifying these deficiencies were conducted by the Mine Safety 

Technology and Training Commission [MSTTC 2006], West Virginia Mine Safety Technology 

Task Force [WVMSTTF 2006], Government Accountability Office [GAO 2007], and McAteer 

et al. [2006a,b]. 

For example, MSTTC [2006] identified the failure to assess mine workers’ self-escape 

competencies (SEC) as lacking in our nation’s current system of mine emergency training and 

preparedness. This report suggested three areas of competence that mine workers must possess to 

successfully self-escape from a mine emergency: 

• Technical knowledge. The understanding and proficiency in using escape aids such as 

lifelines and SCSRs.

• Mine-specific knowledge. Knowledge and comprehension of mine-specific details.

• Escape conceptual knowledge. The ability to think and adapt to dynamic conditions 

while making decisions. 

Although technical knowledge is included in most new miner safety trainings, mine-specific 

knowledge and escape conceptual knowledge are not as frequently included or assessed in new 

miner trainings and at mine sites [Kowalski-Trakofler et al. 2010]. 

Even though the aforementioned reports are becoming dated, a more recent report compiled 

by the National Academy of Sciences [NAS 2013] continues to note these same gaps in selfescape training and competency assessment, indicating that self-escape competency assessment 

is still not being adequately addressed in our nation’s current system of training and 

preparedness. For example, NAS [2013] discussed the importance of maintaining technical 

knowledge by ensuring that everything to support escape is always in the appropriate place and 

available for immediate use. Another section of their report insisted that mine operators need to 

work with miners to develop their mine-specific knowledge in their statement, “they [operators] 

need to work with miners to master the ability to recognize and/or respond to warning signals 

and harness the knowledge of the specific hazards, exits, and resources of their particular 

mines” (p. 2).

With regard to assessing SEC, the NAS [2013] concluded that, “In training, miners seldom 

have to demonstrate mastery of a skill, but only have to be in attendance” (p. 116). To ensure 

that miners can function effectively in an emergency, escape conceptual knowledge needs to be 
5 

improved, via train-to-mastery scenarios in dynamic conditions that have competency standards. 

These experts continue to recommend that the industry, the Mine Safety and Health Administration 

(MSHA), and NIOSH focus on developing and improving methods of evaluating mine workers’ 

self-escape and aided-rescue competencies. In response, more progress needs to be made in 

addressing the assessment of mine workers’ SEC. 

Currently, U.S. mine safety regulations require that mine safety trainers assess the 

effectiveness of their training. Some trainers attempt to evaluate their training by administering a 

short anonymous quiz or by holding a short question-and-answer session of safety information 

following their presentations. However, for a variety of reasons, trainers do not typically collect 

information about an individual’s competencies. Therefore, it is often unknown whether mine 

workers are sufficiently prepared to self-escape. Also, little is known about the effectiveness of 

self-escape training, or how often mine workers need additional training in order to maintain 

their mastery of SEC. With the exception of SCSR donning, individual-level evaluations of coal 

mine workers’ SEC are not commonly performed. Reliable and feasible methods are necessary to 

help mine safety and training professionals assess whether their coal miners possess sufficient 

competence in self-escape. In response, the present report focuses primarily on the assessment of 

coal mine workers’ SEC. 

Objectives

In order to develop a better understanding of current practices relating to the assessment of 

mine workers’ SEC, we interviewed mine safety trainers about their experiences in teaching and

assessing SEC. This report was written to convey the types of information that may help those 

who train and prepare coal mine workers to be able to self-escape during an emergency and 

includes the following: 

• A review and listing of self-escape competencies. 

• Key findings about assessment of SEC based on in-depth interviews conducted with coal 

mine safety trainers. 

• Recommendations for mine safety trainers to improve self-escape competency assessment 

during safety training and to maintain SEC after mine safety training. 

• Recommendations for mine operators to help to instill and maintain SEC after mine safety 

training. 

Mine Worker Self-escape Competencies and Assessment

Self-escape Competencies

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) researchers refer to the 

knowledge, skills, abilities, and other personal attributes mine workers need to have in order to 

evacuate from their mine quickly and safely as self-escape competencies (SEC). Researchers 

reviewed mine safety training regulations and the available literature on SEC, and solicited input 

on SEC from many mine safety and training experts to compile a fairly comprehensive list of 
6 

SEC [Peters and Kosmoski 2013]. NIOSH’s current list of SEC (see Table 1) was used during 

the interviews with mine safety trainers discussed in this report.*

 

*

Instructional materials and methods for teaching many SEC identified in Table 1 are available from NIOSH, 

the National Mine Health and Safety Academy, and various MSHA State Grants recipients [Radomsky et al. 

2009]. The list of potential sources of existing training materials on self-escape is provided in Appendix A.

Table 1. NIOSH list of coal mine self-escape competencies

Knowing...

1. Mine Emergency Response Plan.

2. Colors of reflective markers for primary and secondary escapeways.

3. The five tactile shapes on a lifeline and what they mean. 

4. Alternative methods for navigating your way out of the mine (besides lifeline). 

5. What your crew expects you to take care of during an emergency (e.g., miner operator 

contacts the responsible person).

6. What types of information need to be communicated to the responsible person and to people 

in other sections.

7. How to communicate nonverbally while using SCSR (both to coworkers underground and to 

outside persons). 

8. How to read and understand a mine map. 

9. Where your crew will assemble to prepare for evacuation.

10. Realistic expectations about using SCSRs (e.g., breathing resistance). 

11. Realistic expectations about using refuge chambers. 

12. Realistic expectations about navigating through smoke. 

13. Properties of mine gases (e.g., odor, exposure limits, physical symptoms of overexposure). 

14. How the mine ventilation system functions. 

15. Types of alarm systems and how to respond to them. 

Where to find...

16. Where to find first-aid kits. 

17. Where to find escapeway maps. 

18. Where to find SCSR caches.

19. Where to find refuge chambers.

20. Where to find tethers and taglines.

21. Where to find gas meters. 

22. Where to find phones and radios.

23. Where to find areas of higher elevation in the mine. 

24. Where to find all possible exits (shafts, slopes, drifts). 

How to use...

25. Communication systems. 

26. Gas meters.

27. SCSRs (donning and switching units). 

28. Refuge chambers.

29. Lifelines and tethers. 

30. Transportation equipment (mantrip, hoist) 

 
7 

Table 1. NIOSH list of coal mine self-escape competencies (continued)

How to decide...

31. The best evacuation route.

32. When to switch escapeways.

33. When to don SCSRs. 

34. When to switch SCSRs. 

35. When to use a refuge chamber. 

36. Whether to use a refuge chamber as a way station during an escape (conditions and factors 

to be considered).

37. Whether to split up an escape group, leaving one or more persons behind. 

38. Who will lead your escape group. 

39. Whether to ride or walk out. 

40. Whether to attempt to fight a fire, and when to abandon such efforts. 

Before starting to evacuate remember to...

41. Notify the responsible person and people in other sections of the mine who may be affected.

42. Make sure all personnel are accounted for.

43. Plan and discuss your escape strategy.

44. De-energize powered equipment. 

45. Gather necessary supplies and equipment (e.g., escapeway maps, radios, gas meter, extra 

SCSRs, tether, medicines and first-aid kits).

Although this list of SEC, in addition to resources that mine safety trainers can use to provide 

training on these SEC (Appendix A) is useful, methods that are most appropriate to assess

specific SEC and the frequency that these methods should be used is still unknown, prompting 

knowledge exploration in this specific area.

Interviews about Assessment of SEC with Mine Safety Trainers

When trying to elicit knowledge in a specific area, engaging content experts in issues related 

to the domain of interest is a common empirical approach. Particularly, using subject matter

experts (SMEs) to gain an understanding of a topic area has merit in the areas of training and 

knowledge preservation [Hoffman et al. 1995]. For example, human factors training and 

performance for aircraft piloting, radar operation, and air traffic control has been improved by 

using information provided from highly experienced, expert participants [Chiles 1967; 

Christensen and Mills 1967]. 

The interview is the most-used method when researchers want to ask open-ended questions 

about an expert’s knowledge and reasoning [Cullen and Bryman 1988; Weiser and Shertz 1983]. 

The thorough feedback allows researchers to gain a comprehensive overview of the respective 

domain, including gaps that may exist in the specific area [Hoffman et al. 1995]. According to 

these researchers, interviews with SMEs are usually “exhaustive and exhausting” (p. 134). 
8 

NIOSH used this preferred empirical approach and interviewed nine mine safety trainers 

across four states, all considered to be SMEs, to better understand self-escape competency

assessment in mine safety trainings. All data were collected after trainers provided consent to 

participate. Interviews occurred from November 2012 to March 2013. After the third interview, 

information was already becoming repetitive, indicating saturation of content, indicating that a 

sample of nine was warranted. The interviews were conducted in a private setting, usually at the 

safety trainer’s place of employment. Each interview lasted approximately two to three hours. 

Appendix B lists the questions used during the interview. The interview questions were reviewed 

and approved by the NIOSH Institutional Review Board (IRB). 

Trainers who participated had experience conducting a variety of safety trainings including

the MSHA Part 48 New Miner Training [30 USC† 811, 825], annual refresher training, new task 

training, and mine rescue training. These trainers had personal training experience that ranged 

from 4 to 40 years (M = 17.1 years; SD = 10.8). Trainers’ specific jobs are listed below. 

†United States Code. 

• Safety trainers affiliated with training institutions who provided new miner training for 

those entering the workforce or annual refresher training for mine organizations (n = 5). 

• Safety trainer within a safety department of a specific mine (n = 1). 

• Safety trainers for a state or federal agency (n = 3). 

All trainers had access to a classroom setting and used basic mine safety equipment, such as 

SCSRs and first-aid supplies, in their training. Several trainers also had access to a simulated 

mining environment and mining equipment. No one reported conducting new miner training 

using an actual mine site, although most had experience conducting task training within a mine.

Methods of Assessing Self-escape Competencies 

In the 1990s, twelve competency-based qualifications were introduced in Australia under the 

banner of the “Black Coal Training Package MNC98 Version 2.00” [National Mining Industry 

Training Advisory Body 2002]. The training package seeks to improve technical knowledge to

aid a successful self-escape such as knowing basic ventilation plans and the properties of mine 

gases. Examples of practiced-based skills incorporated in this training include communicating 

effectively, navigating mine plans, and identifying alternative escape routes. The training lists a 

variety of methods that can be used to establish and assess miners’ SEC [Galvin 2008]. The 

package requires that more than one of the following methods be used to verify competency: 

• Written and/or oral assessment of participant’s required knowledge. 

• Observed, documented, and/or first-hand testimonial evidence of participants: 

implementation of appropriate requirements, procedures and methods for the safe, 

effective, and efficient achievement of the required outcomes.

• First-hand testimonial evidence of the participant undertaking and completing escape 

from hazardous situations unaided. 

• Consistently achieving the required outcomes. 

 
9 

In Australia, each miner must obtain a certificate of competency for each job activity they are 

required to perform. These certificates do not have a lifelong currency; rather, the holders are 

required to undertake ongoing refresher training and competency assessment to retain their 

qualification. For a description of Australia’s criteria for assessing underground miners’ SEC, 

see Australian Government’s Escape from Hazardous Situation Unaided [Commonwealth of 

Australia 2012]. 

As the interviews with mine safety trainers revealed in the current study, many of the

assessment methods mentioned above are currently being used in the United States. Specifically, 

there are four methods commonly used to assess SEC. Mine safety trainers continued to confirm 

these same assessment methods in the current NIOSH study. These methods include: 

1. Watch each individual perform a task (don SCSR, use gas meter). 

2. Use written exams.

3. Orally question a group of students or the class. 

4. Watch small groups perform a task under simulated conditions. 

Written exams and oral questions are used more often when trying to assess knowledge. 

Oftentimes these types of assessments are more feasible because minimal resources are needed 

to use these assessment methods. These types of assessment, however, are usually lower in 

fidelity (i.e. predictable or reliable) because answering questions is not reflective of what mine 

workers will be required to perform during an actual emergency. For example, a test of 

knowledge may be able to determine if a mine worker knows the steps involved in donning an 

SCSR in the order they need to be performed, but it will not adequately assess whether or not 

that same individual is competent in actually donning an SCSR in an emergency situation. 

Watching an individual and/or small groups perform a task is appropriate when trying to 

assess decisionmaking and practice-based skills [Leigh et al. 2007]. Although more timeconsuming, these assessments tend to have high levels of fidelity because they are often 

conducted within the actual working environment, use real-world scenarios, and often 

incorporate interaction with equipment and other people that mine workers would interact with 

in a real emergency situation. Thus, these types of assessments can enhance escape-conceptual 

knowledge. 

Previous literature indicates that the specific competency to be measured will often determine 

assessment methods [Leigh et al. 2007]. The SEC list in Table 1 illustrates that assessments often 

measure competencies concerning knowledge, decisionmaking, or integration of practice-based 

skills and tasks. Therefore, a combination of assessment methods is likely necessary to ensure 

the highest levels of competence. Mine safety trainers were probed about the four assessment 

methods mentioned above during the interviews, including what methods they prefer, how 

feasible assessment methods are used during safety training, and barriers to using assessment and 

specific assessment methods during safety training. Their responses are discussed next.
10 

Key Findings about Assessment Based on Interviews 

with Mine Safety Trainers

For a more detailed review of mine safety trainers’ feedback, gaps, and recommendations, 

refer to the tables and in-depth description of the results in Appendix C. This section focuses on 

three areas regarding self-escape competencies (SEC) assessment: Methods and frequency of 

competency assessment; feasibility of competency assessment methods; and barriers to 

completing assessments. 

