Centers for Disease Control

and Prevention

National Institute for Occupational 

Safety and Health

Advancing Self-escape Training:

A Needs Analysis Based on the National Academy 

of Sciences Report “Improving Self-escape from 

Underground Coal Mines”

NIOSH Mining Program Technical Report
NIOSH Mining Program Technical Report

Advancing Self-escape Training:

A Needs Analysis Based on the National Academy of 

Sciences Report “Improving Self-escape from Underground 

Coal Mines”

Cassandra L. Hoebbel, Ph.D.; Jennica L. Bellanca, M.S.; Margaret E. Ryan, M.P.H.;

and Michael J. Brnich, Jr., C.M.S.P.

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health 

Pittsburgh Mining Research Division 

Pittsburgh, PA • Spokane, WA

June 2023
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 websites 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 websites. All web 

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

Get More Information 

Find NIOSH products and get answers to workplace safety and health questions: 

1-800-CDC-INFO (1-800-232-4636) | TTY: 1-888-232-6348

CDC/NIOSH INFO: cdc.gov/info | cdc.gov/niosh

Monthly NIOSH eNews: cdc.gov/niosh/eNews

Suggested Citation 

NIOSH [2023]. Advancing self-escape training: a needs analysis based on the National Academy 

of Sciences report, “Improving Self-escape from Underground Coal Mines.” By Hoebbel CL, 

Bellanca JL, Ryan ME, Brnich MJ. 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 No. 2023-134 (revised 06/2023), 

https://doi.org/10.26616/NIOSHPUB2023134revised062023. 

DOI: https://doi.org/10.26616/NIOSHPUB2023134revised062023

DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 2023-134 (revised 06/2023)

June 2023

Front and back cover photos by NIOSH.

Revisions 06/2023: The publication month was changed from May 2023 to June 2023. 

References to Orr et al. 2019 were corrected to Orr et al. 2020. Minor errors in wording and 

grammar were corrected for clarity. 
Contents

Acknowledgments ...................................................................................................................................viii

Acronyms and Abbreviations ...................................................................................................................ix

Chapter 1: Overview ...................................................................................................................................1

Background .................................................................................................................................................2

Framing the Research Approach ..............................................................................................................5

Human-Systems Integration ...................................................................................................................5

Social Ecology ........................................................................................................................................6

Instructional Systems Design .................................................................................................................8

The Federal Emergency Management Agency Preparedness Cycle ..................................................10

Implementing the Research .....................................................................................................................12

Research Summary..............................................................................................................................12

Research Activities ...............................................................................................................................13

Other Documents Related to this Report .............................................................................................15

Chapter 2: Analyzing the Task of Self-escape .......................................................................................17

Scoping the Work......................................................................................................................................17

Identifying and Prioritizing Critical Tasks ..............................................................................................18

Purpose of Identifying and Prioritizing Self-escape Tasks ...................................................................18

Methods and Materials .........................................................................................................................19

Key Findings Based on Preliminary Task Analysis ..............................................................................20

Detailing the Critical Tasks and Subtasks..............................................................................................23

Purpose of Prioritizing Tasks for Training ............................................................................................23

Methods and Materials .........................................................................................................................24

Key Findings Based on Hierarchical Task Analysis .............................................................................24

Recommendations Based on Preliminary Task Analysis and Hierarchical Task Analysis ..............28

Motivation to Learn and Self-efficacy ...................................................................................................28

Knowledge and Skills ...........................................................................................................................29

Abilities and Task Demands .................................................................................................................30

Other Characteristics............................................................................................................................31

Discussion of Preliminary Task Analysis and Hierarchical Task Analysis ........................................32

Chapter 3: Identifying Effective Training Strategies and Existing Gaps.............................................33

Exploring the Literature to Develop Training and Assessment Strategies ........................................33

Purpose ................................................................................................................................................33

Literature Review..................................................................................................................................34

Recommendations Based on Identification of Training Strategies.......................................................36

Identifying Existing Gaps in Perceived Self-escape Competency among Mineworkers...................39

Purpose ................................................................................................................................................39

Survey Development ............................................................................................................................39

Methods and Materials .........................................................................................................................40

Key Findings Based on Self-escape Competency Survey...................................................................41

Discussion of the Training and Assessment Strategies Identified to Address Gaps in Perceived 

Self-escape Competency among Mineworkers .....................................................................................47
iv

Chapter 4: Preparing Miners for Decision-making Under Stress ........................................................49

Exploring the Literature to Develop Decision-making Strategies........................................................49

Purpose ................................................................................................................................................49

Literature Review..................................................................................................................................50

Key Findings based on Decision-making Strategies Literature Review...............................................55

Analyzing the Cognitive Components of Self-escape Performance ...................................................57

Purpose ................................................................................................................................................57

Methods and Materials .........................................................................................................................58

Key Findings based on Cognitive Components of Self-escape Performance Analysis .......................59

Discussion of Self-escape Decision-making and Cognitive Components............................................62

Chapter 5: Developing Components for Self-escape Training Flows .................................................63

Finalizing the Self-escape Competency Framework .............................................................................64

Purpose ................................................................................................................................................65

Developing Self-escape Competency Profiles .....................................................................................65

Methods and Materials .........................................................................................................................66

Key Findings on Self-escape Competency Framework .......................................................................68

Designing and Developing the Virtual Reality Mine (VR Mine) as a Mechanism for Training, 

Research, Development, Delivery, and Evaluation ...............................................................................70

Purpose ................................................................................................................................................70

Background...........................................................................................................................................71

VR Mine Development..........................................................................................................................71

Competency Visualizations ..................................................................................................................73

Discussion of the Utility of Incorporating the Self-escape Competency Framework and VR Mine 

into Self-escape Training Flows ..............................................................................................................77

Chapter 6: Other Activities and Future Plans ........................................................................................79

References.................................................................................................................................................82

Appendix A: Full Text of NAS Recommendations to Improve Self-escape from Underground 

Coal Mines .................................................................................................................................................99

Appendix B: Description of Mine Sites Participating in Formal Task Analysis ...............................102

Large Mine........................................................................................................................................102

Small Mine........................................................................................................................................102

Appendix C: Preliminary Task Analysis Focus Group Protocol and Four Disaster Scenarios 

and Worker Roles Included in Formal Task Analysis .........................................................................103

Appendix D: Initial Interview: Mine Leadership and Safety Management.........................................108

Appendix E: Major Self-escape Activities and Critical KSAs Identified through Preliminary 

Task Analysis ..........................................................................................................................................112

Appendix F: HTA Critical KSAs by Self-escape Role..........................................................................118

Appendix G: Task Demands Associated with Self-escape Abilities .................................................128

Appendix H: NIOSH Self-escape Confidence Survey..........................................................................133

Appendix I: Detailed Self-escape Competency Survey Findings.......................................................135

Appendix J: Abbreviated Training Strategy Matrix Developed by gOE/Aptima for Preparing 

Mineworkers to Perform Critical Cognitive Tasks during Dynamic and Emergent Situations.......153

Appendix K: Semi-structured Interview Used for Cognitive Task Analysis .....................................164
v

Appendix L: Draft Rank-and-file Competency Checklist with SME Consensus Results 

and Notes.................................................................................................................................................168

Major Activity A: Communicating .........................................................................................................168

Competency Area A1: Establishing Situational Awareness ...............................................................168

Competency Area A2: Assisting in Diagnosis ....................................................................................171

Competency Area A3: Verbal and Nonverbal Communication ..........................................................172

Competency Area A4: Using Communication Technology ................................................................173

Major Activity B: Wayfinding .................................................................................................................173

Competency Area B2: Maintaining Verbal and Nonverbal Communication.......................................174

Competency Area B3: Navigating ......................................................................................................175

Major Activity C: Using Self-contained Self-rescuers (SCSRs) .........................................................176

Competency Area C1: Deciding When to Don or Switch/Swap SCSR..............................................176

Competency Area C2: Knowing How to Don or Switch/Swap SCSR ................................................177

Competency Area C3: Maintaining SCSRs........................................................................................178

Competency Area C4: Knowing What to Expect While Using SCSRs...............................................178

Major Activity D: Carrying, Wearing, and Maintaining Other Personal Tools and Equipment .......179

Competency Area D1: Personal Equipment.......................................................................................179

Major Activity E: Assisting in Emergency Response..........................................................................180

Competency Area E1: Assisting with Firefighting...............................................................................180

Competency Area E2: Assisting with Treating an Injured Miner ........................................................181

Major Activity F: Leading, Directing, and Managing ...........................................................................182

Competency Area F1: Managing Panic..............................................................................................182

Competency Area F2: Showing Appropriate Deference ....................................................................182

Competency Area F3: Assuming or Changing Self-escape Leadership............................................183

Competency Area F4: Accounting for Personnel ...............................................................................183

Major Activity G: Post-exit Activities ....................................................................................................184

Competency Area G1: Debriefing.......................................................................................................184

Competency Area G2: Engaging in Self-care ....................................................................................184

Appendix M: NIOSH Self-escape Training Resources ........................................................................185
Figures

Figure 1. The NAS human-systems model of self-escape. This model illustrates how individual 

differences (e.g., in cognitive and physical capabilities) influence how miners approach tasks and 

interact with equipment and technology, while also being influenced by the broad environment. 

Adapted from NRC [2013].............................................................................................................................6

Figure 2. The social ecological model for improving self-escape from underground coal mines. 

This model depicts how individual mineworker characteristics both affect and are affected by multiple 

levels of influence, emphasizing the interaction between and interdependence of factors within and 

across all levels of emergency preparedness. Adapted from Glanz et al. [2002].........................................7

Figure 3. The ISD/SAT process, also referred to as ADDIE. ADDIE is an iterative cycle of analysis, 

design, development, implementation, and evaluation of instructional systems. Adapted from 

DoD [2001]. .................................................................................................................................................10

Figure 4. Representation of the FEMA Preparedness Cycle. This cycle represents a scalable and 

iterative process consisting of organizing, equipping, training, exercising, and the continuous 

evaluation and improvement of emergency response readiness. ..............................................................11

Figure 5. Example of one PTA task hierarchy showing one major self-escape activity, one required 

competency area, and critical subtasks (KSAs) used for HTA focus group discussions. ..........................23

Figure 6. Self-escape preparedness model demonstrating the interplay between and among individual 

and organizational characteristics which have both direct and indirect relationships to mineworker 

preparedness. Adapted from gOE/Aptima [2017b].....................................................................................25

Figure 7. Box and whisker plot of average self-escape confidence for rank-and-file miners and selfescape leadership. The rectangle contains the 25th to 75th percentiles of dataset split at the median 

value (50th percentile). The whiskers mark the 5th and 95th percentiles, and the dots representing 

values beyond the lower bounds are considered outliers...........................................................................44

Figure 8. An example of an engineering accurate, three-dimensional battery hauler model developed 

for VR Mine. ................................................................................................................................................73

Figure 9. Images depicting an example of the high level of visual fidelity incorporated into VR Mine. 