Methods and Frequency of Self-escape Competencies Assessment

As Tables C1–C5 (Appendix C) indicate, most trainers had experience providing training on 

various SEC. However, because there are several ways in which competencies can be assessed it 

was important to learn what assessment methods are commonly used and for what SEC by mine 

safety trainers. Trainers were asked to indicate the specific assessments used for each self-escape 

competency listed. The following list was given to those trainers who participated: 

• Watch each individual perform a task. 

• Provide written exams. 

• Orally question a group of students or the class. 

• Watch groups perform a task under simulated conditions. 

• Use other methods. 

• I have not evaluated this competency.

The summary and presentation of Tables C6–C8 in Appendix C report the results of 

assessment methods used by trainers and how often these methods were used. Researchers also 

wanted trainers’ expert opinions about the best way to assess individual mine workers’ 

competencies (even if they did not have the resources to perform the type of assessment). Full 

results and Tables C9–C11 report the results of methods preferred by trainers to assess 

individuals. 

Different methods were chosen for individual and group level assessments depending on the 

competency area (e.g., knowing how to do something or how to use something) being assessed. 

These results indicate that there are several ways to assess an individuals’ ability to self-escape, 

each offering different strengths and weaknesses, as referenced in the review of literature. 

Assessing Knowledge

When assessing whether or not someone knows something, or has proficient knowledge, 

trainers more often reported orally questioning groups or administering a written exam to 

evaluate competence. In general, trainers explained that when they want to assess whether a 

student knows something, they will administer some sort of written exam or quiz and then follow 

up the exam with an oral question-and-answer session that involves the entire class. They felt 

this combination of individual and group level assessment helped them determine whether 

students grasped a certain topic. 
11 

Assessing Decisionmaking

When assessing how to make a decision during a particular emergency, a majority of trainers 

indicated that written and oral questioning of each miner are methods they commonly use to 

assess mine workers’ competence. Trainers seldom reported “watching” an individual or group 

progress through a decisionmaking process. Those trainers who did indicate engaging in such an 

assessment often had the ability to use a simulated mine in which they could create a mock

emergency and watch individuals decide whether or not to fight a fire or watch a group engage in 

a discussion about whether or not they should take refuge. 

Assessing Practice-based Skills

When assessing whether or not someone knows how to use or do something, trainers more 

often reported watching the individual or group perform that specific task to evaluate 

competence. However, as Table C7 shows, besides watching individuals don and switch SCSRs, 

which all trainers reported doing, there was not much consistency in the methods trainers 

reported using to assess whether an individual is competent in using tools to aid self-escape. 

To illustrate, every trainer asserted that donning an SCSR is a task for which each individual 

needs to demonstrate their proficiency in operating; this would warrant individual-level 

assessment via watching a demonstration. Although watching small groups is sufficient for 

activities that would be performed in groups during an emergency, such as tethering and walking 

out in smoke, it was not the preferred method for evaluating individual competence. Rather, 

trainers advocated for individual-level assessments, when possible. One trainer summarized this 

assertion when he said: 

Individual demonstrations, in most cases, are better than group demonstrations, 

apart from escape routes, refuge chambers, and tethering, which are group 

decisions. The latter decisions (escape routes, taking refuge, tethering) are made 

by groups and are best evaluated by observing a group. But more often than not, 

trainers should evaluate on an individual basis. If mine workers are in a group, 

one can sit back and do nothing, and absorb nothing. 

Trainers were able to document a combination of assessment methods if they felt that more 

than one would be best at assessing a competency. Although there was not much consistency 

from trainer to trainer, most indicated that a combination of methods (e.g., watching and orally 

questioning an individual) was best for assessing individual competence. Trainers felt the 

combination of assessment methods was particularly useful when using written exams, especially 

when a literacy barrier exists. They felt that providing a written exam needed to be followed up 

by oral questioning or demonstration. These results continue to indicate the importance of using 

different assessment methods, based on the competency being evaluated. 

Feasibility of and Barriers to Completing Assessment 

Although individual competency assessment methods and some group-level assessment 

methods may be more desirable than others in determining proficiency, these methods are not 

always practical. Trainers were asked about the feasibility of using common assessment methods 

to evaluate the miners they typically train. The mean scores for the feasibility of assessment 

methods for each training scenario provided to the nine trainers are presented in Table C12 

(Appendix C). In general, trainers felt that all of the assessment methods were feasible but some 
12 

required more time and resources. Although trainers’ feedback about feasibility of methods was 

dependent on a particular procedure that they were thinking of, they usually noted challenges 

related to time, access to resources, the absence of mine-specific details and training, and 

remediation efforts. 

Feasibility of Assessing Practice-based Skills

Trainers continued to assert that extra time and resources are barriers that prevent them from 

being able to better evaluate practice-based skills. For example, one trainer said in reference to 

demonstrating a procedure in a classroom setting, “If you have 25–30 people in a class, you still 

need 25–30 SCSRs because you would have the logistics of putting them back together if you 

did not have enough SCSRs for every individual. So, even if we have done it (have each miner 

demonstrate a procedure), it’s still time consuming and takes a lot of resources.” These issues are 

further discussed below. 

Time 

Time was the major reason cited for not being able to more adequately address a task and 

ensure every individual mine worker is competent. A shared response here was, “Time is the 

biggest thing. Preparation time and time to spend on subjects (competencies).” Time was 

discussed in several different capacities. Trainers referenced that there is not enough time during 

the actual training to conduct frequent repetitions of a task, such as donning an SCSR. Also, the 

time that a mine has to give up to provide training to mine workers was discussed. One trainer

said, “The small mines are running on minimum people, so they can’t spare the people to get 

away and do this type of training.” For example, one trainer said, “How do you purchase 

everything you need AND how do you pull a number of people out to provide training and 

replenish resources? Shifts are always changing, which affects scheduling and time available.”

Access to Resources

As the previous quote illustrated, time was also referenced in combination with resource 

capacity. One trainer noted, “It’s always some sort of time/resource constraint. Whether it’s the 

cost of sending miners to a simulated mine to do scenario-based kinds of things or something 

else. There’s limited days in the year and limited instructors.” Concerning resources, trainers 

continually discussed access to the necessary tools and equipment being a problem. Besides 

general supply needs, however, money was referenced as the biggest resource that safety training 

appears to be lacking. In addition, several trainers noted a cut in training funding in recent years, 

making the future need for training equipment even greater. One trainer noted that most training

is only meeting and not exceeding current compliance requirements and that greater repetition in 

training is needed. However, he referenced money as the primary reason why training is not 

given more frequently. 

Trainers consistently indicated that, although these SEC are discussed in trainings, miners do 

not have the opportunity to actually perform tasks. For instance, in reference to firefighting one 

trainer said, “How to put out a fire and save their mine. We tell them but they don’t actually do 

it. Many people have never touched a fire extinguisher.” Similarly, when referring to 

communication systems, another trainer indicated, “We tell them about it, but we don’t have 

them demonstrate. But we need to make sure they know how to use communication devices and 

SCSRs, communicate amongst themselves and outside, what key information you need to 

communicate, like providing your location.” However, as trainers often referenced, this type of 
13 

training and assessment of practice-based skills is difficult to do when you are training a group 

and have no means to quantify the success of each individual. In addition, individual assessment 

can be particularly difficult for trainings that occur at smaller mines. Mine workers are the most 

limited resource at times, and as a result, there may be resistance to removing workers from 

underground to participate in an individual evaluation of skill sets. 

Feasibility of Assessing Knowledge and Decisionmaking

In terms of assessing both knowledge and ability to make decisions, taking written tests or 

having a mine worker show a safety trainer something on a map were the only two assessment 

methods that were discussed as being very easy to complete in a new miner training. Written 

tests were noted as the easiest assessment technique. However, several trainers referenced 

literacy as an issue that needs to be addressed whenever anything written is provided at safety 

training. As far as orally questioning miners to see if they understand a concept or having them 

make a decision, such as how to best evacuate a mine using a map, trainers still noted that it 

takes time, but is much more feasible. Because these two assessment methods are the most 

feasible, they were administered most often to assess competence in the areas of knowledge and 

decisionmaking. However, trainers often said that assessing these types of competencies is 

difficult because both the trainers and future mine workers are not familiar with and therefore 

cannot discuss the specific details and layout of their mine. Similarly, mine workers should be 

informed of how long it may realistically take to respond during an emergency for specific

escape and/or rescue procedures. Understanding how long a particular procedure may take could 

affect mine workers’ decisionmaking process regarding whether to get out of the mine 

immediately or use a refuge chamber as a last resort. 

Mine-specific Details Needed

Several trainers felt that there was not enough discussion during and after safety training 

about the importance of mine workers understanding the layout of their specific mine, knowing 

the little nuances of it, and knowing every possible way to escape. One trainer asserted the 

importance of mine layout when he said, “If you’re in smoke you can fall because you don’t 

know the number of steps on the stairs. Many don’t talk about the particular escapeways and 

cache locations of a mine, they just do what is mandated by law.” Another trainer asserted, 

“We’re training too much on lifelines, because they might be destroyed in an explosion. Or a 

beltline might be destroyed. They need to know their escape routes out.” A similar comment was 

made with regard to training on barricading. The trainer said this topic needs more attention in 

current training: 

You may not be able to get to a refuge chamber. We [mine workers and 

mine safety trainers] need to continue to know about barricading and 

temporary barricading, setting up curtains, etc. We talk a lot about these things 

[refuge chambers] but guys don’t know what to do with them. What if the 

chamber doesn’t work? Can I set up an area with 13 people with enough air? 

Mechanical objects fail; we have to have survival skills if things don’t work and 

we want to live. 

These results indicate that emphasis on self-learning mine-specific details is important at 

each mine and should be discussed by trainers and mine operators upon completion of training. 

This aspect leads to the final barrier that emerged, remediation.
14 

Remediation Needed

Trainers discussed their thoughts on remediation and followup assessments. Generally, they 

often noted that followup assessments do not occur at all. In these instances they said that 

knowledge and decisionmaking ability degrade quickly, even if students practiced and were 

successfully evaluated during training. The common deficits trainers discussed in which students 

need additional practice are listed below:

• Don and switch SCSRs (both in and out of a simulated environment). 

• General decisionmaking during simulated escape exercises.

• Communication with their group about escape routes. 

• Reading a mine map.

• Tethering.

• Types of gases and their appropriate ranges.

Miners’ ability to don and switch their SCSRs, especially in a simulated smoke environment, 

was discussed as the primary skill in which miners experience difficulty during training. As one 

trainer said, “Skills for SCSR donning degrade rapidly. And, all of the different types of SCSRs 

that are on the market that we use just compound the problem.” Generally, trainers noted that 

miners often are clumsy with their SCSRs, don’t go through the steps correctly, and in a 

simulated emergency may don their SCSR incorrectly or not at all. 

It is worth noting that because several of the trainers were trainers that were not directly 

affiliated with a particular mine, they do not keep documentation of any individual evaluation or 

assessment results. Rather, they indicated that each individual mining organization should keep 

documentation about a mine worker’s skill sets because trainers do not typically have the time or 

resources to keep files for every worker. In addition, trainers do not retrain the same mine 

workers every year, whereas mine operators keep records of other task trainings or remediation 

efforts completed by their employees. Developing and implementing more consistent assessment 

and documentation methods is a challenge likely to involve several iterations over time because 

tools should be broad enough to have utility at a range of mine sites and be useful when training 

both the novice and veteran coal miner. 

The NAS [2013] asserted that efforts on the part of mine operators and other industry 

stakeholders to empower self-escape in a mine emergency are needed. These results indicate that 

mine safety experts agree that significant improvements are needed in several aspects of our 

current systems of preparing and equipping mine workers to safely evacuate from mine 

emergencies. Our current recommendations specifically address mine safety trainers and mine 

operators. 

Recommendations for Mine Safety Trainers to Enhance Training and 

Assessment of Self-escape Competencies

The results revealed a need to improve training and assessment methods among the mine 

training community. We acknowledge that a variety of barriers exist that impede trainers’ ability 

to make continuous quality improvements. However, we provide four practical and feasible 

recommendations for mine safety trainers in an effort to help aid future training and assessment. 
15 

Incorporate or Enhance Simulated Training Activities 

Based on responses from trainers, all mine safety trainings should include simulated training

activities or hypothetical scenarios whenever applicable to teach and assess SEC. Incorporating 

more hands-on activities and spending more time probing what students learned is important to 

increase the effectiveness of trainings. Additional research both inside and outside of the mining 

industry also recommends realistic, scenario-based activities within simulated environments to 

help cultivate effective decisionmaking skills during an emergency or stressful situation [e.g. 

NIOSH 2013; Beilock 2010; McKinney and Davis 2003]. 

For example, the NAS [2013] recommended the increased use of simulated mine 

environments to conduct trainings with realistic expectations for mine workers. Scenario-based 

activities within simulated conditions rely on controlled exercises in which students are 

presented with cues that are similar to those found in the actual mine environment and then given 

feedback based on their responses [Cannon-Bowers et al. 1998]. The notion of scenario-based 

training is consistent with the need to provide novice decisionmakers with a variety of tasks as a 

means to augment their experience and accelerate their skill development [Cannon-Bowers and 

Bell 1997]. Specifically, Miller [1990] presented a pyramid of understanding that individuals 

should ascend from in order to demonstrate proficiency of a competency: 

• Level 1: Knowledge. Knowing facts and procedures. 