The left-hand image shows the modeled scoop bucket next to the reference photograph on the right. ....73

Figure 10. Screen captures from VR Mine depicting mine infrastructure that can be used in the KSA 

of wayfinding. ..............................................................................................................................................74

Figure 11. Screenshots of mesh node and mine phone digital assets in VR Mine. These assets can 

be used to play a pre-recorded message or send a communication during a training scenario. VR 

Mine provides context to the message content through the dynamic events of a staged scenario. ..........75

Figure 12. Screenshots of a power center and SCSR cache along with an overhead view of where 

these items are located on the section. The white rectangle in the overhead shot indicates the location 

of the callout image. ....................................................................................................................................76

Figure 13. An overhead depiction of a section of a mine with methane liberation coming from the face 

of the third entry from the right and a fire two crosscuts outby as modeled by MFIRE. The small particle 

system represents the airflow velocity and methane concentration (i.e., blue = inert, red = explosive, 

white = none). The dots within the mine indicate level of contaminant by size and color (i.e., larger = 

higher concentration; red = high, white = none), which would typically be hidden from the user. The 

callout depicts a multigas detector that users would be able to control to monitor the changes in 

methane from the location of the star in the overhead view. ......................................................................77
Tables

Table 1. Minimum federal training requirements for all miners related to self-escape competencies..........4

Table 2. The ADDIE approach to instructional systems development, adapted from TRADOC [2017].......9

Table 3. Activities undertaken or contracted by NIOSH based on the NAS report, “Improving Selfescape from Underground Coal Mines”......................................................................................................14

Table 4. Number of initial tasks and critical tasks by escape phase ..........................................................21

Table 5. Preliminary self-escape activities, competency areas, and critical KSAs.....................................22

Table 6. Training strategy topics relevant to self-escape training...............................................................34

Table 7. Percent agreement with self-escape training and preparedness value statements .....................44

Table 8. Percentage of sample reporting less than full and less than high confidence in ability to 

properly demonstrate or explain the following to a new miner by subset ...................................................46

Table 9. Cognitive skills that support effective decision-making in stressful situations ..............................52

Table 10. Cognitive processes relevant to self-escape ..............................................................................56

Table 11. Phases of a self-escape training flow example, adapted from NRC [2013, pp. 114–115] .........64

Table I-1. Frequency distributions of background and experience responses for rank-and-file 

miners and self-escape leadership positions ............................................................................................135

Table I-2. Specialized experience frequency distributions across subsets ..............................................139

Table I-3. Distribution of levels of agreement with individual and organizational and individual 

self-escape training and preparedness value statements ........................................................................140

Table I-4. Average percent confidence in ability to properly demonstrate or explain the following to 

a brand-new miner: rank-and-file miners versus self-escape leadership .................................................141

Table I-5. Frequency distribution of responses for all 28 self-escape confidence items ..........................142
viii

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank the following personnel of the National Institute for Occupational 

Safety and Health (NIOSH) for their contributions to the work described within this report or its 

content: Timothy J. Bauerle, James Boyd, Brittney W. Bragg, Jessica L. Cohen, Blaine P. 

Connor, Linda L. Chasko, Brendan Demich, Patrick Dempsey, Brianna Eiter, Audrey Glowacki, 

Emily J. Haas, William Helfrich, Carin Kosmoski, Brendan Macdonald, Launa Mallett, Susan 

M. Moore, Jason Navoyski, Mahiyar Nasarwanji, Timothy J. Orr, Nicole Ortiz, Elaine

Rubinstein, Ted Scharf, Paul Schmidt, Jack Trackemas, Rich Unger, Dana Willmer, Candace

Wolf, and Dave Yantek.

The research team also benefitted from the external expertise of Kwame Awuah-Offei, Mining 

Engineering Interim Chair, Mining & Explosives Engineering, Missouri University of Science & 

Technology; Denise A. Baker, Ph.D., Department of Psychological Science, Missouri University 

of Science & Technology; Nancy J. Cooke, Ph.D., Human Systems Engineering, Arizona State 

University; Todd Dewitt, CONSOL Energy; Jason Diamond, CONSOL Energy; David 

Leverknight, Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA); Joseph A. Sbaffoni, JAS Mine 

Consulting, LLC, Director, Pennsylvania Bureau of Mine Safety (Retired); Richard Stoltz, 

MSHA; and the late Marlon Whoolery, Principal, Whoolery Training and Consulting.

Finally, the authors would like to thank Jeffery L. Kohler, Ph.D., Emeritus Professor, Energy and 

Mineral Engineering, The Pennsylvania State University, for the initial scoping of this effort.

This technical report has been reviewed in draft form by the following individuals: Thomas 

Barrington, Donald Braenovich, Eric Gilson, Kenneth Helfrich, Megan Lavage, Shane 

McPherson, Thomas A. Morley, Joey L. Wolford, MSHA; Sekhar Bhattacharyya, Ph.D., Chair 

of Mining Engineering Program, The Pennsylvania State University; David Cliff, Ph.D. 

Professor of OHS in Mining, The University of Queensland, Australia; Joseph McGuire, Ph.D., 

Mine Safety and Health Educational Consultant; Susan M. Moore, Ph.D.; NIOSH National 

Personal Protective Technology Laboratory; Josh Roberts, Director of Occupational Health and 

Safety, United Mineworkers Association of America; and William C. York-Feirn, Mine Safety 

Program Director, Colorado Department of Natural Resources (Retired).

Although the individuals mentioned above contributed directly to the work described in this 

report and/or provided valuable feedback for its finalization, their review of documents and/or 

acknowledgment here does not constitute endorsement of its final content.
ix

Acronyms and Abbreviations

AAR After Action Report

ADDIE analysis, design, development, implementation, evaluation

BOHSI Board on Human-Systems Integration

CABA compressed air breathing apparatus

CBT computer-based training

CCER closed-circuit escape respirator

CRM Crew Resource Management

CTA cognitive task analysis

DoD Department of Defense

EGL escape group leader

EMT emergency medical technician

EPL expected proficiency level

ERP emergency response plan

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency

FTA formal task analysis

GAO Government Accountability Office

HRPP Human Research Protection Program

HSI human-systems integration

IC Information Circular

IRB Institutional Review Board

ISD/SAT Instructional Systems Development/Systems Approach to Training

ITS intelligent tutoring systems

JAHSAAM Joseph A. Holmes Safety Association Annual Meeting

KSA knowledge, skills, and abilities

KSAO knowledge, skills, abilities, and other attributes

MEET Mine Emergency Escape Training

MINER Act Mine Improvement and New Emergency Response Act of 2006

MSHA Mine Safety and Health Administration

MSTTC Mine Safety Technology and Training Commission

NAS National Academy of Sciences

NDM naturalistic decision-making
x

NIH National Institutes of Health

NIOSH National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

NRC National Research Council

OMB Office of Management and Budget

PTA preliminary task analysis

RA refuge alternative

RP responsible person

SCBA self-contained breathing apparatus

SCSR self-contained self-rescuer

SEM social ecological model

SET stress exposure training

SME subject matter expert

SOW statement of work

TACT Team Adaptation and Coordination Training

TMT Team Model Training

TNA training needs analysis

TSM training strategy matrix

USBM United States Bureau of Mines

VE virtual environment

VISLab Virtual Immersion and Simulation Laboratory

VR virtual reality

WBT web-based training
Advancing Self-escape Training:

A Needs Analysis Based on the National Academy of Sciences Report

“Improving Self-escape from Underground Coal Mines”

Cassandra L. Hoebbel, Ph.D.;

1

Jennica L. Bellanca, M.S.;

2 Margaret E. Ryan, M.P.H.;3

and 

Michael J. Brnich, Jr., C.M.S.P.4

1 Research Behavioral Scientist, Pittsburgh Mining Research Division, National Institute for Occupational Safety and 

Health

2 Mechanical Engineer, Pittsburgh Mining Research Division, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

3 Columbia University/New York State Psychiatric Institute. All work for this report was completed as an Associate 

Service Fellow, Pittsburgh Mining Research Division, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.

4 Lead Mining Engineer Pittsburgh Mining Research Division, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

(retired)

5 A mining disaster is defined as an incident with 5 or more fatalities.

Chapter 1: Overview

Underground coal miners face unique threats to their health and safety. Data from the National 

Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) indicate that 23 mine disasters5have

occurred in U.S. underground coal mines since 1970, resulting in the deaths of 376 mineworkers

[NIOSH 2019a]. Many more fatalities and serious injuries have resulted from lesser mining 

accidents. Increased scrutiny of U.S. mine safety practices resulted from a relatively rapid

succession of large-scale emergencies in 2006 and 2007, beginning with the Sago mine disaster, 

and later in 2010, the Upper Big Branch mine disaster. Subsequent investigations into these two 

highly publicized events [e.g., MSHA 2007a,b; McAteer et al. 2011] suggest that both could 

have been averted or mitigated through better human-systems integration practices.

In direct response to the events of 2006, the U.S. Congress acted to strengthen existing safety 

and health training regulations and introduce new measures aimed at improving emergency 

preparedness and response in underground coal mines. The Mine Improvement and New 

Emergency Response (“MINER”) Act of 2006 amended the Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977

“to require incident assessment and planning, harness new and emerging technology, enhance 

research and education, improve safety-related procedures and protocols, and increase 

enforcement (penalties) and compliance to improve mine safety” [MINER Act 2006].

These tragedies and resulting legislative changes prompted NIOSH and other industry 

stakeholders to engage in research and development activities to improve mine emergency 

preparedness and response. In 2011, NIOSH commissioned the National Academy of Sciences 

(NAS) to investigate the effectiveness of these efforts and to identify any areas still in need of 

improvement. This investigation led to the development of several recommendations for NIOSH, 

the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA), and other interested parties to act upon to 

improve self-escape from underground coal mines [NRC 2013]. The full text of the resulting 

committee recommendations included in the NAS report, “Improving Self-escape from 

Underground Coal Mines,” is included in Appendix A of this document [NRC 2013].
2

This report summarizes a needs analysis and actions taken by NIOSH based on the NAS 

recommendations specific to advancing self-escape training, with an emphasis on preparing rankand-file mineworkers for self-escape. This report also provides the foundation for the practical 

guidance offered in its sister publication, the NIOSH Information Circular (IC) “Self-escape Core 

Competency Profile: Guidance for Improving Underground Coal Miners’ Self-escape Competency”

[NIOSH 2023], which offers an evidence-based self-escape competency framework derived from 

the results of this work.

Abbreviated versions of the four NAS recommendations discussed in this report are presented

below in the order in which they were undertaken by NIOSH.

NAS Recommendation 7A: To advance self-escape training, NIOSH should conduct or 

sponsor a formal task analysis and analysis of the knowledge, skills, abilities, and other 

personal attributes (KSAOs) for miners to self-escape effectively.

NAS Recommendation 7B: Based on this analysis, NIOSH should identify training 

activities best suited for preparing mineworkers to self-escape effectively and identify 

existing gaps within the mining industry.

NAS Recommendation 5: NIOSH should use current decision science research to 

inform the development of self-escape training materials for effective decision-making 

for the predictable components of self-escape.

NAS Recommendation 7C: The Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) and 

NIOSH should revise or develop training flows6to bring individual miners and mine 

management to mastery in critical self-escape KSAOs.

6

“Training flow” is a term used within the NAS report to describe systematic training procedures using a variety of 

training methods and consisting of several phases of instruction (e.g., classroom instruction, drills, and other handson practice).

Although the NAS recommendations and needs analysis described herein are specific to 

underground coal mining, NIOSH believes that much of this content is also applicable to 

emergency response preparedness across all underground mining subsectors and other related 

industries.