• Level 2: Knowing How. Competence in using knowledge to formulate a response. 

• Level 3: Showing How. Being able to demonstrate while observed.

• Level 4: Does. Being able to respond independently as a practitioner. 

These levels support that trainings should facilitate an individual’s ability to acquire and 

demonstrate a skill rather than just possess knowledge [Rolfe et al. 1998]. For instance, even if 

someone knows how to read a mine map, the ability to make quick decisions about an escapeway 

in a stressful environment is quite different. Trainers in the current study agreed, emphasizing the 

importance of mine workers practicing and learning in a hands-on activity, simulated mining 

environment, or in a real mine. 

Trainers in the current study contended that, due to lack of time and resources, they often 

have to watch small groups perform a task instead of only evaluating one individual at a time. 

However, one positive aspect of these group-based tasks is that they allow individuals to become 

familiar with their respective members’ knowledge, skills, attitudes, and task-relevant attributes 

[Cannon-Bowers and Salas 1998]. Using group-based training or teamwork is applicable for 

some portions of mine safety trainings because miners more often respond as a group during an 

emergency escape [NIOSH 2000; USBM 1994]. Also, because leaders that are not always the 

foreman or shift leader often emerge during emergencies, it is important to practice assigning 

tasks and making group decisions before being faced with a real emergency [USBM 1994]. 

As the results illustrated, trainers in the current study seldom reported “watching” an 

individual or group go through a decisionmaking process. Those trainers who did indicate 

engaging in such an assessment often had the ability to use a simulated mine in which they could 

stage an emergency and watch a group engage in a discussion about whether or not they should 

take refuge, etc. Regardless of the resources available, however, trainers referenced the logistics 
16 

for conducting trainings in a real or simulated mine as a barrier for most safety trainers. For this 

reason, collaboration with mining organizations to coordinate mock emergencies on a consistent 

basis is critical. 

In addition, even if access to a simulated mine environment is not possible, trainers can still 

format activities in classrooms that require demonstration of skills. For example, one trainer said 

that he sets up a lifeline in the hallway outside the classroom and has students maneuver the path 

of the lifeline and assert what each signal means. Therefore, options are available for trainers 

with more limited resources. 

Assessment Tools for Simulated Activities 

Trainers in the current study expressed a need for safety trainings to have standardized tools 

for assessing miners’ competencies. Several organizations have had similar difficulties trying to 

operationally assess competence. For example, the U.S. military noted that it is difficult to design 

tests that are suitable for everyone and suggested that any operational testing system contain 

multiple assessments that require trainees to make a variety of decisions during simulated 

scenarios or activities [Knapp and Campbell 2006]. 

As the results in the current study exhibit, mine safety trainers more often assess individuals 

and groups using observation than other methods of assessment. However, trainers in this study 

did not reference any assessment tool for consistently evaluating and documenting competence 

while watching students. Rather, a collective comment was “you know it when you see it.” 

However, how can we be sure that trainers are seeing the same thing and, further, documenting 

what they saw to followup with students? Other fields, such as internal medicine, also face 

similar challenges of assessing clinical skills through direct observation. In response, they have 

made efforts to develop robust work-based assessment tools in which checklists, behaviorally 

anchored rating scales (BARS), and behavioral observation scales [Muchinsky 1990] have 

helped improve the rater reliability evaluations of individual performance. 

For example, Rosen et al. [2008] recommend using critical events within a scenario to create 

behavioral checklists to assess competence. The authors advocated for ordering these events in 

time, and trainers can score each behavioral response dichotomously (i.e., yes or no). They 

indicated these checklists are advantageous for two reasons. First, because events are listed in 

order, trainers can focus their attention on specific tasks that occur during a scenario, making it 

easier to pay attention. Second, trainers only score the “presence or absence of specific behaviors 

and do not make judgments about the quality of the behavior, increasing the reliability of 

ratings” [p. 1196]. These checklists can be used to determine general proficiency and as a 

method to provide feedback to students. 

A similar checklist exists for assessing SCSR donning competency [USBM 1993]. The 

NIOSH research team incorporated the 3+3 donning method into a training package for mine 

safety trainers to help facilitate hands-on learning. The SCSR donning performance checklist 

(Figure D1, Appendix D) allows for a yes-or-no response, so trainers can simply indicate what a 

student did and did not do during the donning of their SCSR. Such evaluation checklists can 

prompt important points for trainers to discuss with each student. In addition, each student can 

receive a copy of their 3+3 checklist to serve as a reminder for the correct donning procedure.
17 

If trainers use scenario-based activities such as taking refuge, wayfinding, or reading a mine 

map, these behavioral checklists may be useful as a quick method to document competence. If 

behavioral checklists exist for more skills, trainers may be able to quantitatively assess each 

individual during trainings with more ease. Subsequently, if a cumulative sheet for each mine 

worker documented scores for each activity, this recording could be provided to the mine. This 

information could subsequently allow mine management to have documentation that, although 

an individual could demonstrate donning an SCSR, he/she may have had trouble ventilating a 

mine. Any deficiencies noted could be further developed on the job. 

Finally, the creation of behavioral, dichotomous checklists may be a helpful aid for mine 

safety trainers who are not as familiar with newer mining equipment and technology. For 

example, a behavioral checklist for using refuge chambers may be useful because this technology 

is newer and some mine safety trainers may not have real experience with this equipment, 

particularly if the trainer has not been underground for several years. 

Assess the Most Critical Self-escape Competencies

As Table 1 illustrates, NIOSH identified 45 competencies that mine workers should know to 

aid self-escape during an emergency. Because there is often only 8 to 32 hours to cover this 

information, depending on the type of training, tasks should be prioritized and, at the least, mine 

workers may be able to participate in hands-on activities for the most crucial SEC. We asked 

trainers from the current study to identify subject areas in which mine workers are in the greatest 

need of better training. Although not a detailed task analysis, the NAS [2013] also suggested 

eight subject areas in which miners are in the greatest need of better training. The subject areas 

identified by the NAS and by the nine mine safety trainers in this study are similar (see Table 2), 

providing a strong starting point for prioritizing the SEC in which mine workers need more 

simulated practice before beginning a career as an underground coal miner. 

Table 2. Self-escape competencies for which mine workers need better training 

National Academy of Science 

recommendations [NAS 2013]

Mine Safety Trainers’ 

recommendations

SCSR donning and switching SCSR donning and switching 

SCSR expectations SCSR expectations 

Simulated smoke Shapes of lifeline signals

The effects of carbon monoxide Firefighting skills

The concept of ventilation leakage How ventilation works in a mine 

Wayfinding General escapeway training, escape routes 

from mines, and reading a mine map

Effective warnings Communication systems

Problem-solving and decisionmaking Barricading and refuge shelters
18 

However, if hands-on tasks conducted within a classroom or simulated environment are not 

appropriately evaluated and discussed, trainees may not fully reflect and learn from their 

experiences. This area is addressed next.

Include Individual Assessment and Debriefings when Possible

Behavioral checklists, such as the SCSR Donning Sequence Evaluation Sheet (Figure D1, 

Appendix D), is one way to begin some type of evaluation of mine workers’ SEC. However, 

general debriefing with trainees about their role(s) during mining activities is crucial to help 

implant learning experiences. Even though there is a trend toward assessments during group 

work, especially in simulated activities, it is crucial that each individual participates in each 

training activity [Gredler 1992]. A common fault in using group activities or simulations is that a 

trainer primarily examines the group and overlooks the experiences of each individual [Vernon 

1990]. Gillespie [1973] indicated that simulated exercises are not self-teaching. Rather, trainers 

need to debrief the exercise(s) so students can reflect on their decisions and subsequent actions in 

a similar situation in the future. He suggested that a structured form of debriefing, in the form of 

a standard set of questions, questionnaires, discussions, etc. are useful. Several of the training 

packages listed in Appendix A contain probing questions that trainers can adapt when debriefing 

a simulated activity. However, as mine safety trainings continue to evolve and become more 

hands-on, new training materials and debriefing scripts may be needed to help guide trainers 

through a discussion. 

Even though time is usually limited during trainings, instead of shortening the evaluation and 

debriefing, Hofstede and Pedersen [1999] asserted that it is better to shorten the simulation 

activity so that individuals are given the opportunity to reflect on their experiences. For example, 

in a meta-analysis of 31 studies, Tannenbaum and Cerasoli [2013] found that the use of debriefs, 

or followup discussions, in trainings resulted in an average of 25% performance improvement in 

both individual participants (26%) and teams (25%). They also found that the average debrief 

lasted approximately 18 minutes, illustrating that including this type of intervention into a 

training would not require much time but yield better performance among participants. 

In addition, debriefing activities should consist of empowering dialogue that target mine 

workers to help and support each other in self-escape skill development. As we have discussed, 

assessing individual competency is difficult for one trainer, and fellow coworkers should be 

encouraged to help. One trainer noted that in most cases, it is expected that a peer will help 

another peer in need, although it is not made explicit. Instead of making assumptions, trainers 

need to enhance the concept of group learning and teamwork during debriefings. 

However, even if mine safety trainings start incorporating more simulated activities with 

regular assessment, results from this study also indicate that consistent trainings and assessment 

in skill proficiency needs to occur. Remediation efforts need to be conducted more frequently 

because, as several trainers noted, the mining environment, which includes the other mine 

workers you work with, is constantly changing [Kowalski-Trakofler et al. 2008]. In addition, 

because the mine environment is constantly changing, safety trainers need to remain vigilant of 

the ways mine processes are changing with time and newer technology. This knowledge 

maintenance for trainers is the final recommendation to improve mine safety training and 

assessment.
19 

Maintain Personal Knowledge of Mine Processes

It was common for trainers to say that many certified trainers across the nation have not been 

underground in several years and that the mining environment has drastically changed. These 

trainers said that it is easy to lose touch and not know what’s going on in mines. As one trainer

acknowledged, “I become more obsolete every day,” because the mine conditions and protocols 

change daily. In response, they felt that trainers who were more knowledgeable about current 

mining conditions and issues may be better prepared to train new miners. It does not take much 

for a trainer familiar with the mining industry to get up-to-date, as some trainers exclaimed, “We 

may only be inside the mine an hour or two but we can pick up a lot of information quickly.” 

All mines are different, which makes the trainers’ job of staying up-to-date even more 

difficult. For instance, one trainer noted that the colors used to designate escapeways can vary 

across mines because the use of color in escapeways is not standard across mines, which makes 

it difficult for a trainer to teach and assess this competency. Further compounding this barrier, 

however, is a time constraint. Trainers noted that the time allotment to prepare for training and to 

stay current on mining topics is difficult. One trainer exclaimed that the effort to continually 

provide new topics that are tailored to the specific mine and to that mine’s training preferences is 

challenging. Other trainers had similar feedback, remarking that safety trainers do not know as 

much as they should about the present mining environment and that better methods are needed in 

order for trainers to obtain and maintain their certification. Therefore, it is important for safety 

trainers to keep abreast of new mining processes and technology and, if possible, review the 

mine layout for a specific organization before an annual refresher training. Knowing a little bit of 

information about the specific mine may help guide more informed dialogue with mine workers 

throughout the training. 

Recommendations for Mine Operators to Enhance and Maintain 

Self-escape Competencies at Mine Sites 

The results also revealed a critical role for mine operators to help further instill and maintain 

competencies in mine workers after safety training. We acknowledge that mine operators and 

mine sites have limited resources and busy production schedules that impair their ability to hold 

continuous training. However, we provide three practical and feasible recommendations for mine 

operators in an effort to help instill and maintain the SEC that mine workers acquire at mine 

safety training. 

Include Remediation and Followup after Safety Training

In addition to a lack of task redundancy at new miner trainings, results from this study also 

indicate that little remediation is done after a mine worker becomes certified and begins a career 

underground. For example, several trainers said that even if a miner can demonstrate proficiency 

in SCSR donning, this competency is short-lived and not reassessed often enough. However, a 

mine operator may generally assume that a mine worker who has completed a new miner or 

annual refresher training may be prepared for an emergency. Followup training within a mine 

workers’ particular environment is necessary after completion of new miner training. 

Particularly, mine operators could inquire with mine safety trainers to determine if a specific 
20 

student or students had problems demonstrating proficiency in a task so they could continue to 

work with employees, if necessary to further instill specific SEC. Even having a general 

discussion with their workforce immediately after training about what new skills mine workers 

learned, or relearned, could help instill the SEC recently acquired. 

Provide Orientation on Mine-specific Details to New Mine Workers

In addition to general debriefing of training, followup training may help new miners learn the 

nuances of their specific mine. Although individual mine workers should take personal 

responsibility to ask questions about the mine upon starting a new job, mine operators should 

also continue to emphasize the importance of learning about the mine and notifying new miners 

what questions to ask management and coworkers. The likelihood of the same team that worked 

together during a training simulation to work together to manage a real emergency in the future 

is low [Borodzicz and van Haperen 2002]. Therefore, followup exercises would allow new 

miners to become more comfortable communicating and making decisions with their coworkers 

to better manage emergencies.

As part of a NIOSH research project to improve the assessment of coal miners’ self-escape 

competencies (SEC), NIOSH researchers developed and tested a method for assessing mine 

workers’ knowledge of lifeline signals. Appendix E discusses the particulars of this assessment. 

Similar to the recommendations from trainers, the assessment involved the use of a real mining 

environment, hands-on activities, individual-level assessment using a paper-and-pencil 

evaluation, and remediation following the initial training. This description serves as an exemplar 

approach from which we hope mine operators can glean and adopt information to improve the 

consistent application of mine-specific activities and assessment methods. 

Organize Mock Emergencies for New Employees 

The most desired “wish” discussed by trainers was that of requiring each and every mine 

worker to go through a simulated self-escape training or go through a mock emergency drill in 

their own mine on a consistent basis. Trainers indicated that miners need to see what a mine 

looks like in full smoke. In addition, by organizing annual simulated trainings or mock drills, 

trainers explained that miners could be trained on all possible contingencies like a fire, roof fall, 

or something else that may block their primary escape route. Trainers said this experience is 

invaluable because it builds self-efficacy and speed in making emergency response decisions. As 

one trainer stated, “Any coal miner that’s hired has to take a class built on skill level. They need 

everything from the books, to practice, to the simulators. They need to have the opportunity to 

have failures without consequences. Every mine should have a training center at their facility so 

you can have remediation and practice with people early on.” Because mine safety trainers may

not have access to mines to facilitate such activities, it is recommended that mine operators 

organize mock emergency drills on a regular basis to help mine workers maintain their SEC. In 

addition, incorporating regular mock emergency drills would satisfy a NAS [2013] 

recommendation that advised the implementation of annual self-escape scenario exercises at 

every underground mine. 
21 

Conclusions

This report discussed the importance of training and assessing mine workers’ self-escape 

competencies (SEC) and identified the gaps in training that still exist regarding rigorous 

assessment of these SEC. Specifically, the results from interviews with mine safety trainers 

indicate that more simulated activities need to be done with new mine workers, that more 

evaluation tools are needed to aid the assessment of these activities, and that students should be 

thoroughly debriefed following simulation training exercises. Also, the frequency of assessment 

and of remediation efforts needs to increase after training, at the specific mine site, to help 

employees further master SEC. An example of such post-training followup is provided in 

Appendix E of this document. 

Improving methods of assessing miners’ SEC may not only better prepare workers for selfescape, but it may also help identify gaps in current training protocols and support the need for 

additional training resources. For example, by developing and using some type of assessment 

protocol (e.g., behavioral checklists), it may be easier to make strong justifications for improving 

teaching methods and resources. Tracking individuals’ proficiency assessments during mine 

training and comparing results between different training facilities may provide information 

about the specific resources that aid in the development of SEC. Specifically, such a comparison 

may provide hard data in support of simulated environments for mine safety trainings. As 

mentioned in the Australian report on competency assessment, there are valid ways to assess 

competencies other than written testing. Several forms of assessment should be explored and 

subsequently validated in the United States to improve mine workers’ self-escape competencies. 

This report presented a variety of information concerning SEC. Although not a representative 

sample, the results continue to show the importance of placing a consistent focus on assessment

of SEC during current mine safety trainings. With the continued development of hands-on 

training activities and assessment methods, the mining industry can continue to improve upon 

existing training methods and further enhance mine workers’ abilities to self-escape. Finally, 

good communication and coordination between outside trainers and the mine operator is vital to 

ensuring that everything is covered in an effective manner. As the NAS [2013] indicated, 

collaboration between several key organizations and individuals is necessary to improve and 

maintain mine workers’ abilities to self-escape. This report targeted mine operators and mine 

safety trainers as a source to begin improving the quality and quantity of methods used to train 

and assess self-escape competencies. 

.
22 

References

Beilock S [2010]. Choke: What the secrets of the brain reveal about getting it right when you 

have to. New York, NY: Free Press. 

Borodzicz E, van Haperen K [2002]. Individual and group learning in crisis simulations. 

Discussion Papers in Management, University of Southampton. Number M02-5. 

Cannon-Bowers JA, Bell HR [1997]. Training decision makers for complex environments: 

implications of the naturalistic decision making perspective. In Zsambok C, Klein G, eds.

Naturalistic decision making. Hillsdale, NJ: LEA, pp. 99–110. 

Cannon-Bowers JA, Salas E [1998]. Individual and team decision making under stress: 

theoretical underpinnings. In Cannon-Bowers JA, Salas E, eds. Making decisions under stress: 

implications for individual and team training. Washington, DC: APA Press, pp. 17–38. 

Cannon-Bowers JA, Burns JJ, Salas E, Pruitt JS [1998]. Advanced technology in scenario-based 

training. In Cannon-Bowers JA, Salas E, eds. Making decisions under stress: implications for 

individual and team training. Washington, DC: APA Press, pp. 367–374. 

CFR. Code of Federal Regulations. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, Office 

of the Federal Register. 

Chiles WD [1967]. Methodology in the assessment of complex performance: discussion and 

conclusion. Hum Factors 9(4):385–392. 

Christensen JM, Mills RG [1967]. What does the operator do in complex systems? Hum Factors

9(4):329–340. 

Commonwealth of Australia [2012]. Escape from hazardous situation unaided. RIIERR203B. 

Published by the Australian Government, Department of Education, Employment and Workplace 

Relations. Industry Skills Council 

[http://training.gov.au/TrainingComponentFiles/RII09/RIIERR203B_R1.pdf]. 

Cullen J, Bryman A [1988]. The knowledge acquisition bottleneck: time for reassessment? 

Expert Systems 5:216–225. 

Galvin JM [2008]. Review of best practices for escape and rescue from underground coal mines 

in Australia. St Ives NSW, Australia: Galvin and Associates Pty Ltd. CDC contract no. 200-

2008-M-24524 for the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Pittsburgh 

Research Laboratory. 

GAO [2007]. Better oversight and coordination by MSHA and other federal agencies could 

improve safety for underground coal miners. GAO-07-622. Washington, DC: U.S. Government 

Accountability Office [http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d07622.pdf].

Gillespie P [1973]. Learning through simulation games. New York, NY: Paulist Press. 
23 

Gredler ME [1992]. Designing and evaluating games and simulations: a process approach. 

London: Kogan Page Unlimited. 

Hoffman RR, Shadbolt NR, Burton AM, Klein G [1995]. Eliciting knowledge from experts: a 

methodological analysis. Organ Behav Hum Dec 62(2):129–158. 

Hofstede GJ, Pedersen P [1999]. Synthetic cultures: intercultural learning through simulation 

games. Simulation and Gaming 30(4):415–440. 

Kingsley Westerman C, Peters R [2011]. Improved recognition of lifeline tactile signals by 

miners. Coal Age 116(9):40–43. 

Knapp DJ, Campbell RC [2006]. Army enlisted personnel competency assessment program: 

phase II report. United States Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences. 

Technical Report 1174. 

Kowalski-Trakofler KM, Vaught C, Brnich MJ [2008]. Expectations training for miners using 

self-contained self-rescuers in escapes from underground coal mines. J Occup Environ Hyg 

5(10):671–677. 

Kowalski-Trakofler KM, Vaught C, Brnich MJ, Jansky JH [2010]. A study of first moments in 

underground mine emergency response. J Homeland Secur Emerg Manage 7(1):39. 

Leigh IW, Smith IL, Bebeau MJ, Lichtenberg JW, Nelson PD, Portnoy S, Rubin NJ, Kaslow NJ 

[2007]. Competency assessment models. Prof Psychol: Res Prac 38:463–473. 

McAteer JD, Bethell TN, Monforton C, Pavlovich JW, Roberts D, Spence B [2006a].The Sago 

Mine Disaster: A preliminary report to Governor Joe Manchin III 

[http://www.wju.edu/sago/SagoMineDisasterReport_July2006.pdf]. 

McAteer JD, Bethell TN, Monforton C, Pavlovich JW, Roberts D, Spence B [2006b]. The Fire at 

Aracoma Alma Mine #1: A preliminary report to Governor Joe Manchin III 

[http://www.wju.edu/aracoma/AracomaAlmaMineReport_November2006.pdf]. 

McKinney EH, Davis KJ [2003]. Effects of deliberate practice on crisis decision performance. 

Human Factors 45:436–444. 

Miller GE [1990]. The assessment of clinical skills/competence/performance. Acad Med 

65(9):63–67. 

MSHA [2006]. Self-contained self-rescuers: a comprehensive guide to the inspection, care and 

use of. Available from the National Mine Health and Safety Academy Department of 

Instructional Materials Printing and Property Management Branch. See MSHA Catalog of 

Training Products for the Mining Industry 2011, DVD # 013 

[http://www.msha.gov/PROGRAMS/EPD2.HTM].

MSTTC [2006]. Improving mine safety technology and training: establishing U.S. global 

leadership. Mine Safety Technology and Training Commission. National Mining Association, 

Dec. 2006, 193 pp. [http://www.coalminingsafety.org/documents/msttc_report.pdf].
24 

Muchinsky PM [1990]. Psychology applied to work. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole. 

NAS [2013]. Improving self-escape from underground coal mines. National Academy of 

Sciences. Committee on Mine Safety: Essential Components of Self-Escape; Board on HumanSystems Integration; Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education; National 

Research Council of The National Academies. Washington DC: National Academies Press. 

National Mining Industry Training Advisory Body [2002]. Black Coal Training Package MNC98 

Version 2.00. Australian National Training Authority, Brisbane: Australia: Australian Training 

Products, Ltd. [http://training.gov.au/TrainingComponentFiles/NTIS/MNC98_1.pdf]. 

NIOSH [2000]. Behavioral and organizational dimensions of underground mine fires. By: 

Vaught C, Brnich MJ, Mallett LG, Cole HP, Wiehagen WJ, Conti RS, Kowalski KM, Litton CD. 

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 2000-

126, IC 9450. 

NIOSH [2011]. Lifeline tactile signal flashcards. By: Kingsley Westerman CY, Kosmoski C. 

Pittsburgh, PA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Centers 

for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health 

[http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/mining/works/coversheet1826.html]. 

NIOSH [2012]. Instructor’s guide: nonverbal communication for mine emergencies. By 

Kosmoski CL, Margolis KA, Kingsley Westerman CY, Mallet L. U.S. Department of Health and 

Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational 

Safety and Health, DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 2012-104, RI 9688 

[http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/mining/UserFiles/works/pdfs/2012-104.pdf]. Date accessed: February 

2013. 

NIOSH [2013]. Incorporating judgment and decisionmaking into quarterly mine escape training 

based on a mine fire scenario. By Brnich MJ, Hall EE. U.S. Department of Health and Human 

Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety 

and Health, DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 2014-101, RI 9692. 

Peters R, Kosmoski C [2013]. Are your coal miners prepared to self-escape? Coal Age 

118(1):26–28. 

Radomsky M, Flick J, DeSalvo J, Grayson L, Ramani R [2009]. Escape and evacuation: a 

miners’ education and training tool box, instructors’ handbook. Developed by the Penn State 

University Miner Training Program; funded by the U.S. Department of Labor, Mine Safety and 

Health Administration, MSHA Grant # BS-17826-08-60-R-42 

[http://www.eme.psu.edu/minerstownhall_training/bsg2.html]. 

Rolfe J, Saunders D, Powell T, eds [1998]. The international simulation and gaming research 

yearbook, volume 6, simulations and games for emergency and crisis management. London: 

Kogan Page Limited. 
25 

Rosen MA, Salas E, Wu TS, Silvestri S, Lazzara EH, Lyons R, Weaver SJ, King HB [2008]. 

Promoting teamwork: an event-based approach to simulation-based teamwork training for 

emergency medicine residents. Acad Emerg Med 15(11):1190–1198. 

Tannenbaum SI, Cerasoli CP [2013]. Do team and individual debriefs enhance performance? A 

meta-analysis. J Hum Factors Ergon Soc 55(1):231–245. 

USBM [1993]. An overview of research on self-contained self-rescuer training. By Vaught C, 

Brnich M, Wiehagen W, Cole H, Kellner H. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines 

Bulletin 695, 19 pp. 

USBM [1994]. Emergence of leadership in a crisis: a study of group escapes from fire in 

underground coal mines. By Kowalski KM, Mallett LG, Brnich MJ. Pittsburgh, PA: U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines, IC 9385. 

USC. United States Code. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 

Vernon R [1990]. Ethical issues. In: Crookall D, Oxford RL, eds. Simulation, gaming, and 

language learning. The University of Alabama. New York: Newbury House. 

Weiser M, Shertz J [1983]. Programming problem representation in novice and expert 

programmers. Int J Man-Mach Stud 19(4):391–398. 

WVMSTTF [2006]. Mine safety recommendations: report to the Director of the Office of 

Miners’ Health, Safety and Training: as required by West Virginia Code §56-4-4. West Virginia 

Mine Safety Technology Task Force [http://www.wvminesafety.org/PDFs/MSTTF Report 

Final.pdf]. 

27 

Appendix A: Resources for Teaching Coal Mine 

Self-escape Competencies

Certain types of information on self-escape are unique to every mine, and should be obtained 

from the mine’s safety department. However, many useful resources have been developed for 

teaching coal mine self-escape competencies that are applicable to almost any coal mine. Links 

to training materials and guidance documents available from NIOSH, Penn State University, and 

MSHA are provided below. These resources are organized into the following categories: 

I. What to do Before Starting to Evacuate

II. Using Emergency Equipment 

III. Communication

IV. Decisionmaking 

V. Other Issues

I. What to do Before Starting to Evacuate 

 (Communicate, assemble, plan escape, gather items)

• Smoke on the Section (currently being updated) 

• Low Coal Fire (currently being updated) 

• Travel Through Smoke (currently being updated) 

• Belt Fire Exercise (currently being updated) 

• Escape and Evacuation: A Miners’ Education and Training Toolbox (Talk #20: 

Procedures When the Alarm 

Sounds) http://www.eme.psu.edu/minerstownhall_training/bsg2.html

II. Using Emergency Equipment 

Types of alarm systems and how you should respond to them. Consult Mine Safety Dept.