Background

The mission of the NIOSH Mining Program is to eliminate mining fatalities, injuries, and 

illnesses through relevant research and impactful solutions [NIOSH 2022]. The program began 

in 1910 when Congress created the U.S. Bureau of Mines (USBM) to conduct mine safety and 

health research. Both the USBM and NIOSH, which acquired the USBM’s health and safety 

research program following the Bureau’s closure in 1996, have contributed to a dramatic and 

steady decline in catastrophic mining events and mineworker fatalities [NIOSH 2010a]. By the 

turn of the 21st century, it appeared that the threat of large-scale mining disasters had been 

effectually mitigated. However, a series of mine disasters in the first decade of the 21st century 

showed that perception to be incorrect: Brookwood in 2001 (13 fatalities), followed by Sago 

(2006, 12 fatalities), Darby (2006, 5 fatalities), Crandall Canyon (2007, 6 fatalities), and Upper 
3

Big Branch (2010, 29 fatalities). These events reminded the mining industry and NIOSH of the 

critical need to balance investments in resources and training to reduce the risk of lowprobability/high-severity events with those that focus on more frequent but less severe injuries 

and illnesses. To help achieve this balance, additional emphasis was placed on adequately

preparing individual mineworkers to perform the non-routine tasks required to effectively 

respond to mine emergencies.

Specifically, a number of investigations and reports resulting from the Sago mine disaster

emphasized the need for renewed focus on mine emergency preparedness and response through

better human-systems integration practices [e.g., McAteer et al. 2006a,b; Mine Safety 

Technology and Training Commission (MSTTC) 2006; MSHA 2007a,b; West Virginia Mine 

Safety Technology Task Force 2006; U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) 2007].

This emphasis prompted NIOSH to engage in wide-ranging research efforts to characterize, 

assess, and improve the mine emergency escape system, which includes components such as 

refuge alternatives (RAs), safety culture, and mineworker KSAOs7.

7 NIOSH researchers focused on critical knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSAs) required for effective self-escape, 

placing less emphasis on trainees’ other attributes (Os) which are less malleable and amenable to training.

In an effort to improve self-escape training and move the industry in the direction of developing 

a definition of minimum self-escape proficiency, NIOSH also focused investigations on selfescape competency characterization and improved miner training while simultaneously 

commissioning reviews of mine emergency response training and best practices around the world 

[e.g., Galvin 2008; Wu and Gray 2008]. As a result of these activities, three areas of critical 

importance were identified:

• evaluation of competencies

• new training content

• improved training methods

The renewed focus on self-escape competency identification and improved miner training

resulted in the development and dissemination of 14 new NIOSH training packages between 

2008 and 2012. Additionally, NIOSH researchers compiled a list of self-escape knowledge,

skills, and abilities (KSAs) based upon a review of mine safety training regulations, available 

literature, and input from mine safety and training experts [Peters and Kosmoski 2013], which

served as the basis for a small-scale study designed to identify gaps in self-escape KSAs. In this

study, NIOSH researchers interviewed mine safety and health trainers to gain their perspective 

on the effectiveness of existing self-escape training and mineworker competence [NIOSH

2015a]. Based on personal experiences, interviewees consistently pointed to perceived

deficiencies in the following content areas: (1) general escapeway training and alternate escape 

routes, (2) reading a mine map, (3) understanding how the mine’s ventilation system works, (4)

barricading, (5) refuge alternatives, and (6) communication systems. All six of these areas are 

currently included in the mandated minimum training requirements for underground coal 

miners, as outlined in Table 1. Importantly, participants in the NIOSH interviews also 

emphasized the lack of competency standards and assessment strategies in existing self-escape 

training protocols.
4

Table 1. Minimum federal training requirements for 

all miners related to self-escape competencies

Minimum Training Requirements

Annual refresher training [30 CFR 48.8]

• Transportation controls and communication systems

• Barricading

• Refuge alternatives

• Roof or ground control; ventilation, emergency evacuation; 

and firefighting plans

• First aid

• Self-rescue and respiratory devices [hands-on donning and 

transferring]

• Mine gases

• Such other courses as may be required by the District Manager 

based on circumstances and conditions at the mine.

MINER Act [MINER Act 2006]

• Quarterly mine emergency evacuation training and drill

o Review of maps and emergency plans 

o Location and use of lifelines, tethers, SCSRs8(selfcontained self-rescuers), refuge alternatives, fire 

suppression and firefighting equipment and other 

materials

• Annual expectations training for SCSRs and refuge 

alternatives

8 While SCSR is the terminology commonly used in the mining industry for these devices, it is important to note that 

they are also known as closed-circuit escape respirators (CCER) in accordance with 42 CFR Part 84 Subpart O.

Concurrent with these exploratory efforts, NIOSH entered into a research contract with the 

National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to better characterize effective “self-escape” within the 

context of underground coal mining. Specifically, under the oversight of the National Research 

Council’s (NRC) Board on Human-Systems Integration (BOHSI), the Committee on Mine 

Safety: Essential Components of Self-escape was convened. The committee carefully reviewed 

and synthesized relevant literature and other existing data to develop a set of recommendations 

presented in the NAS report, “Improving Self-escape from Underground Coal Mines”

[NAS 2013].

Specific to self-escape training, this report focuses on NAS Recommendations 7A, 7B, 5, and 

7C, which were borne out of the following conclusion by the committee: “Despite training 

developments by NIOSH, MSHA, and some universities and mine operators, the quality and 

quantity of escape training still falls far behind what is necessary to ensure that all mine 

personnel can effectively escape a mine emergency” [NRC 2013 p. 116]. The NAS committee 
5

further stated, “In training, miners seldom have to demonstrate mastery of a skill, but only have 

to be in attendance” [NRC 2013 p. 116] and recommended that NIOSH undertake a number of 

research activities to focus on the development of self-escape competency standards. The 

committee believed that these competency standards should be utilized in a “train-to-mastery”

system in lieu of the hours-based system currently required by law. “Mastery” has been defined 

as “the ability to perform the task instinctively, regardless of the conditions” [TRADOC 350-70

2017, p. 147] and is the desired level of proficiency for evaluating task readiness within the U.S. 

Department of Defense (DoD). While clear differences in job duties, as well as time and training 

resource availability between the mining industry and the DoD are evident, the authors believe a 

shift toward competency-based emergency response training and evaluation is possible.

Although the MINER Act calls for some measure of evaluation of trainee learning and 

performance, the regulation does not specify competency standards, performance criteria, or 

methods for assessment. Both the NAS report and prior NIOSH research emphasize the need for 

definitions and standards for determining successful completion of mandated training similar to 

those prevalent in Australia [e.g., Commonwealth of Australia 2020, Queensland Government 

2012], the United Kingdom [Health and Safety Executive 2015], and South Africa [South 

African Government 1998] beginning with the development of “a comprehensive listing of 

competencies for miners, foremen, managers, and responsible persons” [NIOSH 2010b, p 43] 

and procedures for assessing critical self-escape competencies [Peters et al. 2010]. Therefore, 

the aim of the work described within this report is to address some of these deficiencies and to 

continue movement in the direction of standardized self-escape training and assessment in the

U.S. mining industry. This work aligns with the NIOSH Mining Program’s Strategic Goal 3.4 to 

reduce the risk of mine disasters and improve the post-disaster survivability of mineworkers

[NIOSH 2019c]. 

Framing the Research Approach

In order to frame the research activities described in this report, it was necessary to examine the 

problem through a combination of human-systems integration, social ecology, instructional 

systems design, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Preparedness Cycle.

Human-Systems Integration

Recognizing the myriad factors that influence individual mineworkers’ capability to self-escape 

from underground coal mines, the NAS committee developed a human-systems integration (HSI) 

model of self-escape, depicted in Figure 1, stating the following:

Human-systems integration examines the interaction of people, tasks, and 

equipment/technology in the pursuit of some goal . . . in this case self-escape. The 

interaction occurs within, and is influenced by [emphasis added], the broader 

organizational and environmental context where human capabilities and 

limitations are considered in the context of a dynamic system that may change 

based on both external and internal factors [NRC 2013 p. 16–17].
6

Figure 1. The NAS human-systems model of self-escape. This model illustrates how 

individual differences (e.g., in cognitive and physical capabilities) influence how miners

approach tasks and interact with equipment and technology, while also being influenced 

by the broad environment. Adapted from NRC [2013].

The HSI model provides a framework by which NIOSH’s “Improving Self-escape from 

Underground Coal Mines Training Initiative” project research [NIOSH 2018] was designed. It 

stresses the importance of considering the interactivity of an entire system. Despite a strong 

focus on training and individual components of the system, self-escape tasks, equipment, and 

organizational context cannot be dissociated from self-escape competency. 

Some examples of specific self-escape HSI system success factors include organizational support 

(e.g., policies, provision of resources, safety climate), human-centered design of self-escape tools 

and technology (e.g., self-contained self-rescuers [SCSRs], communication systems), individual 

and group performance (self-escape competence), education and training (effective training 

flows), and external factors (e.g., MINER Act provisions). 

Social Ecology

Similar to the systems thinking of the HSI framework, it is also helpful to contextualize 

individual factors (e.g., mineworker competence) within a broader ecological model that also 

guided the development of this research project. As defined in Stokols et al. [2013], “the term,

ecology, refers to the study of the interrelationships between organisms and their environment”.

In the current study, this would apply to mineworkers and their environments. The field of social 

ecology emerged in the 1960s, giving more attention to social and cultural environmental factors

that could affect these relationships than did earlier models. Using the social ecological model 

(SEM), the reciprocal relationships between the individual mineworker and his or her physical 

and social environment are more easily illustrated and understood (Figure 2). The mineworker 

exists within this context and is directly and indirectly affected by it. 
7

Figure 2. The social ecological model for improving self-escape from underground coal

mines. This model depicts how individual mineworker characteristics both affect and are 

affected by multiple levels of influence, emphasizing the interaction between and 

interdependence of factors within and across all levels of emergency preparedness.

Adapted from Glanz et al. [2002].

The SEM has long been used in public health research and practice to identify targets and 

intervention leverage points in areas such as health behavior [e.g., McLeroy et al. 1988; Sallis et 

al. 2015; Stokols et al. 2013], chronic illness [e.g., Kazak 1989; Champaloux and Young 2015], 

violence prevention [e.g., Ali and Naylor 2013; Swearer and Hymel 2015], and community 

safety [Hanson et al. 2005]. This framework also emphasizes the reciprocity of the relationships 

between and among the various levels of influence. For example, the MINER Act was passed in 

reaction to multiple mineworker fatalities that were attributed to a number of systemic failures 

associated with training, response coordination, and mining technologies and equipment.

Existing regulations were tightened and others were introduced as both a result of these failures 

and as an effort to prevent such failures in the future by targeting all levels of the social 

ecological model.

Based on prior NIOSH research conducted with mine safety and health professionals, Haas et al. 

[2014] suggested that effective execution of self-escape training research-to-practice (r2p) 

initiatives has the potential to affect every level of influence on mineworkers’ self-escape 

competency. As the authors note, “Distinct interventions are needed at each level of the SEM to 

enhance individual and group behavior, and to modify organizational and training environments” 

[p. 124]. Positive outcomes of the current initiative could lead to more standardized training and 

assessment throughout the industry and could have significant policy implications for self-escape 

training requirements.
8

Instructional Systems Design

From an ecological perspective, all levels of influence must be represented through some or all 

of the stages of the research and/or implementation process. Therefore, research is often

designed under an action-oriented design [Adelman 1993; Lewin 1946] utilizing a variety of 

methods similar to those used in Instructional Systems Development/Systems Approach to 

Training (ISD/SAT) [Branson 1977; Branson 1978; Branson et al. 1975]. Action research, which 

often relies on the expertise of practitioners and other stakeholders in repetitive cycles of 

planning, action, and evaluation, is widely used in the field of education and is particularly useful 

when performing pragmatic and solutions-driven research with direct relevance to practice 

[Levin and Greenwood 2001].