• Escape and Evacuation: A Miners’ Education and Training Toolbox (Talk #19: Fire 

Detection 

Systems) http://exponentevents.com/minerstownhall/escapeandevaculation_handbook.pd

f

How to use mine communication equipment in emergencies

• Radio 101: Operating Two-Way Radios Every Day and in 

Emergencies http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/mining/works/coversheet522.html

• Escape and Evacuation: A Miners’ Education and Training Toolbox (Talk #15: Zones 

and 

Communication) http://exponentevents.com/minerstownhall/escapeandevaculation_hand

book.pdf
28 

How to operate a refuge chamber. (These materials are intended to supplement the chamber 

manufacturer’s manuals and instructional materials—not to replace them.) 

• How to Operate a Refuge Chamber: A Quick Start 

Guide http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/mining/works/coversheet1695.html 

• Recommendations for Refuge Chamber Operations 

Training http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/mining/works/coversheet271.html 

How to use a gas meter. Consult manufacturer.

How to use tethers

• Escape and Evacuation: A Miners’ Education and Training Toolbox (Toolbox Talk #17, 

Tethers: Why and How) http://www.eme.psu.edu/minerstownhall_training/bsg2.html

How to use SCSRs

• Escape and Evacuation: A Miners’ Education and Training Toolbox (Talk #6, SCSRs: 

What You Should Know; Talk #11: SCSR Switching) 

http://exponentevents.com/minerstownhall/escapeandevaculation_handbook.pdf 

• MSHA [2006]. Self-Contained Self-Rescuers: A Comprehensive Guide to the Inspection,

Care and Use of. This DVD is available from the National Mine Health and Safety 

Academy for $10. Email: MSHADistributionCenter@dol.gov or see MSHA Catalog of

Training Products for the Mining Industry 2011, DVD 

#013. http://www.msha.gov/TRAINING/prodintr.htm

III. Communication 

What to remember to say and find out during an emergency

• The Emergency Communication 

Triangle http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/mining/works/coversheet838.html 

• Escape and Evacuation: A Miners’ Education and Training Toolbox (Toolbox Talk #4 

How You Communicate a Mine Emergency 

Matters) http://exponentevents.com/minerstownhall/escapeandevaculation_handbook.pdf

• Escape and Evacuation: A Miners’ Education and Training Toolbox (Talk #16 

Responsible 

Person) http://exponentevents.com/minerstownhall/escapeandevaculation_handbook.pdf

IV. Decisionmaking

Whether to go to a refuge chamber or continue trying to escape

• When Do You Take Refuge? Decisionmaking During Mine Emergency 

Escape http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/mining/works/coversheet1556.html 

• Man Mountain’s Refuge http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/mining/works/coversheet1679.html 

• Harry’s Hard Choices http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/mining/works/coversheet1838.html 
29 

• Escape and Evacuation: A Miners’ Education and Training Toolbox (Toolbox Talk #5 

What Would You Rather Do – Escape or Seek 

Refuge?) http://exponentevents.com/minerstownhall/escapeandevaculation_handbook.pd

f

Whether to leave someone behind during an escape

• Escape from a Mine Fire – Decision Making Exercise. (currently being updated) 

• Escape from a Mine Fire – video. See MSHA Catalog of Training Products for the 

Mining Industry 2011, DVD #013. http://www.msha.gov/TRAINING/prodintr.htm

• Harry’s Hard Choices http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/mining/works/coversheet1838.html 

Deciding who leads the escape group

• Behavioral and Organizational Dimensions of Underground Mine Fires (see Chapter 9: 

Leadership in Escape) http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/mining/works/coversheet45.html 

• Lead the Way (video). Available from Virginia Division of 

Mines Marshall.moore@dmme.virginia.gov 

Deciding which escapeway to use and when to switch escapeways

• Low Coal Fire (currently being updated) 

• Belt Fire Exercise (currently being updated) 

• Escape and Evacuation: A Miners’ Education and Training Toolbox (Talk # 13: Primary 

and Secondary Escapeways) 

http://exponentevents.com/minerstownhall/escapeandevaculation_handbook.pdf 

Deciding whether to walk or ride out 

• Travel Through Smoke (currently being updated) 

Deciding whether to fight a fire

• Belt Fire Exercise (currently being updated) 

V. Other Issues

Mine emergency response plan. Consult Mine Safety Department for your mine’s specific plan.

• Escape and Evacuation: A Miners’ Education and Training Toolbox (Talk #8 Know Your 

Emergency Response 

Plan) http://exponentevents.com/minerstownhall/escapeandevaculation_handbook.pdf

Wayfinding 

• Mines must have systems in place for helping people find their way out, such as 

escapeway markers, and lifelines. Some mines use different colored markers to show 

people whether they are going inby or outby, and whether they are in the primary or 

secondary escapeway. In addition, every mine has various other features that can help 

people determine which way they need to go to get out, e.g., following along various 
30 

structures such as the conveyor belt, water lines or high voltage power cables; or 

remembering to keep stoppings on your left. 

• Mine Lifelines. Flash cards can be used to help miners learn and review the meaning of 

the 5 tactile shapes on a lifeline. They can be printed from this 

website http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/mining/works/coversheet1826.html 

• Escape and Evacuation: A Miners’ Education and Training Toolbox (Talk #7: What are 

the Purposes of 

Lifelines?) http://exponentevents.com/minerstownhall/escapeandevaculation_handbook.p

df

• Behavioral and Organizational Dimensions of Underground Mine Fires (see Chapter 8: 

Wayfinding and Escape 

Behavior) http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/mining/works/coversheet45.html

• Underground Coal Mine Map Reading 

Training http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/mining/works/coversheet1825.html 

• Escape & Evacuation: A Miners’ Education and Training Toolbox (Talk #9: Knowledge 

of Escapeway Map Saves Time and 

Lives) http://exponentevents.com/minerstownhall/escapeandevaculation_handbook.pdf

Emergency escape duties/roles

• If people in a mining crew have been designated to perform various duties during an 

emergency, this needs to be communicated well and reviewed often (also who the backup 

persons are). 

• Escape and Evacuation: A Miners’ Education and Training Toolbox (Talk #12: 

Responsibilities of Each Miner during a Fire or Fire 

Drill) http://exponentevents.com/minerstownhall/escapeandevaculation_handbook.pdf

• Escape and Evacuation: A Miners’ Education and Training Toolbox (Talk #16: 

Responsible 

Person) http://exponentevents.com/minerstownhall/escapeandevaculation_handbook.pdf

How to communicate nonverbally while wearing an SCSR 

• Nonverbal Communication for Mine 

Emergencies http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/mining/works/coversheet461.html 

How to recognize and respond to symptoms of traumatic incident stress during escape

• Man Mountain’s Refuge http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/mining/works/coversheet1679.html 

• Traumatic Incident Stress: Information for Emergency Response 

Workers http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/mining/works/coversheet643.html 

Developing realistic expectations about:

• Using mine refuge chambers: Refuge Chamber Expectations 

Training http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/mining/works/coversheet455.html 
31 

• Using SCSRs: I Can’t Get Enough Air! Proper Self-contained Self-rescuer 

Usage http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/mining/works/coversheet343.html 

Expectations Training for Miners Using Self-Contained Self-Rescuers in Escapes from 

Underground Coal Mines http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/mining/works/coversheet985.html 

• Navigating through smoke: Several mine training facilities offer simulated smoke 

evacuation training using a maze in a trailer or a building or mine passageways filled 

with smoke: MSHA’s National Mine Health and Safety Academy (Beaver, WV), the 

Colorado School of Mines Edgar Mine Rescue Training Center (Idaho Springs, CO), 

Southern West Virginia Community and Technical College (Logan, WV), the Mining 

Technology and Training Center (Prosperity, PA), West Virginia University’s Mining 

Extension and Outreach Program (Morgantown, WV), Rend Lake Community College 

(Ina, IL), Kentucky Coal Academy at Madisonville Community College (Madisonville, 

KY), Alabama Mine Training Consortium at Bevill State Community College, (Sumiton, 

AL), and Western Energy Training Center at College of Eastern Utah (Helper, UT).

Behavioral and Organizational Dimensions of Underground Mine Fires (see Chapter 7: 

Smoke as an escape and behavioral environment and Chapter 8: Wayfinding and escape 

behavior) http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/mining/works/coversheet45.html

• Mine Gases: Miners should know the odors and properties of gases (e.g., specific gravity 

of carbon monoxide, CO), exposure limits, physical symptoms of overexposure, and 

consequences of failing to isolate lungs. 

Escape and Evacuation: A Miners’ Education and Training Toolbox (Toolbox Talk #1: 

Know the Dangers of Coal Mine 

Atmospheres) http://exponentevents.com/minerstownhall/escapeandevaculation_handboo

k.pdf

Escape from Farmington No. 

9 http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/mining/works/coversheet1628.html 

Smoke on the Section (Currently being updated) 

• How the mine ventilation system functions and the hazards of system failures:

Consult your mine’s ventilation plan.

MSHA [2011]. Catalog of Training Products for the Mining 

Industry. http://www.msha.gov/TRAINING/prodintr.htm. 

NIOSH Mine Safety Training. Most mine safety training materials developed by NIOSH can be 

found at http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/mining/works/productlist.html

or http://www2a.cdc.gov/nioshtic-2/publications/pubresults.asp.

33 

Appendix B: Interview Guide for Mine Trainers Regarding

Self-escape Competencies

 

1. Introduction

Hello, my name is_______. I work for the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health 

(NIOSH). NIOSH is doing a research study to gather information on what coal mine safety 

trainers think about how to train miners to be able to self-escape during mine emergencies. 

Because you have much experience providing safety training to coal miners, I would like to 

interview you. The interview may take about 2 hours. Your participation is completely 

voluntary. You don't need to answer any questions that you don't want to answer. Your responses 

to interview questions will be treated in a confidential manner. I do not record the names of the 

people I interview. The information you provide will be analyzed and reported along with the 

information provided by other mine trainers. In any public release of results, no data will be 

disclosed that could be used to identify specific individuals. Only NIOSH staff who are involved 

in collecting or preparing the information for analysis will have access to your answers.

If you do not object to being interviewed, I need you to review and sign this consent form. 

[Give form to trainer and explain.]

Do you have any questions before I begin the interview? 

2. Trainer’s Background

I’d like to start by asking a few questions about you and your experience as a mine safety trainer.

2.1 What types of jobs have you performed that are related to underground coal mining?

2.2 How many years have you provided safety training for underground coal miners? 

2.3 How long has it been since you last conducted coal miner safety training as mandated by 

30 CFR Part 48? [# of weeks] 

2.4 Which types of mandated coal miner safety training have you taught? [new miner, annual 

refresher, new task]

2.5 Have you trained mine rescue teams? 

2.6 Have there been any incidents at a mine where you have worked that required 

underground miners to initiate emergency response procedures? [If NO, skip to Section 3.] 

2.7 [If YES] I’d like you to think about the most recent incident. Please describe what happened.

[Probes: How long ago did this happen? Did miners don their SCSRs? Did they evacuate 

from the mine?]

2.8 Thinking about the most recent incident, what aspects of self-escape training should be 

changed in order to improve how miners would respond to similar incidents in the future? 
34 

3. Self-escape Competencies

Self-escape competencies are the knowledge, skills, and abilities coal miners need to possess to 

get out of the mine quickly and safely during mine emergencies. We have attempted to compile a 

list of these competencies.

 

3.1 I would like you to review this list of self-escape competencies and circle the number 

beside each topic on which you have provided formal training. 

[Hand list to the interviewee and wait for them to review and circle competencies.]

3.2 Are there any other self-escape competencies that you think miners should be trained on 

that we do not have on our list? [If NO, skip to 3.4.]

3.3 Please tell me what those competencies are.

3.4 I’d like you to think about the instructional methods you have used to teach self-escape 

competencies over the years. Have you found any methods that seem to work especially 

well? [If NO, go to section 4.]

Please describe the method(s).

4. Competency Assessment

The next section of this interview concerns the assessment of self-escape competencies. 

There are several ways to evaluate a miner’s self-escape competencies. Here is a list of potential

assessment methods. 

[Hand the following list to the trainer.]

Assessment Methods Response Options 

1. Watch each individual perform a task (don SCSR, use gas meter).

2. Use written exams. 

3. Orally question a group of students or the class. 

4. Watch small groups perform a task under simulated conditions. 

5. Use other methods. 

6. I have not evaluated this competency. 

[Hand list to trainer.]

4.1 Please review this list of competencies, and write the number of the assessment technique 

or methods you use in the blank beside each competency. If you have not had any experience 

assessing a competency, please write the number “6” in the blank.
35 

For each competency the trainer has assessed at the individual level (options 1 or 2), ask:

“How do you decide whether an individual miner is sufficiently competent at [XYZ]?”

For each competency the trainer has assessed using “5 Use other methods,” ask: “Please 

describe how you assessed [XYZ].” 