The ISD/SAT—an approach to training design developed by the U.S. Army and used by the U.S.

DoD for training protocol development, implementation, and evaluation—is depicted in Figure 

3, with each phase described in Table 2. A major emphasis of the ISD/SAT process is continuous 

improvement, and the steps include training analysis, design, development, implementation, and 

evaluation (ADDIE). The DoD also suggests that practitioners use the Shewhart Cycle (also 

known as “plan, do, check, act”) as part of the ISD/SAT for continuous improvement [DoD 

2001]. This approach includes four basic steps: planning the approach, doing the activity, 

checking the results, and acting on the results.
9

Table 2. The ADDIE approach to instructional systems development, 

adapted from TRADOC [2017]

A Analysis The process that involves the detailed breaking down and 

examination of jobs, functions, tasks, objectives, and performance 

measures to determine requirements and how those requirements 

relate to one another. Analysis provides the foundation that justifies 

the continuation or termination of the ADDIE process.

D Design The process of translating analysis data into an outline for learning, 

creating a blueprint for learning product development, and 

determining the sequence and how to train.

D Development The process that is the act of taking design outputs and expanding on 

the learning activities, refining the course management plan, refining 

the resources, and creating the learning products. Development is the 

production phase of ADDIE.

I Implementation The process that is the conduct and delivery of the course/event in 

accordance with how the course/event was designed. Implementation 

includes student assessment to measure achievement of standards and 

course outcomes. 

E Evaluation The quality control mechanism for learning and learning product 

development and implementation. Evaluation is a systematic and 

continuous method to appraise the quality, effectiveness, and 

efficiency of a program, process, product, or procedure. It provides 

the mechanism for decision-makers to ensure the application of 

consistent standards of quality.

As described in Table 2, the initial stages of the ADDIE process are typically exploratory and/or 

descriptive, and most of this research falls within these stages. Figure 3 demonstrates how 

evaluation is a central function of each phase, resulting in a systematic approach that is cyclical 

and iterative in nature. In keeping with this model, the results of the needs analysis described in 

this report have been synthesized to guide mine safety and health professionals and other 

stakeholders in the development and implementation of new and/or improved self-escape 

training and assessment activities. 
10

Figure 3. The ISD/SAT process, also referred to as ADDIE. ADDIE is an

iterative cycle of analysis, design, development, implementation, and

evaluation of instructional systems. Adapted from DoD [2001].

The Federal Emergency Management Agency Preparedness Cycle

Over the past several decades, the theory and practice of emergency management (EM) has been 

shifting from a largely reactive response command structure toward a more proactive structure 

that emphasizes the critical role preparedness plays in EM [Comfort 2007; Waugh and Streib 

2006]. Preparedness is defined by FEMA [2019] as a scalable “continuous cycle of planning, 

organizing, training, equipping, exercising, evaluating, and taking corrective action in an effort 

to ensure effective coordination during incident response.” The scalability of the process enables 

it to be readily applied to a broad spectrum of emergency preparedness efforts and provides the 

context for the competency framework development described within this report. It is also 

important to note the cyclical and iterative nature of the process, which allows room for 

“retrofitting” enhancements, as required once the framework and training flows have been 

developed (see Figure 4).
11

Figure 4. Representation of the FEMA Preparedness Cycle. This cycle represents a 

scalable and iterative process consisting of organizing, equipping, training, exercising, 

and the continuous evaluation and improvement of emergency response readiness.

Relevant to this report, much like FEMA and other large entities, the mining industry 

continuously examines risks and evaluates mitigation efforts. Naturally, when perceived failures 

within a system arise, the system is re-examined to identify potential shortfalls. Although the 

“evaluate and improve” stage of this cycle is ongoing, the sense of urgency to evaluate and 

improve the process increases after catastrophic breakdowns in one or more components of the 

system (e.g., technological failure, human error). For example, the emergency events in 2006 

resulted in legislative changes that touched all levels of the self-escape system. To meet these

new requirements, the industry invested a great deal of time and resources to better “organize 

and equip,” “train,” and “exercise” miners for more effective mine emergency response. These 

efforts included, among others, the development of emergency response plans (ERPs), the

increased availability of SCSRs, additional and improved SCSR training, installation of refuge 

alternatives, and required quarterly escape drills. The iterative FEMA process continues with the 

current NIOSH Mining Program effort to determine whether and how these efforts have been 

effective and how they might be improved.
12

Implementing the Research

In 2015, almost 10 years after the passage of the MINER Act and amid the building consensus 

that self-escape training in the U.S. left significant room for improvement, NIOSH researchers 

began work on the project, “Improving Self-escape from Underground Coal Mines Training 

Initiative” [NIOSH 2018].

Since not all mines have the capacity to conduct systematic training needs analyses (TNA) at the 

local level, industry-wide efforts to identify universal competency requirements, training 

objectives, and gaps are necessary. The objectives of this project were to better characterize the 

task of self-escape, further characterize potential gaps in self-escape training, and explore 

relevant individual and organizational characteristics in order to provide practical guidance to 

mine safety and health professionals for training and assessing mineworker self-escape 

competency. To meet these objectives, the project had five research aims, as follows:

1. To identify self-escape knowledge, skills, abilities, and other attributes (KSAOs)

to characterize competence in the task of self-escape for rank-and-file mineworkers

and those in self-escape leadership positions (mine management and responsible

persons [RPs]).

2. To prioritize the knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSAs) that are critical to effective selfescape and amenable to training interventions.

3. To identify potential gaps in prioritized self-escape competencies and identify strategies

to fill those gaps.

4. To create modifiable immersive mine environments suitable for self-escape training and

behavioral research activities.

5. To provide a standardized, evidence-based framework for self-escape competency

training and assessment to the mining industry.

Research Summary 

The five research aims above were met through a combination of in-house efforts and contract 

work at NIOSH facilities, mine sites, and other training facilities. Aims 1–3 consisted largely of 

TNA activities. These efforts included (1) formal hierarchical and cognitive task analyses to 

identify KSAOs across self-escape roles, (2) the exploration of relationships between and among 

various individual and organizational characteristics, (3) the identification of existing gaps in 

miner self-escape training and competence, and (4) reviews of existing emergency training in 

mining and other high-risk industries and the knowledge base related to current decision science. 

Completion of these activities enabled the development of a structured, evidence-based training 

needs checklist. The checklist was reviewed and revised by several mine emergency subject 

matter experts (SMEs) to assist NIOSH in the development of a self-escape competency training 

and assessment framework for practical use in the mining industry, as detailed in the IC, “Selfescape Core Competency Profile: Guidance for Improving Underground Coal Miners’ Selfescape Competency” [NIOSH 2023]. 

Parallel to the completion of the tasks designed to meet research Aims 1–3, NIOSH researchers 

addressed Aim 4 by using NIOSH’s Virtual Immersion and Simulation Laboratory (VISLab) to 

develop a flexible virtual underground coal mine simulation environment platform (VR Mine) 

suitable for self-escape training and behavioral research activities. The flexibility of this 
13

simulated environment makes it suitable for experimental work—including the study of research 

topics such as situational awareness (SA), hazard recognition, and decision-making—and also 

allows mine-specific modifications (e.g., number of entries, crosscuts, locations of mine 

emergency response features and apparatus, etc.). The VR Mine can be used to create unique 

layouts quickly and easily for mine-specific training activities that can be incorporated into selfescape training flows. Effectively harnessed, this immersive, virtual reality (VR) platform can 

serve as a mechanism for delivery of content as well as provide opportunities for practice and 

assessment.

The outcomes of these research activities provide a solid framework from which enhanced selfescape training and assessment training flows can be developed or used by mine safety and 

health professionals. The outcomes are expected to contribute to an increased standardization of 

effective self-escape training and assessment and a more prepared workforce. Ultimately, these 

outcomes could also influence legislative and policy discussions related to self-escape training 

requirements in the U.S. mining industry.

Research Activities

NIOSH utilized in-house and non-governmental contractor expertise to perform the needs 

analysis described in this report. All activities were designed based on NAS Recommendations 5 

and 7A-C and fit within the framework described in Chapter 1: Overview, above. Specifically, 

Table 3 demonstrates the alignment of the NAS recommendations, contract and NIOSH 

activities, the phases of ADDIE and the FEMA Preparedness Cycle, and the corresponding 

chapter from this report that covers these topics. Furthermore, NIOSH adopted the NAS 

definition of “self-escape,” as follows:

We define self-escape in the event of a mine emergency as the ability of an 

individual miner or a group of miners to remove themselves from the mine using 

available resources [NRC 2013 p. 13].

Using the NAS definition of self-escape, the activities contextualized in Table 3 were designed 

to consider both the need to escape as a group and the need to escape alone. Although the focus 

of this research is on identifying the training needs of individual mineworkers, it is important to 

note that the NAS committee’s definition of self-escape makes a distinction between self-escape 

by an individual and self-escape by a group (i.e., not aided externally). This differentiation has 

important implications for identifying both what KSAOs are required and how they might be 

trained. For example, ad hoc escape groups or “teams” of individual workers in close proximity

to one another may form when confronted with an emergency. In these cases, factors such as 

communication, leadership, and other team based KSAOs are also critical and addressed in this 

report.

Many of the research activities summarized in Table 3 were executed simultaneously or 

overlapped considerably. For narrative purposes, the activities described in the following 

chapters are presented in the approximate chronological order in which they were undertaken.
14

Table 3. Activities undertaken or contracted by NIOSH based on the NAS report,

“Improving Self-escape from Underground Coal Mines”

NAS 

Recommendation 

Summaries

Contractor*

and NIOSH 

Research

Activities

ADDIE 

Phase

Preparedness 

Cycle Phase

Technical 

Report 

Chapter

7A. To advance selfescape training, NIOSH 

should conduct or 

sponsor a formal task 

analysis and analysis of 

the knowledge, skills, 

abilities, and other 

personal attributes 

(KSAOs) for miners to 

self-escape effectively.

Preliminary Task 

Analysis (PTA)*

Hierarchical Task 

Analysis (HTA)*

Evaluate

Analyze

Evaluate/Improve

Plan

Chapter 2: 

Analyzing the Task 

of Self-escape

7B. Based on this analysis, 

NIOSH should identify 

training activities best 

suited for preparing 

mineworkers to self-escape 

effectively and identify 

existing gaps within the 

mining industry.

Literature 

Review: Training 

and Assessment 

Strategies*

Mineworker Selfreport Survey

Design

Evaluate

Evaluate/Improve

Plan

Chapter 3: 

Identifying 

Effective Training 

Strategies and 

Existing Gaps

5. NIOSH should use

current decision science

research to inform the

development of self-escape

training materials for

effective decision-making

for the predictable

components of self-escape.

Literature 

Review: 

Decision-making 

and Assessment 

Strategies*

Cognitive Task 

Analysis (CTA)*

Analyze

Design

Evaluate

Evaluate/Improve

Plan

Chapter 4: 

Preparing Miners 

for Decisionmaking Under 

Stress

7C. The Mine Safety and 

Health Administration 

(MSHA) and NIOSH 

should revise or develop 

training flows to bring 

individual miners and 

mine management to 

mastery in critical selfescape KSAOs.

Subject Matter 

Expert (SME) 

Validation and 

Consensus 

Building Focus 

Groups

Creation of “Core 

Competency 

Profiles” for 

Miner Selfescape

Virtual Reality 

Mine Design and 

Development

Design

Develop

Evaluate

Evaluate/Improve

Plan

Organize/Equip

Train

Exercise

Chapter 5: 

Developing 

Components for 

Self-escape

Training Flows

* Contracted work carried out by the Group for Organizational Effectiveness, Inc., and its subcontractor, Aptima, Inc.
15

Other Documents Related to this Report

Contractor Reports

NIOSH responded to the NAS recommendations related to advancing self-escape training 

through a combination of in-house efforts and contract work as described in Table 3. After the 

tasks and subtasks necessary to carry out the work were identified, NIOSH contracted with a 

group of external subject matter experts to perform a detailed task analysis to identify and 

prioritize critical self-escape competency areas and KSAOs and to develop related training and 

assessment recommendations. This contractor, the Group for Organizational Effectiveness, Inc.,

and its subcontractor, Aptima, Inc.—hereafter referred to as “gOE/Aptima”—completed several 

activities that provided the foundation for the self-escape competency framework development

detailed in this report.

During the first phase of this work, gOE/Aptima partnered with a mining SME and two 

participating mine sites to develop research protocols and data collection materials based upon 

contract specifications. These data collection protocols were approved by the NIOSH 

Institutional Review Board (IRB) (Protocol No. HSRB 14-OMSHR-10XP) and the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) (Control No. 0920-1081).

The later phases of the contract required written reports describing the methods and results of 

each research activity, which included a preliminary task analysis (PTA), a hierarchical task 

analysis (HTA), a cognitive task analysis (CTA), and other detailed TNA activities for training 

and assessing the critical physical and cognitive tasks associated with self-escape. The contractor 

report years and titles are as follows:

gOE/Aptima [2016a]. Emergency self-escape phase 2 report: Identify and categorize 

primary self-escape tasks.

gOE/Aptima [2016b]. Improving self-escape from underground coal mines training 

initiative: Training and assessment strategy recommendations.

gOE/Aptima [2017a]. Improving self-escape from underground coal mines training 

initiative: Decision-making.

gOE/Aptima [2017b]. Emergency self-escape phase 3 report: Hierarchical task analysis 

and recommendations.

gOE/Aptima [2017c]. Emergency self-escape phase 4 report: Cognitive task analysis and 

recommendations.

Within this technical report, NIOSH researchers have synopsized key findings from the 

contractor reports and described how they were used to inform the development of subsequent 

research activities and the resulting self-escape competency framework. The full contractor 

reports are available upon request from mining@cdc.gov.
16

NIOSH Information Circular: Self-escape Core Competency Profile: Guidance for Improving Underground 

Coal Miners’ Self-escape Competency

This report’s sister publication, the NIOSH IC “Self-escape Core Competency Profile: Guidance 

for Improving Underground Coal Miners’ Self-escape Competency” [NIOSH 2023], was 

developed based on the totality of internal and external research and validation efforts described 

in this technical report. The IC is intended to serve as the competency framework for mine safety 

and health professionals to use in the development of new or improved self-escape training 

flows. The IC includes a validated checklist of core competencies and performance criteria, 

which can serve as measurable learning objectives for self-escape training and assessment 

activities.
17

Chapter 2: Analyzing the Task of Self-escape

This chapter details how NIOSH contracted with gOE/Aptima to analyze the self-escape task 

based on the NAS report recommendation 7A, summarized as follows:

Recommendation 7A. To advance self-escape training, NIOSH should conduct or 

sponsor a formal task analysis and analysis of the knowledge, skills, abilities, and other 

personal attributes (KSAOs) for miners to self-escape effectively.

Training needs analysis is “a systematic process that applies work analysis techniques and 

procedures to identify and specify training requirements that have been linked to deficiencies in 

individual, team, or organization performance to develop learning objectives to address the 

identified deficiencies” [Surface 2013 p. 437]. TNA is a critical first step in developing effective 

training programs [Ostroff and Ford 1989]. One TNA methodology is a task analysis.

Task analysis is a widely accepted empirical approach to developing comprehensive and 

measurable training objectives and is often the first step in ISD (the “A” of ADDIE). Standard

methods for performing task analyses include hierarchical task analysis (HTA) [Drury 1983; 

Hackos and Redish 1998; Stanton 2006] and cognitive task analysis (CTA) [Crandall et al.

2006, Militello and Hutton 1998]. Stanton [2006] describes how HTA techniques have been 

successfully used to design and develop training, perform team task analysis, and determine 

appropriate allocation of function—i.e., whether a particular task should be performed by a 

person or persons, technology, or some combination of the human-technology system. 

Similarly, CTA has been used to identify cognitive requirements in command-and-control

systems, decision-making, situational assessments, and response planning and execution

[Crandall et al. 2006]. 

Although the NAS report called for a formal task analysis to examine the KSAOs required for 

effective self-escape, the focus of this report is on preparing mineworkers to effectively selfescape through improved training. Therefore, the required critical “knowledge” and “skills”

(KSs) will be emphasized. However, some “abilities” (As) that could be practiced during selfescape training drills (e.g., the ability to speak loudly and clearly) are included, and other

personal attributes (Os) (e.g., experience, motivation to learn, self-efficacy) that have been found 

to be associated with training and performance outcomes in general will be briefly discussed. 

While it is important to acknowledge the relationships between and among all the KSAOs 

relevant to self-escape, distinctions have been made so that the focus can be placed on the KSAs 

that are most malleable and amenable to training. Some of these relationships and distinctions 

are discussed further in the following sections of this chapter, but the task demands associated 

with most abilities will receive only cursory treatment within this report. 

Scoping the Work

In order to ensure the comprehensive identification of all tasks critical to successful self-escape 

for all underground coal miners, NIOSH provided gOE/Aptima with a statement of work (SOW) 

detailing a specific set of criteria on which to base the formal task analysis. The SOW required 
18

the analysis of self-escape tasks across four self-escape roles (inby worker,9outby worker, 

responsible person [RP]

10, and escape group leader [EGL]11) and four emergency scenarios (fire, 

explosion, impoundment/gas or water inundation, and rock burst/roof fall). It was also required 

that the contractor secure the participation of a mining subject matter expert (SME) and at least 

two underground coal mines representing a large mine, a small mine, and two different mining 

methods (continuous and longwall). Appendix B contains a detailed description of the

participating mines. In general, the formal task analysis was also bounded between (a) miners 

making the decision on their own or based on notification by coworkers or mine management of 

the need to escape, and (b) completed self-escape at the exit of an underground mine. However, 

researchers additionally included preparedness tasks (e.g., establishing situational awareness, 

ensuring a serviceable12 SCSR is on one’s belt) because SMEs identified a number of critical 

daily tasks that are necessary for effective emergency preparation. Ultimately, the identified selfescape tasks were organized into four categories: general preparedness, orientation to and 

preparation for escape, meeting at designated gather space, and escape.

Identifying and Prioritizing Critical Tasks

A preliminary task analysis (PTA) is required to generate a comprehensive list of all tasks that 

could be required to complete any given job (e.g., self-escape). Initial identification of tasks can 

be done in a number of ways, but in general, SMEs are individually interviewed or participate in 

focus groups facilitated by task analysts. Both methods were utilized during this phase of the 

work to identify the tasks that underground coal miners might need to effectively complete 

during the task of self-escape and prioritize them based on criticality and amenability to training 

and assessment activities [gOE/Aptima 2016a]. The protocol for the focus groups and the four 

emergency scenarios, and specification of the four worker roles for each are in Appendix C, and 

the initial mine leadership safety management interview guide can be found in Appendix D. A 

brief summary of the analysis and results is provided below and the full contractor report, 

“Emergency self-escape phase 2 report: Identify and categorize primary self-escape tasks,” is 

available upon request from mining@cdc.gov.

Purpose of Identifying and Prioritizing Self-escape Tasks

In order to identify and prioritize initial self-escape tasks, task analysts had three goals:

1. To ensure that the designated self-escape roles and mine operations at the proposed mines

converged with NIOSH-provided specifications, and to gain an initial understanding of

the responsibilities of these roles during self-escape

9

Inby and outby are mining terms that refer to opposite directions within the mine from one’s current location. All 

locations deeper into the mine toward the working face are “inby” one’s location in the mine, and all areas toward the 

mine entrance/egress and thus further from the working face are “outby.”

10For each shift that miners work underground, mine operators are required by law to designate a responsible person 

to take charge during mine emergencies.

11 Although not formally required by law, the section foreman is usually expected to serve as the escape group leader

and may or may not also be the designated responsible person. 

12 Serviceable is defined by the manufacturer and may be different for different SCSR models.
19

2. To identify and categorize an exhaustive set of self-escape tasks required for all four selfescape roles across four emergency scenarios

3. To prioritize self-escape tasks to establish a set of critical self-escape tasks for further

analysis

Methods and Materials

Participants

To confirm the relevance of the specified self-escape roles and determine the suitability of the 

participating mines for conducting the analysis, initial interviews (n = 6) as described in 

Appendix D were conducted by gOE/Aptima with personnel from a large mine and small mine.

From the large mine, a mine foreman, assistant day shift manager, and safety manager 

participated; from the small mine, participants included the mine superintendent, president, and 

mine foreman. Thereafter, mine management was asked to identify mineworkers who met the 

criteria for participation in focus groups (Appendix C), which included a thorough understanding 

of the mine layout and operations; experience in the tasks, procedures, and technology required 

for self-escape; and at least five years of experience in underground coal mining.

Following the initial interviews, 11 participants from the two mine sites participated in the focus 

groups. From the large mine, volunteer participants were a longwall shearer operator, two belt 

cleaners (both also shift foremen), and a motorman (n = 4). From the small mine, volunteer 

participants were two beltmen, two mechanics (one outby), a supervisor, a roof bolter, and a 

surface/outby worker (n = 7). All met the study criteria for participation. In total, 17 SMEs 

participated in either the initial interviews or the PTA focus groups.

Lastly, one of the mines’ safety directors and the contracted SME reviewed the identified tasks to 

determine which tasks would be further examined during the hierarchical and cognitive task 

analyses that followed.

Informed Consent

The project purpose and process were thoroughly explained to each interviewee and focus group

participant. Each participant was provided an informed consent document approved by the 

NIOSH Institutional Review Board (IRB; Protocol #14-OMSHR-10XP). All participants were 

informed that their participation was voluntary and were given the opportunity to ask questions 

and/or withdraw their consent at any time, with no penalty. Participants provided their oral 

consent, and no one refused to participate in the research.

Semi-structured Interviews

Researchers from gOE/Aptima conducted initial interviews in above-ground facilities made 

available by mine management. Interview sessions followed a standardized process in 

accordance with the IRB-approved protocol. At least two researchers were present at all times,

and both asked questions and recorded handwritten notes. To ensure confidentiality of the 

participants, recorded notes were assigned unique identification numbers rather than participant 

names.
20

Referencing the NIOSH-specified emergency scenarios and self-escape roles as described in 

Appendix C and in consultation with the subcontracted mining SME, gOE/Aptima researchers 

developed a number of questions that focused on four major areas: (1) self-escape processes and 

best practices; (2) greatest risk points; (3) training and preparation; and (4) ideas and 

suggestions. The questions were used to develop a semi-structured interview (Appendix D) to 

improve the understanding of self-escape processes and responsibilities by self-escape role. 