4.2 Do you keep documentation on your assessments of miners’ self-escape competencies? 

[If NO, go to 4.4.] 

4.3 How do you use that information? 

[Probe: Is the information used to ensure that miners who need additional training will get it?]

4.4 Some assessments involve observing or questioning groups of students, and other 

assessments are done at the individual level. There are various ways to assess an individual’s 

competency. It could be done by watching each miner demonstrate a procedure (e.g., 

donning SCSR), giving miners a written exam, or asking each miner to explain something or 

answer a question without relying on help from others. The best way might vary depending 

on the type of self-escape competency. 

We would like your opinions about the best way to assess an individual miner’s competencies.

Here is a list of potential assessment methods. 

[Hand the following list to the trainer.] 

Individual Assessment Technique Response Options 

1. Watch each individual perform a task (don SCSR, use gas meter). 

2. Use written exam. 

3. Orally question each individual. 

4. Watch small groups of individuals perform a task under simulated conditions. 

5. Other methods (please describe). 

Using these options, please write the number of the assessment technique that represents the 

best way to determine if an individual miner is proficient at that competency in the blank 

beside each competency listed. 

[Hand list to trainer.] 

In other words, if you used this competency assessment technique, you would be confident in 

making judgments about whether or not an individual miner’s understanding and/or 

capabilities are sufficient. You may list more than one assessment technique if you think a 

combination of methods should be used. 

[NOTE: If the issue comes up, say “Please assume most miners are capable of taking 

written tests.”]

[Review the trainer’s responses and ask them to describe anything they listed as “5 Use 

other methods.”]
36 

Feasibility of Assessment Methods

Although a competency assessment technique might be excellent in terms of discriminating 

between miners who are proficient and those who are not, there are various reasons why it might 

not be practical or feasible to use that technique. Using the 4 response options on this card, I 

would like you to rate how feasible it would be to use each assessment technique to assess the 

miners you typically train. In rating feasibility, please consider the amount of time and resources 

needed to use the technique. 

Response Card

1. It would be very easy to do. 

2. It is feasible but would require a little more time, effort, resources. 

3. It is feasible but would require substantially more time, effort, resources. 

4. It is not at all feasible. 

How feasible would it be to... 

4.5 Have each miner demonstrate a procedure in a classroom setting. ______ 

[Probe: What are the strengths and limitations of this technique?] 

4.6 Have each miner demonstrate a procedure in the mine. ______ 

[Probe: What are the strengths and limitations of this technique?] 

4.7 Have each miner respond to a written test or quiz. ______ 

[Probe: What are the strengths and limitations of this technique?] 

4.8 Orally question each miner to see if he/she understands a concept. ______ 

[Probe: What are the strengths and limitations of this technique?] 

4.9 Describe a potential emergency situation and ask each miner questions to see if he/she 

knows what to do to self-escape. ______ 

[Probe: What are the strengths and limitations of this technique?] 

4.10 Have each miner respond to a computer-based training simulation to see if he/she would 

know how to respond to various emergency scenarios. ______ 

[Probe: What are the strengths and limitations of this technique?]

4.11 Have each miner show you on a map the best way to evacuate the mine from various 

locations.___ 

[Probe: What are the strengths and limitations of this technique?] 

4.12 Some miners may not be fully capable of self-escape, and would have trouble getting 

out of the mine on their own in an emergency. What are the primary reasons some miners 

might have difficulty getting out of the mine on their own? 
37 

Please use the options on this response card to answer the following 3 questions. 

Proportion of Miners – Response Options 

1. Less than 10% 

2. Less than 25% 

3. Between 25%–50 %

4. More than half 

4.13 Of the coal miners you are familiar with, what proportion would have difficulty getting 

out of the mine on their own? 

1 2 3 4 (circle one)

4.14 Some miners may actually have the knowledge and capabilities required to self-escape, 

but they would have difficulty demonstrating their proficiencies on a written test. Of the coal 

miners you are familiar with, what proportion fall into that category?

1 2 3 4 (circle one) 

4.15 Of those miners who would have difficulty demonstrating their proficiencies on a 

written test, what proportion would perform better on a behavioral assessment? 

1 2 3 4 (circle one) 

5. Remediation

5.1 People learn new things at different rates. Some miners may need more instruction or 

practice than others to become proficient at self-escape. Have you ever suspected that a 

miner needed additional training or practice on a self-escape competency? [If NO, skip to 

section 6.]

5.2 I’d like you to think about the most recent instance. What was the training topic(s)? 

5.3 What made you suspect that this person needed more training? 

5.4 Did you provide them with additional help? How? 

6. Concluding Questions

6.1 Which 2 or 3 self-escape competencies are miners in greatest need of better training on?

6.2 What are the biggest obstacles to improving this type of training? 

6.3 Which 2 or 3 self-escape competencies could trainers do a better job of assessing?

6.4 What are the biggest obstacles to assessing these competencies?
38 

6.5 Besides mine trainers, should anyone else be involved in assessing miners’ self-escape 

competencies?

[Probes: Who? How could they help?] 

6.6 What are the biggest gaps or limitations in our nation’s current system of coal mine selfescape training?

6.7 If you had a limitless amount of authority and resources at your disposal, what would you 

do to improve the self-escape competencies of our nation’s coal miners?

6.8 These are all the questions I have. But before we close, is there anything else you would 

like to add about self-escape competencies.

Thank you very much for participating in this study. 
39 

Appendix C: Complete Results from Interviews with Mine Safety 

Trainers about SEC Training and Assessment

The main document noted the critical feedback, perceived gaps, and recommendations 

received throughout the interviews in terms of training and assessment of mine workers’ selfescape competencies (SEC). This Appendix contains the complete results of the interviews and a 

more in-depth discussion of those results. 

Self-escape Competencies that Trainers Addressed in Mine Safety Training 

Trainers responded to a variety of questions related to skill-building competencies. First, 

trainers were asked to respond to whether or not they provided formal training on “knowing” a 

specific SEC. For example, if trainers provided formal training on knowing the five tactile 

shapes on a lifeline and what they mean, he/she circled that competency to indicate that they did 

provide formal training on knowing this competency. 

As Table C1 indicates, the only two SEC on which every trainer provided knowledge-based 

training were: (1) realistic expectations about using SCSRs (e.g., breathing resistance) and (2) 

how to communicate nonverbally while using an SCSR. However, a majority of trainers also 

provided formal training on knowing how to navigate through smoke, properties of mine gases, 

mine ventilation, reading a mine map, and communication systems. The SEC on which the least 

number of trainers (n=5) reported providing formal training was what your crew expects you to 

take care of during an emergency. Several trainers noted that this competency is mine specific 

and difficult to provide formal training on during a new miner training, in particular. 

Next, trainers were asked to indicate whether they provided formal training on where to find 

particular items that can assist with self-escape during an emergency. For example, if a trainer

indicated that they provide formal training on where to find refuge chambers, they circled that 

competency on the list provided. The response distribution for each SEC is presented in Table 

C2. Trainers indicated that often where to find something is mine-specific, so they could not 

provide accurate formal training on, for example, where to find phones and radios, because they 

may be placed in different locations within each mine. Although there was not one SEC on 

which every trainer noted they provided formal training, where to find SCSR caches, tethers, and 

refuges received the highest frequency of responses (n=8). 

In addition, trainers were asked if they provided formal training on “how to use” something 

during an emergency that requires self-escape. For example, trainers were asked if they provided 

formal training on how to use gas meters during an emergency. Trainers continued to circle each 

SEC on which they provided formal training. These results are displayed below in Table C3. All 

of the trainers indicated that they provide formal training on how to don and switch an SCSR. 

Most trainers also provided specific training on how to use gas meters and lifelines during an 

emergency. 

Similarly, trainers were also asked whether or not they provide formal training on the 

specifics of decisionmaking during a mine emergency. For example, trainers were asked if they 

provided formal training on how to decide whether or not to use a refuge chamber. Trainers 

continued to circle those SEC on which they did provide formal training. These results are 

displayed in Table C4. A continued focus and effort on SCSRs was reported, with every trainer
40

noting that they discuss how to decide when to don and switch an SCSR. In general, trainers 

discussed these topic areas. How to decide when to switch escapeways, who will lead the escape 

group, and using a refuge as a way station were included in the least number of trainers’ formal 

training programs (n=6). 

Finally, trainers were asked whether or not they provide formal training on what to do before 

evacuating an emergency situation. If trainers indicated that they provide training on making sure 

to de-energize powered equipment before exiting the mine, they circled that competency. As you 

can see in the results in Table C5, a majority of trainers indicated that these discussions are 

included in their training. 

Table C1. “Knowing” SEC on which trainers provided formal training (N=9) 

Provide formal training on “Knowing” what to do during an 

emergency that requires self-escape 

Number of 

“Yes” 

Responses (n)

Mine Emergency Response Plan 6

Colors of reflective markers for primary and secondary escapeways 7

The five tactile shapes on a lifeline and what they mean 8

Alternative methods for navigating your way out of the mine 

(besides lifeline) 8

What your crew expects you to take care of during an emergency 5

What types of information need to be communicated to the 

responsible person and to people in other sections 8

How to communicate nonverbally while using SCSR (both to 

coworkers underground and to outside persons) 9

How to read and understand a mine map 8

Where your crew will assemble to prepare for evacuation 7

Realistic expectations about using SCSRs 9

Realistic expectations about using refuge chambers 7

Realistic expectations about navigating through smoke 8

Properties of mine gases 8

How the mine ventilation system functions 8

Types of alarm systems and how to respond to them 6
41

Table C2. “Where to Find” SEC on which trainers provided formal training (N=9) 

Provide formal training on “Where to Find” something 

during an emergency that requires self-escape

Number of “Yes” 

Responses (n)

First-aid kit 7

Escapeway maps 7

SCSR caches 8

Refuge chambers 8

Tethers and taglines 8

Gas meters 7

Phones and radios 7

Areas of higher elevation in the mine 5

All possible exits (shafts, slopes, drifts) 7

Table C3. “How to Use” SEC on which trainers provided formal training (N=9) 

Provide formal training on “How to Use” something 

during an emergency that requires self-escape

Number of “Yes” 

Responses (n)

Communication systems 7

Gas meters 8

SCSRs (donning and switching units) 9

Refuge chambers 7

Lifelines and tethers 8

Transportation equipment (mantrip, hoist) 6
42

Table C4. “How to Decide” SEC on which trainers provided formal training (N=9) 

Provide formal training on “How to Decide” during an 

emergency that requires self-escape

Number of “Yes” 

Responses (n)

The best evacuation route 7

When to switch escapeways 6

When to don SCSRs 9

When to switch SCSRs 9

When to use a refuge chamber 8

Whether to use a refuge chamber as a way station during an 

escape (conditions and factors to be considered) 6

Whether to split up an escape group, leaving one or more 

persons behind 7

Who will lead your escape group 6

Whether to ride or walk out 8

Whether to attempt to fight a fire, and when to abandon such 

efforts 8

Table C5. “Before Evacuating” SEC on which trainers provided formal training (N=9) 

Provide formal training on “What to do Before 

Evacuating” during an emergency

Number of “Yes” 

Responses (n)

Notify the responsible person and people in other sections of 

the mine who may be affected. 8

Make sure all personnel are accounted for. 8

Plan and discuss your escape strategy. 7

De-energize powered equipment. 7

Gather necessary supplies and equipment. 7
43 

In general most trainers had experience providing training on various SEC. Upon completing 

the checklists, trainers were asked if there were any SEC on which they thought mine workers 

should be trained that were missing from the checklists. The majority of trainers indicated that 

the cumulative list was comprehensive and that they had nothing to add. However, a couple of 

the trainers mentioned that some competencies could be enhanced and some added in training, 

based on their training experience and observations. They suggested enhancing or adding the 

following topics: 

• Firefighting methods (e.g., using an extinguisher to put out a fire). 

• Realistic first-aid training (e.g., have bleeding suits to teach combat trauma). 

• Correct manner of barricading if a refuge chamber is not nearby. 

• Calibration of the air composition in a refuge chamber and adjusting the oxygen 

concentration level. 

• Instructions on the use of capsules in the case of an emergency rescue through a borehole. 

• Knowledge of water, seals, and how areas of higher elevation could change the escape 

route during an inundation. 

• Instructions on the use of a multigas detector as an escape tool. 

Some of the SEC that trainers listed above were described more generally on the checklists 

provided, but trainers asserted that more in-depth training was needed in certain areas. For 

instance, although we listed “where to find a first-aid kit,” as a training competency, there was 

no competency listed about how to use this first-aid equipment, particularly in an emergency 

situation. As one trainer noted, MSHA does not have first-aid training requirements for miners, 

with the exception of those involved in mine rescue teams. So, perhaps adding a competency 

about realistic expectations regarding the application of first-aid methods may be appropriate. 

Self-escape Competencies that Trainers Assessed in Mine Safety Training

This section of the interview explored assessment methods used by mine safety trainers. We 

wanted to learn what assessment methods are commonly used by mine safety trainers. Trainers 

were given a list of potential assessment methods: 

• Watch each individual perform a task. 

• Provide written exams. 

• Orally question a group of students or the class. 

• Watch groups perform a task under simulated conditions. 

• Use other methods. 

• I have not evaluated this competency.
44 

Tables C6–C8 display separate results for the individual level (i.e., watching each individual 

perform a task or taking a written exam) and the group level (i.e., orally questioning a group of 

students or watching groups perform a task under simulated conditions). The totals for 

individuals and groups also include other methods that trainers noted that they use to evaluate 

SEC. A couple of trainers indicated that they evaluate an individual by asking him/her to show 

them the task. For example, one trainer explained that instead of just watching a mine worker try 

to read a mine map, he asks each worker to go through the map step by step, and explain how to 

escape from a particular location. Or, some trainers noted watching an individual perform a task 

under simulated conditions, rather than the group as a whole. This situation was often specific to 

donning SCSRs. In general, however, other methods of assessment were seldom offered 

throughout the interviews. 

Table C6 indicates the number of trainers who reported assessing whether or not a mine 

worker knows a specific SEC. In general, trainers explained that when they want to assess 

whether a student knows something, they will administer some sort of written exam or quiz and 

then follow up the exam with an oral question-and-answer session that involves the entire class. 

They felt this combination of individual and group level assessment helped them determine 

whether students grasped a certain topic. 

Next, trainers were asked how they assess whether or not mine workers know how to use 

something that can enable self-escape during an emergency. Table C7 reports the frequency of 

trainers who indicated the different ways that they assess whether individuals know how to use 

something during an emergency that requires self-escape. As the table shows, besides watching 

individuals don and switch SCSRs, which all trainers reported doing, there was not much 

consistency in the methods trainers reported using to assess whether an individual is competent 

in using SEC tools. 

Table C8 also reports on assessment methods used by trainers to evaluate mine workers’ selfescape competence. Researchers inquired whether trainers assess mine workers’ ability to make 

decisions during an emergency that requires self-escape. Trainers primarily indicated written and 

oral questioning as methods they commonly use to assess mine workers’ competence in knowing 

what to do during a mining emergency. Trainers seldom reported “watching” an individual or 

group progress through a decisionmaking process. Those trainers who did indicate engaging in 

such an assessment often had the ability to use a simulated mine in which they could simulate an 

emergency and watch individuals decide whether or not to fight a fire or watch a group engage in 

a discussion about whether or not they should take refuge. 

Observation of the Individual

In general, we were more focused on the ways that trainers assessed competence at the 

individual level. Therefore, we probed the ways in which trainers conducted their individuallevel assessments and any other methods they used. Trainers were asked, “How do you decide 

whether an individual miner is sufficiently competent at [SEC]?” Normally, trainers indicated 

that they can assess competency through general observation of the individual. A common 

response to this question was, “Just by watching them, you can tell if someone is struggling.” 

One trainer used donning an SCSR as an example when he explained that, after a student finishes 

donning the unit, he can assess whether or not the student correctly followed the steps during the 

procedure. 
45 

Written Exams

Of the trainers who used written exams, a majority reported having trainees do a self-check 

of their test answers but not collecting the results. Similarly, when trainers were queried about 

whether they kept documentation on any individual-level assessments of miners’ SEC, trainers 

commonly replied, “I don’t keep tests they perform. I administer the test and then review it. They 

keep it or trash it; we don’t file it.” However, a couple of trainers noted doing pre-tests and posttests if the content is newer or conducted as a part of an MSHA regulation. As one trainer said, 

“If it’s something they’re signing off on (e.g., certified to use gas meters), it goes with that 

documentation in their file.” 
Table C6. Frequency of “Knowing” SEC individual and group level assessment (N=9)

Assessment of whether miner “Knows 

What to do” in an emergency that 

requires self-escape 

“Yes” (n) to 

Watch 

Individual

“Yes” (n) to 

Provide 

Written 

Exams

“Yes” (n) 

to an

Individuallevel 

Assessment

“Yes” (n) to 

Orally 

Question 

Group

“Yes” (n) to

Watch 

Group

“Yes” (n) 

to a

Group-level 

Assessment

The 5 tactile shapes on a lifeline and 

what they mean 3 5 7 7 4 7

Alternative methods for navigating your 

way out of the mine (besides lifeline) 2 5 6 7 3 7

What types of information need to be 

communicated to the responsible person 

and to people in other sections

1 5 5 7 2 7

How to communicate nonverbally while 

using SCSR (both to coworkers 

underground and to outside persons)

4 2 6 5 2 5

How to read/understand a mine map 1 5 5 6 1 6

How to navigate through smoke 4 1 6 3 4 6

Properties of mine gases 2 8 8 6 2 6

How the mine ventilation system 

functions 1 6 7 4 1 4

What supplies and equipment to take 

during an escape 1 3 4 5 3 6
Table C7. Frequency of “How to Use” SEC individual and group level assessment (N=9)

Assessment of whether miners know 

“How to Use” something during an 

emergency that requires self-escape 

“Yes” (n) to 

Watch 

Individual

“Yes” (n) to 

Provide 

Written 

Exams

“Yes” (n) 

to an 

Individuallevel 

Assessment

“Yes” (n) to 

Orally 

Question 

Group

“Yes” (n) to

Watch 

Group

“Yes” (n) 

to a 

Group-level 

Assessment

Communication systems 4 1 5 4 3 4 

Gas meters 6 3 6 4 1 4 

SCSRs (donning and switching units) 9 5 9 3 5 6 

Refuge chambers 3 3 5 3 4 5 

Lifelines and tethers 4 3 6 5 2 6 

Transportation equipment 2 3 5 4 1 4 

Table C8. Frequency of “How to Decide” SEC individual and group level assessment (N=9)

Assessment of whether miners “ How 

to Decide” during an emergency that 

requires self-escape 

“Yes” (n) to 

Watch 

Individual

“Yes” (n) to 

Provide 

Written 

Exams

“Yes” (n) 

to an 

Individuallevel 

Assessment

“Yes” (n) to 

Orally 

Question 

Group

“Yes” (n) to

Watch 

Group

“Yes” (n) 

to a 

Group-level 

Assessment

The best evacuation route 1 2 5 7 2 7 

When to don SCSRs 1 5 7 7 3 8 

When to use a refuge chamber 1 3 5 5 3 7 

Whether to ride or walk out 1 2 2 5 1 6 

Whether to attempt to fight a fire, and 

when to abandon such efforts 2 3 5 6 2 6 
48 

The Selected Best Methods for Individual Assessment 

The frequency for each assessment technique is displayed in Tables C9–C11, grouped by 

SEC type (i.e., knowing, how to use, and how to decide). 

Table C9. Perception of best methods to assess individuals’ competencies 

of “Knowing” something (N=9)

Best individual assessment for 

“Knowing” something to self-escape

Watch 

Individual

Written 

Exams

Orally 

Question 

Individual

Watch

Small 

Groups

The 5 tactile shapes on a lifeline and what 

they mean 4 7 4 1 

Alternative methods for navigating your 

way out of the mine (besides lifeline) 3 2 5 1 

What types of information need to be 

communicated to the responsible person 

and to people in other sections 

5 5 6 2 

How to communicate nonverbally while 

using SCSR 5 2 5 2 

How to read and understand a mine map 5 5 2 1 

How to navigate through smoke 6 2 1 4 

Properties of mine gases 4 6 7 0 

How the mine ventilation system functions 4 4 6 1 

What supplies and equipment to take 

during an escape 0 6 3 1 
49 

Table C10. Perception of best methods to assess individuals’ competencies 

of “How to Use” something (N=9) 

Best individual assessment for “How to 

Use” something to self-escape

Watch 

Individual

Written 

Exams

Orally 

Question 

Individual

Watch

Small 

Groups

Communication systems 7 2 3 0 

Gas meters 7 3 2 0 

SCSRs (donning and switching units) 8 2 2 2 

Refuge chambers 5 2 3 3 

Lifelines and tethers 6 2 3 3 

Transportation equipment (mantrip, hoist) 0 2 3 1 

Table C11. Perception of best methods to assess individuals’ competencies 

of “How to Decide” something (N=9)

Best individual assessment for “How to 

Decide” something to self-escape

Watch 

Individual

Written 

Exams

Orally 

Question 

Individual

Watch

Small 

Groups

The best evacuation route 0 3 5 2 

When to don SCSRs 0 5 6 2 

When to use a refuge chamber 0 3 5 2 

Whether to ride or walk out 0 4 8 2 

Whether to attempt to fight a fire, and 

when to abandon such efforts 3 5 8 3 

Summary of Best Assessment Methods to Evaluate Miners’ Self-escape Competencies 

Although the results for the individual assessment methods, particularly for watching an

individual perform a task, administering a written exam, or orally questioning an individual, are

similar, different methods were warranted “best” depending on the different competency areas. 

For example, in general, when assessing whether or not an individual miner has proficient 

knowledge, trainers noted that a written exam or orally questioning each mine worker are the 

best methods to evaluate competence. However, when assessing whether or not a mine worker

knows how to use something, trainers more often felt that watching the individual perform the

task was most beneficial in evaluating competence. Finally, when assessing how to make a 

decision during a particular emergency, a majority of trainers deemed orally questioning each

miner as the best way to evaluate their competency. In general, trainers noted that, although
50 

watching small groups is sufficient for activities that would be performed in groups during an 

emergency, such as tethering and walking out in smoke, it was not the preferred method for 

evaluating individual competence. 

Trainers were able to document a combination of assessment methods if they felt that more 

than one would be best at assessing a competency. Although there was not much consistency 

from trainer to trainer, most indicated that a combination of methods (e.g., watching and orally 

questioning an individual) was best for assessing individual competence. Trainers felt that the 

combination of assessment methods was particularly useful when using written exams, especially 

when a literacy barrier exists. They felt that providing a written exam needed to be followed up 

by oral questioning or demonstration. These results continue to indicate the importance of using 

different assessment methods, based on the competency being evaluated. 

Feasibility of Assessment Methods

Trainers advocated for individual level assessments, when possible. One trainer summarized 

this assertion when he said, 

Individual demonstrations, in most cases, are better than group demonstrations, 

apart from escape routes, refuge chambers, and tethering, which are group 

decisions. The latter decisions (escape routes, taking refuge, tethering) are made 

by groups and are best evaluated by observing a group. But more often than not, 

trainers should evaluate on an individual basis. If mine workers are in a group, 

one can sit back and do nothing, and absorb nothing. 

Although individual competency assessment methods and some group-level assessment 

methods may be more desirable than others in determining proficiency, these methods are not 

always practical. Therefore, we probed trainers about the feasibility of using common assessment 

methods to evaluate the miners they typically train. When responding to each prompt, trainers 

were asked to consider the amount of time and resources needed to use each technique. Trainers 

were given a response card with the following feasibility options: 

1. It would be very easy to do. 

2. It is feasible but would require a little more time, effort, resources.

3. It is feasible but would require substantially more time, effort, resources. 

4. It is not feasible at all.

The mean scores for the feasibility of assessment methods for each training scenario 

provided to the nine trainers are presented in Table C12. These mean scores are based on the 

average of each trainer’s selection of one of the four feasibility options above for each 

assessment technique provided. 
51 

Table C12. Trainers’ perceived feasibility of assessment methods (N=9)

Assessment technique Mean

Have each miner demonstrate a procedure in a classroom setting. 2.2 

Have each miner demonstrate a procedure in a mine. 2.7 

Have each miner respond to a written test or quiz. 1.1 

Orally question each miner to see if he/she understands a concept. 2.3 

Describe a potential emergency and ask each miner questions to see if 

he/she knows what to do to self-escape.

2.1 

Have each miner respond to a computer-based training simulation to see 

if he/she would know how to respond to various emergency scenarios. 2.4 

Have each miner show you on a map the best way to evacuate the mine 

from various locations. 1.7 

As the feasibility list we provided to trainers shows (numbered 1–4 above Table C12), a 

lower number indicates that the assessment method is more feasible. Although we are not able 

to provide statistically significant means, these data points in Table C12 reveal that trainers felt 

most of these assessment methods were feasible, but required more time and resources. Taking 

written tests or having a mine worker show a safety trainer something on a map were the only 

two assessment methods that were discussed as being very easy to complete in a new miner 

training.

Simultaneously, trainers were asked to discuss the strengths and limitations of each method. 

Although trainers’ feedback was dependent on a particular procedure that they were thinking of, 

they usually noted time, resources, and logistics as major limitations. A universal response was, 

“Anytime you focus more on the individual it bumps up the time and resources needed.” For 

example, one trainer said in reference to demonstrating a procedure in a classroom setting, “If 

you have 25–30 people in a class, you still need 25–30 SCSRs because you would have the 

logistics of putting them back together if you did not (have enough SCSRs for every individual). 

So, even if we have done it (have each miner demonstrate a procedure), it’s still time-consuming 

and takes a lot of resources.” 

However, despite the barriers to implementing assessment for scenarios in which trainers 

were thinking of how to use something (e.g., an SCSR, gas meters, etc.), trainers were quick to 

say that using higher fidelity methods to evaluate skills, such as in an individual demonstration in 

a classroom or in a simulated environment, is the best way to validate proficiency, as evident in 

Table C10, referenced earlier. 

As far as orally questioning miners to see if he/she understands a concept or having them 

show the trainer how to complete a task, such as how to best evacuate a mine using a map, 

trainers still noted that it takes time, but is much more feasible. Similarly, written tests were 

noted as an easy assessment technique, allowing trainers to measure where each individual 

stands in terms of knowledge. However, several trainers referenced literacy as an issue that needs 

to be addressed whenever anything written is provided at safety training. 
52 

In terms of computer-based training simulations, many trainers noted that these activities can 

be exciting for younger students, but it does not always work well with older, more experienced 

mine workers who are not as comfortable using computers. Even if trainers did not specifically 

reference age as a barrier to this assessment, they referenced general technology competence. 