Individual interviews required approximately 1.5 hours of each participant’s time.

Focus Groups

Researchers from gOE/Aptima conducted the focus group for each mine in an above-ground 

facility provided by management. The focus group started with position confirmation, where 

researchers worked with the participants to identify the possible positions at the mine as well as 

the general roles in self-escape. Next, gOE/Aptima researchers outlined the framework of the 

discussion by identifying the general phases of self-escape. Once the general framework was 

established, focus group participants were presented with one of the four NIOSH-provided 

emergency scenarios. To begin the process of developing a comprehensive list of self-escape 

tasks, participants were asked to identify all tasks that might be required, and by whom, to 

successfully navigate through each escape phase across all four escape scenarios, which allowed 

researchers to identify the greatest number of self-escape tasks. Researchers recorded all tasks in 

writing and asked participants for clarification as necessary. Focus group sessions required 

approximately 12 hours of each participant’s time spread over multiple sessions. Each focus 

group lasted for approximately 2 hours.

Task Prioritization

After limited modification to reduce redundancy and increase clarity of task characterization

between focus group sessions, gOE/Aptima researchers categorized the identified tasks by 

escape phase, escape role, and escape scenario for presentation to the SMEs in later focus group 

sessions. Defining a “critical” task as “one that without which the probability of self-escape 

could be seriously lowered” [gOE/Aptima 2016a p.16], these SMEs were asked to examine the 

list of tasks to determine criticality. Task “criticality” is a subjective judgment, and gOE/Aptima

researchers worked with miners and the subcontracted mining SME and relied upon their own 

task analysis experience to derive criticality decisions. A final review of these judgments was 

made by the safety director from one of the participating mines.

Key Findings Based on Preliminary Task Analysis

The first major outcome of the PTA was the confirmation of the self-escape roles and the 

suitability of the participating mines for the formal task analysis. The four self-escape roles—

inby worker, outby worker, RP, EGL—specified by NIOSH within the SOW were confirmed by 

SMEs to be appropriate for analysis and criticality determinations. Additionally, both 

participating mines were deemed appropriate for the analysis across roles and escape scenarios.

Generally, the required tasks were similar across emergency scenarios and personnel from both 

the large and small mines. Some differences in state-specific regulations, responsibilities, seam 

height, modes of transportation, and potential distance to be traveled during escape were noted 

and would need to be covered in detail through mine-specific and task training as appropriate.
21

The second major outcome of the PTA was the development of a preliminary structure with 

which the KSAs of self-escape could be further deconstructed. After initial identification of 146 

tasks relevant to at least one self-escape role across the four emergency scenarios, tasks were 

examined for criticality and categorized. Ultimately, the PTA resulted in a hierarchy of 21 

critical task clusters (hereafter referred to as major self-escape “activities”), 37 general tasks 

(hereafter referred to as “competency areas”), and 75 subtasks, or KSAs, critical to at least one 

self-escape role. As shown in Table 4, critical KSAs were identified for all phases of self-escape 

as defined by the contractor, and the initial breakdown of critical KSAs by major self-escape 

activity is listed in Table 5. A detailed graphical example of these initial hierarchies is illustrated 

in Figure 5. The 75 critical KSAs retained for further analysis through HTA and CTA can be 

found in Appendix E. The contractor’s mining SME and a NIOSH panel reviewed the PTA 

results for final report acceptance prior to the start of the HTA and CTA.

Table 4. Number of initial tasks and critical tasks by escape phase

Self-escape Phase Initial Tasks Critical KSAs 

General preparedness for self-escape 32 19

Orientation to and preparation for self-escape upon 

disaster event 47 25

Meeting at designated gathering space 24 9

Escape (moving away from gathering space) 43 22

Total 146 75
22

Table 5. Preliminary self-escape activities, competency areas, and critical KSAs

Major Self-escape Activities Competency 

Areas

Critical 

KSAs

Accounting for personnel 2 3

Communicating nonverbally 1 5

Communicating verbally 4 5

Decision-making 3 7

Diagnosing 2 4

Directing and managing 2 4

Establishing and maintaining situational awareness 5 10

Firefighting 1 1

Leading 1 3

Moving 2 7

Operating communication technology 1 3

Post-mine exit activities 1 2

Supporting map usage 1 1

Treating injured miners 1 1

Using lifelines 1 2

Using mine maps 1 2

Using multigas detector 1 2

Using personal equipment 1 2

Using refuge alternatives 3 6

Using SCSRs 2 3

Using taglines/tetherlines 1 2

Total number of tasks selected for HTA 37 75
23

Figure 5. Example of one PTA task hierarchy showing one major

self-escape activity, one required competency area, and critical

subtasks (KSAs) used for HTA focus group discussions.

Detailing the Critical Tasks and Subtasks

Hierarchical task analysis (HTA) focuses on further dissection of prioritized tasks to arrive at a

set of procedural steps or subtasks required for successful completion of each critical task. 

Traditionally, a task is viewed as something performed by a single person in a predictable 

sequence. For this analysis, gOE/Aptima researchers used a modified approach based on the 

unique nature of self-escape [gOE/Aptima 2017b]. Unlike many job tasks, in self-escape there is 

often a distribution of responsibility across roles (e.g., communicating with surface personnel,

administering first aid). Sometimes, tasks may be required continuously or episodically 

throughout the process (e.g., maintaining situational awareness), while other tasks may be more 

discrete and have a clear procedure from beginning to end (e.g., donning an SCSR). A brief 

summary of the analysis and results is provided below and the full contractor report, “Emergency 

self-escape phase 3 report: Hierarchical task analysis and recommendations,” is available upon 

request from mining@cdc.gov.

Purpose of Prioritizing Tasks for Training

To ensure a comprehensive list of all critical competency areas and KSAs and fully inform the 

development of appropriate training content and guidance to the industry, task analysts from 

gOE/Aptima had four goals:

1. To further deconstruct the competency areas to identify additional critical KSAs,

subtasks, and/or required procedural steps
24

2. To identify key decision points and other tasks with a substantial cognitive component

for further analysis through CTA

3. To identify innate abilities and other characteristics important to self-escape that could

have implications for training

4. To develop training recommendations based on results

Methods and Materials

Participants

Four experienced miners (e.g., beltman, motorman, face worker, emergency medical technician

[EMT], etc.) and a member of mine management from each mine (n = 10) participated in focus 

group discussions. The SME focus groups were designed to elicit further detail about specific 

KSAs and their criticality by self-escape role. At least one of the miners from each mine 

possessed current foreman certification and all had held a number of different mining positions 

throughout their careers.

Informed Consent

Researchers from gOE/Aptima conducted the focus groups in above-ground facilities provided 

by mine management. The project purpose and group process were thoroughly explained, and 

each participant was provided an Informed Consent document approved by the NIOSH 

Institutional Review Board (IRB; Protocol #14-OMSHR-10XP) and given the opportunity to ask 

questions and/or withdraw their participation at any time, without penalty. Participants provided 

their oral consent, and no one refused to participate in the research.

Focus Groups

Ranging between 3.5 and 6 hours a day over a two-day period, focus groups were formed at each 

mine. Participants were provided with handouts prepared by the gOE/Aptima research team 

based on the PTA results. Each handout contained the major activity, the competency area, and a 

list of associated KSAs. Figure 5 depicts an example handout of a PTA task hierarchy that the 

participants received. Participants reviewed each PTA task hierarchy and offered any other 

additional competency areas or KSAs required to successfully master each major activity, while 

researchers recorded handwritten notes.

Over the course of the focus groups, researchers collated all tasks, eliminated redundancies, 

edited for clarity, and assigned tasks to logical and distinct categories (e.g., communication 

techniques versus communication technologies) for review and approval by focus group 

participants and the subcontracted mining SME.

Key Findings Based on Hierarchical Task Analysis

Self-escape Preparedness Model

The first major outcome of the HTA was the development of the self-escape preparedness model. 

Used to frame the discussion of the findings, gOE/Aptima developed the model depicted in 

Figure 6 to illustrate the variables that were specifically considered in the subsequent 

development of training recommendations. At the center of the model are a number of human 

characteristics (knowledge, skills, abilities, and other individual factors such as motivation to 
25

learn, job experience/tenure, and age) that can relate to one another and to self-escape 

performance. To the left of the human characteristics are intervening variables (i.e.,

organizational safety climate, self-escape training, task design, and tools, technology, and 

equipment) that could be used to improve overall preparedness to self-escape.

Figure 6. Self-escape preparedness model demonstrating the interplay between and

among individual and organizational characteristics which have both direct and indirect 

relationships to mineworker preparedness. Adapted from gOE/Aptima [2017b].
26

The arrows within the model show both direct and indirect relationships between and among 

interventions, human characteristics, and self-escape preparedness. For example, “motivation to 

learn” and “experience” each have a direct effect on “knowledge and skills” and therefore an

indirect effect on self-escape preparedness. “Task design” as well as “tools, technology, and 

equipment” (e.g., the tools, technologies, and equipment required by law) can have direct effects 

on “self-escape training”, indirect effects on “organizational safety climate” as well as direct and 

indirect effects on preparedness for self-escape. 

Acknowledging that there are a seemingly infinite number of variables or combinations of 

variables that could affect learning and retention, these variables were considered most germane 

to this effort and were selected based on existing literature supporting their relationships to 

learning and performance. Accordingly, NIOSH researchers added “self-efficacy” and “safety 

climate” to the model to demonstrate other established relationships. Furthermore, although all of 

these variables can contribute to performance outcomes, the results and subsequent 

recommendations focus on self-escape training for knowledge, skills, and those abilities (KSAs) 

deemed amenable to workplace interventions.

Identification of Critical KSAs

The second major outcome of the HTA was the confirmation or identification of all competency 

areas and associated critical KSAs. Researchers identified a total of 214 KSAs amenable to 

training and practice and critical to at least one self-escape role. With the exception of 22 tasks 

that were determined by gOE/Aptima task analysts to be specific to self-escape leadership roles, 

most tasks were identified as critical for all mineworkers in all self-escape roles. These 192 

general tasks are the focus of the remainder of this technical report. These initial determinations 

can be found in Appendix F.

The majority of these subtasks are considered to be knowledge (e.g., “know locations of SCSR 

caches”) or skills (e.g., “read and interpret mine and escapeway maps”), but several might also 

be considered abilities (e.g., “‘go low’ in smoke/explosion debris/difficult walking conditions”). 

Only the abilities considered critical to effective self-escape that could be covered or practiced 

during self-escape training (e.g., the ability to make decisions, the ability to speak loudly and 

clearly) are included. As recommended by NAS and the contractor, these results were later used 

by NIOSH researchers for expected proficiency-level consensus building activities and further

role-specific task validation activities described in Chapters 3 and 4 of this report. 

Abilities to Meet Task Demands

The third major outcome of the HTA was drawing the distinction between the identified 214 

critical KSAs and other abilities that are less amenable to training but that still might be required 

to meet the demands of some self-escape tasks and thus be worthy of consideration.

“Task demands” are those demands placed upon the various dimensions of the human system 

(e.g., physical, mental, emotional) to successfully complete a given task. In the broadest sense, 

all required KSAs could be considered task demands. However, for this analysis, and consistent 

with standard job analysis approaches, knowledge and skills are generally considered separately 

from task demands. That is, knowledge and skills are learned, while abilities (e.g., manual 

dexterity) and other personal attributes and characteristics (e.g., job experience, general 

intelligence) are not learned but could also be important to or required for effective self-escape.
27

To identify the task demands relevant to self-escape, gOE/Aptima researchers utilized the U.S. 

Department of Labor’s Occupational Information Network (O*NET) free online database of 

occupational categories and job descriptions [O*NET Resource Center 2016]. O*NET is widely 

used in research related to job characteristics [NRC 2010] and is useful for identifying specific 

job-related tasks and associated demands. It is widely acknowledged that, in general, the job 

tasks of underground coal miners can place substantial demands on the human system. Although 

O*NET does not currently include a profile for the “job” of self-escape, it does include profiles 

for specific mining positions (e.g., roof bolter, shuttle car operator). Many of the same task 

demands and abilities required for self-escape are seen in these job profiles (e.g., physical

strength, manual dexterity), and it might be assumed that these demands are likely intensified 

during self-escape.

Although less mutable, and therefore not the focus of this effort, it is important for miners and 

mine safety and health professionals to be aware of broad abilities that are relevant to self-escape 

and defined by O*NET, as follows:

(1) Cognitive—abilities that influence the acquisition and application of knowledge in 

problem solving.

(2) Psychomotor—abilities that influence the capacity to manipulate and control objects.

(3) Physical—abilities that influence strength, endurance, flexibility, balance, and 

coordination.

(4) Sensory—abilities that influence visual, auditory and speech perception.

A more comprehensive breakdown of these abilities and relevant task demands can be found in 

Appendix G.

Additionally, it is also important to note that although some physical abilities, such as endurance, 

flexibility, and stamina, are all important for successful self-escape and more amenable to 

training than other innate abilities, these abilities might be better addressed through programs 

such as Total Worker Health® and other work-life balance efforts.

Other Characteristics

Similar to the distinction made for other abilities, the fourth major outcome of the HTA was the 

recognition of the importance of other characteristics apart from the critical KSAs. It is well 

established that some human characteristics, such as self-efficacy, motivation to learn, 

engagement, age, and experience, all relate to training outcomes but are less amenable to 

training. Specifically, human characteristics have been shown to be related to one another, to 

training effectiveness and performance [Christian et al. 2009; Denissen et al. 2007; Tziner et al. 

2007], and to the supportiveness of the organizational safety climate [Parker et al. 2003; Tracey 

et al. 2001]. For example, it is widely accepted that levels of self-efficacy—belief in one’s

ability to successfully complete objectives—can predict performance [Bandura 1977, 1982; Gist 

1987; Mathieu and Martineau 1993; Zimmerman 2000], and motivation to learn—the intensity 

and persistence of applied effort both during and after training [Tannenbaum and Yukl 1992]—

is associated with measures of training effectiveness [Noe 1986; Noe and Schmitt 1986; 

Quiñones 1995]. 
28

Although some human characteristics (e.g., age and experience) cannot be overtly changed, their 

effects on training might still be mitigated through specific training interventions. Still other

human characteristics, such as those relating to intellect (e.g., general intelligence) and 

personality (e.g., conscientiousness), also predict learning and transfer [Salas and CannonBowers 2001], but they are less mutable and will not be addressed in this discussion. However, it 

is important to add that transfer of KSAs required for non-routine tasks (such as those associated 

with self-escape) is a complicated issue due to limited opportunities to use or practice such tasks

[Bauerle et al. 2016a; Blume et al. 2010; Ford and Schmidt 2000]. This complexity should be 

considered when determining optimal frequency of and degree of realism required for some 

training activities (e.g., SCSR donning and switching/swapping).

Recommendations Based on Preliminary Task Analysis and 

Hierarchical Task Analysis

To begin to inform the design phase of ISD for self-escape training, recommendations based on 

the work accomplished during the PTA and HTA were generated by gOE/Aptima researchers. 

The section below presents the training recommendations proposed by gOE/Aptima researchers 

in the full contractor HTA report [gOE/Aptima 2017b]. These strategies address the human 

characteristics identified in the self-escape preparedness model (Figure 6) and the 

recommendations build upon or lead into results found in the contractor’s other related reports 

[gOE/Aptima 2016a,b; 2017a,c]. In some cases, NIOSH work relevant to the recommendations 

and published after the receipt of the contractor reports have been cited by the authors.

Motivation to Learn and Self-efficacy

Employing Learner-centered Training

Motivation to learn can partially be addressed through the improvement of the training type and 

design; namely, increasing the use of learner-centered training. Learner-centered training is 

where trainees are an active participant in training, making them more involved and engaged 

(e.g., via demonstration, hands-on practice, on-the-job training), such as in many of the 

knowledge and skills recommendations identified in the sections that follow. The two key 

features of learner-centered training are that the learners have significant control over their 

learning and that learning should be inductive (i.e., learners explore to infer the rules and 

principles) [Bell and Kozlowski 2009]. In learner-centered training, not only are trainees more 

engaged, but learner-centered training has also been found to be more effective than knowledgecentered (e.g., lecture-based) training because it can enhance trainee motivation and address 

individual differences [McCombs 2001; Gegenfurtner 2011]. It has also been shown to improve 

motivation in other industries such as pharmacy [Cheang 2009]. 

Ensuring Trainee Self-efficacy

When individuals have self-efficacy—believe themselves to be capable of high performance—

they are more likely to work toward appropriate goals [Bandura 1986]. Therefore, it is important 

to design training that encourages these perceptions among trainees. For example, modeling and 

participation in realistic drills or exercises as a part of self-escape training has been shown to 

increase team efficacy [Hoebbel et al. 2015].
29

Enhancing Job Involvement

Employees with high job involvement are more motivated to learn and perform better in training

and on the job [Kontoghiorghes 2004; Noe and Schmitt 1986]. Job involvement includes 

awareness of how an individual’s job contributes to the organization as a whole and involvement 

in decision-making, as well as an organization’s commitment to individuals. To enhance job 

involvement, mine management can communicate clearly to miners the ways in which 

management supports them and how the organization as a whole possesses values that are 

congruent with those of the workforce itself [Haas 2020; Haas et al. 2018; Rich et al. 2010].

Building Employee Trust

Research has indicated that training on the perception of risks and dangers tends to be more 

effective if the trainees trust their trainers as well as the organization as a whole [Siegrist and 

Cvetkovich 2000]. Trainers can emphasize their own expertise and the validity of the training 

content in order to foster trainee trust.

Knowledge and Skills

Empowering Miners to Communicate Perceived Risk before and during Self-escape

Since any miner may be the one who detects important events that either indicate the need to 

self-escape or provide important information during self-escape, miners should be encouraged to 

adopt the “see something, say something” mindset during training [McGuire et al. 2018].

Adoption of this mindset requires supervisor support and buy-in to distribute safety surveillance 

responsibilities across all workers. Ongoing NIOSH research has demonstrated that perceptions 

of supervisor support and communication, among other indicators, are predictive of individual 

safety performance [Haas 2020; Haas et al. 2017]. Therefore, training can emphasize individual 

responsibility to communicate.

Training Miners to Acknowledge Receipt of Critical Information

When critical information is communicated within the mine or between the mine workings and 

the surface, all parties should be able to indicate that the information was understood and 

received. This will reduce miscommunications and may involve repeating the information if time 

permits. Trainers may consider incorporating such tools as the Emergency Communications 

Triangle. This training tool is a 15-minute safety talk focused on the content of emergency 

warning messages [NIOSH 1999]. It presents a procedure, using mental cues that can be used by 

senders and receivers of emergency warnings, to ensure that critical information is 

communicated. The training materials also include graphics to be used during the talk and other 

references. Trainers should also consider ways to incorporate acknowledgment when responding 

nonverbally (e.g., “you indicated that all miners are accounted for and in your group; if that is 

correct, tap twice for “yes”).

Training SCSR Use to Automaticity

Automaticity, which is acquired through practice and repetition, is the ability to perform actions 

correctly with little conscious thought. It is usually the result of learning, repetition, and practice

and can reduce the cognitive load on escaping miners and minimize the sense of panic. Vaught, 

et al. [1993] found SCSR donning skills, specifically, degraded significantly after as little as 90 
30

days following training. They recommended that “hands-on practice should be scheduled 

throughout the year,” and suggested that “training can be built into fire drills and other 

emergency preparedness routines” [p. 18]. Findings from that study were used, in part, to justify

the MINER Act requirements for quarterly SCSR training. Trainers could take advantage of this 

mandated training to increase miners’ proficiency in SCSR use.

Expanding Expectations Training

Expectations training [Kowalski-Trakofler et al. 2008; NIOSH 2009] is used to create realistic 

expectations of escape group communication, coordination, movement speed, and other aspects 

of self-escape. Communications within an escape group are challenging, but proper expectations 

can help miners understand why certain communication KSAs (e.g., nonverbal communication

techniques) are important. Similarly, moving in smoke, or moving through obstructions or an

inundation could impede and slow a self-escape group. Developing appropriate expectations for

travel speed and difficulty could support better self-escape performance. Presentation of facts, 

discussion of experiences, drills, and exercises, and debriefs could all be part of such 

expectations development.

Debriefing after Training Events, Simulations, and Drills

Debriefing has been shown to reliably increase performance [Tannenbaum and Cerasoli 2013].

Discussion can be stimulated by prompts such as: “How well did we work together during this 

event?”;“What problems did we encounter?”; “Did we have a clear idea of what to do at each 

stage of this event?”; “Were we well prepared by our training?”; “Were our communications 

effective?” Initial questions could be asked anonymously (e.g., on paper or via computer to yield 

more candid responses) and then discussed in a facilitated group.

Specific to mine self-escape training, NIOSH researchers Connor et al. [2016] described the 

value of debriefing after training events to identify gaps in prior learning and emphasized the 

importance of allowing trainees to make choices and experience consequences during simulated 

trainings for later review of actions taken, strategies used, and lessons learned. Citing previous 

research and meta-analyses [DeGrosky and Parry 2011; Johnson and Gonzalez 2008;

Tannenbaum and Cerasoli 2013], Bauerle et al. [2016b] also describe the benefits of effective 

post-training review and feedback for trainees using computer-based simulation data generated 

during virtual exercises. These NIOSH researchers identified several key features of successful 

debriefs, such as data visualization of multiple information sources, flexibility, trainee 

interaction, contextualization of trainee actions and behavior, and the identification of 

performance gaps for targeted training efforts. Specific debrief opportunities, features, and 

suggestions related to the use of NIOSH’s Mine Emergency Escape Training (MEET) simulation

are also discussed in the two papers [Bauerle et al. 2016b; Connor et al. 2016].

Abilities and Task Demands

Reviewing the Most Common Physical Demands across Tasks

Even though some aspects of preparedness may be difficult to attain (e.g., physical strength, 

endurance), it is possible that some miners would undertake actions to boost health and physical 

capabilities after this type of discussion. Regular reminders about maintaining general wellness 

and sensory abilities (e.g., protecting hearing, correcting vision) could prove to be beneficial to 
31

overall fitness and health as well as effective emergency response. While some abilities might be 

better addressed through programs such as Total Worker Health® and other work-life balance 

efforts, a number of free, convenient, and confidential health screenings for work-related illness 

and injury are often available through local resources as well as the NIOSH Enhanced Coal 

Workers’ Health Surveillance Program (ECWHSP). This program provides miners with an easy 

way to check health status and radiographic evidence about their lung function. 