Trainers noted that some miners may not even own a computer or know how to turn on a 

computer. In addition, having enough computers for every mine worker is challenging and not 

always feasible. Overall, because of resource allocation and time limitations, most trainers did 

not indicate that any one technique was easy and feasible. 

Using e-trainings or other computerized programs may help enhance the time allotted for 

hands-on activities and assessment. Besides using interactive programs to help adhere to training 

time constraints, trainers may be able to keep better records of training assessments while also 

maintaining the interest levels of younger generation mine workers. 

Mine Workers’ Ability to Demonstrate Self-escape Proficiency

Another section of the interview probed trainers to think about the proportion of mine 

workers they train, and evaluate miners’ proficiency in different assessment situations. Trainers 

were provided with three questions and asked to respond with one of four options. Table C13 

shows the results for each of these questions. 

Table C13. Trainers’ perceived proficiency of mine workers’ skills (N=9)

Situation

(n) Who 

Said 

< 10% 

(n) Who 

Said 

< 25% 

(n) Who 

Said 

25%–50% 

(n) Who 

Said

>50% 

Of the coal miners you are familiar with, what 

proportion would have difficulty getting out of 

the mine on their own?

5 1 1 2 

Some miners may actually have the knowledge 

and capabilities required to self-escape, but 

they would have difficulty demonstrating their 

proficiencies on a written test. Of the coal 

miners you are familiar with, what proportion 

would fall into this category?

2 3 3 1 

Of the miners who would have difficulty 

demonstrating their proficiencies on a written 

test, what proportion would perform better on 

a behavior assessment?

0 0 1 8 

These responses suggest that miners may be better able to demonstrate their proficiencies in a 

behavioral assessment rather than a written assessment. This observation has implications for 

further integrating higher-fidelity behavioral assessments, rather than written assessments, into 

new miner safety training. If this occurs, it is possible that the response to the first prompt, 

miners being able to escape on their own, would increase. 
53 

To delve deeper into this issue of miners’ ability to get out of the mine on their own, we 

asked trainers to list primary reasons why some mine workers might have difficulty escaping 

from an emergency. Trainers were not provided any prompts or examples of why some miners 

may not be able to escape on their own. However, the responses from the trainers were all 

similar. The distribution of results was shown in Table C14. 

Table C14. Reasons why a mine worker cannot self-escape during an emergency 

Reason why a mine worker cannot self-escape n

Has physical limitations (e.g., fitness, stamina) 8 

Does not know the escapeways 7 

Has fear and anxiety 6 

Does not pay attention during ride into the mine 5 

Assumes others will lead him/her out 4 

Cannot read a mine map 3 

Feels complacent with mine environment and job 3 

Remediation

Another section of the interview discussed the issue of remediation. We acknowledged 

during the interview that people learn things at different rates, meaning some mine workers may 

need more instruction or practice than others to become proficient at self-escape. Then, we asked 

trainers if they ever suspected that a miner in attendance at one of their training’s needed 

additional practice on a specific self-escape competency. A majority of trainers answered yes, 

prompting us to probe and ask them to provide the competency area(s). The common deficits 

trainers discussed are listed below:

• Don and switch SCSRs (both in and out of a simulated environment). 

• General decisionmaking during simulated escape exercises. 

• Communication with their group about escape routes. 

• Reading a mine map. 

• Tethering. 

• Types of gases and their appropriate ranges. 

Miners’ ability to don and switch their SCSRs, especially in a simulated smoke environment, 

was discussed as the primary skill in which miners experience difficulty during training. As one 

trainer said, “Skills for SCSR donning degrade rapidly. And, all of the different types of SCSRs 

that are on the market that we use just compound the problem.” Generally, trainers noted that 

miners often are clumsy with their SCSRs, don’t go through the steps correctly, and in a 

simulated emergency may don too soon or not at all. 
54 

Similar to what they said at the beginning of the interview about SEC assessment, trainers 

noted that they often know when individuals need more training in a particular area because they 

can observe the miner(s) struggling. Particularly for those trainers who had access to a simulated 

mine, they could observe miners while they were demonstrating a task. Observing skill deficit is 

easier in a simulated emergency, and as one trainer exclaimed, “Just because they can tell you 

how to do it, it doesn’t mean they would be able to do it, in smoke, in the escapeway.” 

Generally, trainers indicated that they spend extra time with a person and/or group who may 

be struggling by offering individual instruction and then walking them through the task again. 

Or, some trainers set up a new scenario for a group to act out to help enhance confident 

decisionmaking. Regardless of the type of feedback provided, several trainers noted that they 

must communicate in a nonthreatening way to miners, which includes an open but noncritical 

discussion of what the miners did right or wrong and why. 

In reference to followup assessments, it is worth noting that because several of the trainers 

were trainers that were not directly affiliated with a particular mine, they are not the ones who 

have to keep documentation. Rather, they indicated that each individual mining organization 

should keep documentation about a mine worker’s skill sets. One trainer explained, “It’s difficult 

for us as a third party because they’re not our employee. So we provide a list of names to the 

mine for them to follow up with after the training.” Such followup is very important. Mining 

companies need to actively solicit input from trainers about which knowledge, skills, and 

abilities (KSAs) each miner has mastered and the ones on which he/she needs additional 

instruction or practice. The transmittal of these details from mine safety trainers to the mine 

workers’ employer is necessary in continuing to develop mine workers’ SEC throughout their 

careers as underground coal miners. 
55 

Appendix D: SCSR Donning Sequence Evaluation Sheet

Figure D1. SCSR donning sequence evaluation sheet.

57 

Appendix E: Description of Methods and Remediation Efforts Used by 

NIOSH to Assess a Self-escape Competency

In 2009, a federal regulation [30 CFR† 75.380] was passed requiring coal mine operators to 

install escape lifelines. They are literally lines installed along mine passageways that miners can 

grab onto and follow out of the mine during an emergency. Five types of tactile signals must be 

installed on the lifeline to provide an additional navigational tool to help miners escape in the 

event of an emergency. Lifelines can be especially helpful when miners must escape on foot in 

conditions of very low visibility (i.e., due to smoke or the absence of light). The tactile signals 

(Figures E1 and E2) include: 

† Code of Federal Regulations. See CFR in references.

• Directional cones to indicate the direction miners need to go to exit the mine.

• A coil to indicate a refuge chamber.

• Two sets of double cones (diamonds) to indicate an SCSR cache. 

• Two directional cones in a row to indicate a branch line. 

• A ball to indicate a personnel door (i.e., man door). 

Figure E1. Lifeline Signals sticker. 

 

Despite the implementation of the new lifeline safety feature, mine workers may not always 

remember what the signals mean, especially in an emergency situation. It is important that mine 

workers are able to identify the signals reliably because it could save them a significant amount 

of time while trying to escape. 
58 

Description of Field Test

In 2010, a team of NIOSH researchers assessed the ability of 345 coal mine workers who 

worked at a large western coal mine to correctly identify the five lifeline tactile signals. They 

participated in both a written and a hands-on behavioral assessment of their knowledge. During 

their regularly scheduled safety training classes (during the months prior to the NIOSH field 

tests), the mine’s training staff had explained to all miners the purpose and placement of lifelines 

and the meaning of the five tactile signals. 

Behavioral Assessment

Immediately following their annual underground smoke expectations training, the miners

(n=345) were asked to walk a 100-foot length of lifeline in theatrical smoke and to identify each

lifeline tactile signal they came across. This lifeline was set up to ensure that each participating 

mine worker would have to identify all five signals. To make the test realistic, multiple instances

of some signals were used (i.e., there had to be a branch line indicator for each of two branch 

lines—one for an SCSR cache and one for a refuge chamber). There were a total of eight signals

on the line, including three directional cones, two branch line signals, one personnel door signal, 

one SCSR cache signal, and one refuge chamber signal. A NIOSH researcher walked with each 

miner and recorded whether the individual identified each of the eight signals correctly or

incorrectly. As the miner came to each signal along the lifeline, he/she was asked to specify what

it indicated. For example, the miner might say “refuge chamber” when he/she felt the coil on the

line, which would be correct. Table E1 presents the distribution of scores. Of the 345 coal

miners, 78% had a perfect score (8 out of 8 correct). 

Table E1. Behavioral assessment scores breakdown

Score n out of 345 Percentage of 

miners (%)

8 269 78 

7 22 6.4 

6 27 7.8 

5 12 3.5 

4 12 3.5 

3 3 0.9 

2 and below 0 0 
59 

Written Matching Tests

Immediately following the completion of their behavioral test, each miner was also asked to 

complete a matching exercise (Figure E2). Each miner was asked to review a one-page map that 

showed all five lifeline signals and to match the number for each signal with the correct label for 

that signal in a provided word bank (see Figure E2). Of the 345 miners, 89.3% had a perfect 

score (5 out of 5). The average score was 4.76. The distribution of scores on this matching test is 

shown in Table E2. 

Figure E2. Map used for the written matching test.
60 

Table E2. Scores on written matching test

Score n out of 345 

with score

Percentage with 

test score (%)

5 308 89.3 

4 5 1.4 

3 21 6.1 

2 7 2.0 

1 4 1.2 

0 0 0 

Mean score = 4.76 

Frequent Mistakes and Misconceptions

In the written matching test, out of the five signals, the branch line, refuge chamber, and 

SCSR cache signals were the most frequently misidentified. The signals for branch line (two 

cones) and SCSR cache (two sets of double cones) may be confused with each other because 

both signals are made up of a combination of multiple cones. The signals for SCSR cache 

(double diamond) and refuge alternative (coil) may be confused with each other because they are 

the two signals that denote what might be at the end of a branch line. 

Researchers also received some verbal feedback from mine workers that revealed a few 

misconceptions. For example, some miners incorrectly called the branch line signals “change of 

direction” indicators and interpreted to NIOSH researchers that the signal meant that the lifeline 

was changing directions. Also, some miners knew the correct meaning of the signal, but felt that 

it was necessary to follow every branch line while escaping on the lifeline.

Recommendations for Lifeline Tactile Signal Training

Based on the results of this SEC assessment, several recommendations emerged from the study 

for trainers involved in helping mine workers improve their recognition of lifeline tactile signals:

1. Incorporate frequent lifeline tactile signal refresher training sessions using simple 

flashcards. Refresher sessions can be conducted during preshift safety and informational 

meetings above ground or below ground at the start of a shift or during a meal break. 

Refresher sessions can be conducted in large groups or one-on-one. Reviewing the 

lifeline tactile signals using the flashcards will take only a few minutes. Templates for 

making flashcards are available from NIOSH [2011]. 

2. Emphasize the differences between signals that are commonly confused. The signals for 

branch line (two directional cones) and SCSR cache (double diamond) are often confused 

because both signals involve a combination of multiple cones. The signals for SCSR 

cache (two sets of double cones) and refuge alternative (coil) are commonly confused 
61 

because both signals appear on branch lines. One miner stated that he remembers the 

signal for SCSR cache by remembering that SCSR has four letters and the signal is made 

up of four cones. Trainers can ask miners to suggest other methods that they use to 

remember what the signals mean.

3. Correct miners’ misperceptions about branch lines. Some miners incorrectly called the 

branch line signals “change of direction” indicators and interpreted to NIOSH researchers 

that the signal meant that the lifeline was changing directions. Inform miners that the 

double cone signal does not indicate a change in direction of the main lifeline, but 

instead, indicates a branch line leading to either an SCSR cache or a refuge chamber.

4. Remind miners that branch lines do not lead out of the mine; instead, they lead to an 

SCSR cache or refuge alternative. Miners should only follow a branch line during escape 

if they need to use or reach whatever the branch line leads to. Some miners knew the 

correct meaning of the signal, but incorrectly felt that it was necessary to follow every 

branch line while escaping on the lifeline.

5. Use stickers and posters as a useful memory jogger (see example in Figure E1). Some 

coal companies are giving their mine workers reflective stickers that show the shapes of 

the five lifeline signals. This helps to reinforce what mine workers are taught during their 

new miner and annual refresher safety training sessions.

6. Trainers should consider making up a short length of lifeline with the tactile signals 

attached, and use it during training sessions to provide mine workers with hands-on 

practice in identifying the meaning of the signals.

7. The results of the assessment suggest that it is advisable to use both hands-on and written 

methods for assessing the recognition of lifeline tactile signals. Combining the two 

approaches appears to be more effective than using only a written test. For various 

reasons (e.g., test-taking anxiety or low literacy), some people have trouble performing 

well on written tests even though they may be capable of performing appropriately during 

an emergency.

These recommendations are similar to the gaps that emerged during discussions with mine 

safety trainers. Eventually, all SEC should be assessed frequently, and multiple methods should 

be used to evaluate competence. In addition, remediation and frequent assessment efforts can be 

improved via stronger communication between mine safety trainers and mining organizations. 
Delivering on the Nation’s promise: 

safety and health at work for all people 

through research and prevention 

To receive NIOSH documents or more information about 

occupational safety and health topics, please contact NIOSH: 

Telephone: 1–800–CDC–INFO

TTY: 1–888–232–6348 

CDC INFO: www.cdc.gov/info

 

or visit the NIOSH Web site at www.cdc.gov/niosh

For a monthly update on news at NIOSH, subscribe to 

NIOSH eNews by visiting www.cdc.gov/niosh/eNews.

DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 2015-188

SAFER • HEALTHIER • PEO PLETM