Other Characteristics 

Augmenting NIOSH Age Awareness Training with O*NET Profiling 

It is important to appreciate the changes that occur with age as well as understand what can be 

done to reduce the risk of injury to help protect all workers. NIOSH Age Awareness Training for 

Miners [NIOSH 2008] supports these goals and can be enhanced by using O*NET to identify 

self-escape abilities susceptible to early age-related decline. Researchers have used O*NET 

abilities to profile various jobs to reveal their tendency to become more difficult over time due to 

aging [e.g., Belbase et al. 2017]. Naturally, this research indicates that manual blue-collar jobs, 

such as construction, are most susceptible to age-related decline. This can be similarly 

accomplished for self-escape by identifying important abilities based on the number of tasks to 

which they relate and their subjectivity to age-related decline. For example, flexibility, balance, 

and coordination abilities are demanded in at least five tasks each and are all susceptible to agerelated decline [Belbase et al. 2015]. 

Assessing Generational Differences in Self-escape Attitudes 

During interviews by gOE/Aptima researchers, it was sometimes mentioned that younger miners 

felt less concern about self-escape than older, more experienced miners. Whether this is true 

among the population of underground coal miners is an important research question. If there are 

differences in individual factors (e.g., risk perception or risk tolerance) across age and/or 

experience variables, it is important to understand the direction of these relationships. If such 

differences do exist, it must be determined whether they are large and systemic enough that 

addressing them in training would be beneficial. For example, Haas et al. [2019] found risk 

tolerance to be a significant predictor of self-reported compliant and proactive safety behaviors 

among mineworkers in the U.S. and further research examining differences in the strength of 

these and other relationships across age and experience variables could have important 

implications for training mineworkers of different generations and/or levels of experience. 

Ensuring Crews Have a Mix of Experience 

Job experience and tenure can have both a positive and negative effect on abilities. Typically, 

experience and tenure have a positive effect on cognitive abilities [e.g., Hambrick and Engle 

2002] but a negative effect on physical abilities [Margolis 2010]. As workers gain experience 

and expertise, they are better at decision-making and have improved situational awareness 

[Hutton and Klein, 1999]. On the other hand, tenure can lead to both acute and cumulative 

physical (e.g., lower back) and sensory (e.g., hearing loss) injuries to underground miners. 

According to some research [e.g., Schmidt et al. 1986], tenure has a strong and direct 

relationship between experience and job knowledge and a smaller effect on performance 

capabilities. Ensuring that crews have a good mix of experience levels is likely to provide the 

escape group with the necessary KSAO’s.
32

Discussion of Preliminary Task Analysis and Hierarchical Task 

Analysis

Recognizing that a systematic analysis of the activities that comprise self-escape from the 

perspective of mineworkers themselves had never been done, the NAS recommended that 

NIOSH conduct or sponsor a formal task analysis to “crisply” define the concept of self-escape. 

Defining the task of self-escape is critical because, once defined, focus can shift to the 

identification of deficiencies in the self-escape system which could be targeted through improved 

training and preparation.

However, the PTA and HTA were not without limitations. The small number (one small and one 

large) and geographic location of the mines that participated in the task analyses could limit the 

generalizability of the results to all underground coal mines. With that being said, in most cases, 

it is sufficient to assume that the results of task analyses have a great degree of content validity

based on the careful method by which they were constructed [gOE/Aptima 2017b; Lawshe 1975]

and that critical self-escape tasks are likely to be similar across emergency scenarios and 

personnel in all underground coal mines. Despite these similarities, differences in mine 

characteristics, state-specific regulations, and mine-specific policies and procedures should be 

considered when developing mine-specific training flows. For example, the physical task 

demands of almost all of the tasks increase in a mine with a lower seam height. This is also 

reflected in the regulations, such as the fact that lower seam mines are required to have SCRSs 

located closer together because miners on average will take longer to crawl a distance and may 

use more oxygen [30 CFR § 75.1714-4].

Despite these limitations, the PTA and HTA described in this chapter provide a basis for 

understanding and exploring what is necessary to successfully and effectively escape from an 

underground mine. As expected, the number of critical self-escape tasks and subtasks (KSAs) 

resulting from the detailed task analysis was greater than the higher-level competencies 

identified in previous work [e.g., Commonwealth of Australia 2020; NRC 2013; Peters and

Kosmoski 2013]. These detailed findings served as the foundation for further research and 

provided the content for further inquiry, examination, and validation of results through SME 

consensus building exercises. This solid, hierarchical foundation framed within the context of the 

gOE/Aptima model of self-escape preparedness, depicted in Figure 6, was critical to the success 

of later research activities described in the chapters that follow. These contract deliverables and 

resulting recommendations can also now aid mine safety and health researchers and other

professionals in the development of specific self-escape training flows, training delivery, and 

continuous evaluation efforts.
33

Chapter 3: Identifying Effective 

Training Strategies and Existing Gaps

This chapter details how NIOSH contracted with gOE/Aptima to conduct a comprehensive 

review of the literature to identify training and assessment strategies applicable to self-escape. 

Also described is NIOSH’s administration of a self-escape competency survey to identify 

existing gaps in self-escape KSA’s. This work took place after the preliminary task analysis 

(PTA), and concurrent with the hierarchical task analysis (HTA) described in Chapter 2. Each of 

these efforts was based on the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) report recommendation 7B, 

summarized as follows:

Recommendation 7B. Based on the task analysis activities (detailed in Chapter 2), 

NIOSH should identify training activities best suited for preparing mineworkers to selfescape effectively and identify existing gaps within the mining industry.

Specifically, the PTA of critical self-escape competency requirements as described in Chapter 2

enabled gOE/Aptima researchers to further the training needs analysis (TNA). The PTA also 

allowed NIOSH to develop a survey to establish a baseline measure of the existing gaps in selfescape preparedness from the mineworkers’ perspectives, which also allowed for the 

consideration of best practices for developing and implementing targeted training content and 

delivery.

Exploring the Literature to Develop Training and Assessment 

Strategies

Within the task analysis scope of work was the requirement for gOE/Aptima to identify training 

and assessment strategies for use in the design of an evidence-based competency framework for 

self-escape training. This requirement was expanded to include a comprehensive review of the 

literature to identify best practices in competency-based training in the underground mining 

community as well as in other high-risk industries. To that end, an exploratory review of current 

learning strategies, theories, and practices was conducted by gOE/Aptima [2016b] to develop 

strategies for training and assessing miners’ competency in non-routine yet critical tasks such as 

those identified in the PTA. A brief summary of this effort and its results are provided here, and 

the full report, “Improving self-escape from underground coal mines training initiative: Training 

and assessment strategy recommendations,” is available upon request from mining@cdc.gov.

Purpose

To develop guidance for self-escape training and assessment relevant to underground coal 

mining, gOE/Aptima researchers had two goals:

1. To review the existing literature to identify learning strategies, theories, and practices 

related to training and assessment in high-risk industries.

2. To develop assessment strategies, guidelines, and/or principles for training emergency 

self-escape within the mining industry.
34

Literature Review

Researchers from gOE/Aptima relied on their expertise in training research and development and 

task analysis and their experience working with several mining SMEs during the early phases of 

the formal task analysis to develop an understanding of the potential constraints and limitations 

inherent in training for low-probability/high-severity events in the mining industry. With this 

general understanding, researchers conducted a review of the literature to identify factors to be 

considered while developing self-escape training flows.

A number of topics that reflect well-established learning theory as well as emerging trends in 

approaching training and assessment in high-risk industries were identified and explored. The 

relevance and effectiveness of the following topics were examined to assess needs related to 

advancing self-escape training in the mining industry: (1) training needs analysis; (2) skill decay; 

(3) adult learners; (4) individual factors; (5) team training; (6) decision-making under stress;

(7) leadership; (8) situational awareness; (9) continuous learning; (10) fidelity; and

(11) organizational factors.

Recent and emerging trends in learning theory and training strategies were examined within the 

context of self-escape to identify best practices for training improvement. While considering the 

constraints and limitations of training and assessing nonroutine KSAs within the mining 

industry, gOE/Aptima researchers explored relevant training strategy topics and their 

implications for self-escape training. These findings have been updated by the authors to include 

recent NIOSH research and are briefly summarized in Table 6.

Table 6. Training strategy topics relevant to self-escape training

Training 

Strategy

Relevance to Self-escape Training 

Training needs 

analysis

A thorough training needs analysis (TNA) to define training content is a 

critical first step in developing an effective training program [Ostroff and

Ford 1989]. Not all mines may have the capacity to conduct systematic 

TNAs themselves, so industry-wide efforts to identify common 

competency requirements and gaps are required.

Skill decay Skills can decay over time—up to 90% if they are not practiced [Arthur 

et al. 1998]. Some skills decay more quickly than others will, especially 

those that require a response to a quickly changing situation [Bennett et 

al. 2012] such as a mine emergency.

Adult learners A number of age-related factors can affect the efficacy of training 

[Colquitt et al. 2000]. NIOSH [2002] researchers reviewed implications 

of adult learning for training miners and suggested that training for nonroutine skills can be made more effective using principles of adult 

learning. As an example, these researchers found that experience-based, 

task-centered training was particularly effective for self-contained selfrescuer (SCSR) training and suggested that such principles likely apply 

to many aspects of self-escape training.
35

Training 

Strategy

Relevance to Self-escape Training 

Individual 

factors

Individuals approach training with varying degrees of characteristics

such as self-efficacy and motivation to learn, both of which have been 

shown to positively relate to training outcomes [Mathieu et al. 1992; 

Salas et al. 2012]. Research suggests that emergency response training 

can provide attainable challenges and reinforcements as well as be 

clearly relevant and engaging [Hoebbel et al. 2015].

Team training Miners involved in self-escape share a common goal and often need to 

work with one another during the escape. However, the “escape team” is 

typically formed on an “ad hoc” basis, where members may or may not be 

familiar with each other. This may be problematic when teams are made

up of individuals who lack a history of working together, such as “When 

miners are placed into an emergency situation, they are not likely to 

function as well as an established, tightly functioning team whose 

members have been trained to fill key roles and work together in 

emergency situations” [NRC 2013, p. 50]. It has been suggested that 

interventions designed to build non-emergency group cohesion among 

crew members and boost the leadership capabilities of both likely and 

emergent escape group leaders may improve ad hoc self-escape group 

performance [Bauerle 2016]. It may be beneficial for to miners to engage 

in problem-solving, role-playing, and other team training activities both 

with their own crew and with other miners with whom they are less 

familiar. 

Decisionmaking under 

stress

A large body of research speaks to the degrading effect stress has on 

decision-making. However, decision-making under stress can be 

explicitly taught in training [Cannon-Bowers and Salas 1998; David 

1997]. Decision-making training can be specialized for both the type of 

decision and the person most likely to face the decision [Ross et al. 2004; 

Thunholm 2005], whether it be those underground, on the surface, in 

leadership positions, or rank-and-file miners [MSTTC 2006].

Self-escape 

leadership

Research by NIOSH [2000] found the quality of leadership varied greatly 

when miners were required to escape underground mine fires. Galvin 

[2008] stresses that all persons going underground need to have some 

form of leadership training in the event that the person formally 

designated as a leader (e.g., foreman, escape group leader) is unable to 

effectively act as a leader. For example, when faced with a dynamic and 

dangerous situation, a designated leader could “freeze” leaving the 

opportunity for another leader to emerge.
36

Training 

Strategy

Relevance to Self-escape Training 

Situational 

awareness 

In self-escape, situational awareness (SA) can be considered the ability to 

identify, process, and comprehend the critical elements of information 

surrounding the event. Individual and team training can address KSAs

required to maintain SA, clarify expectations, remove barriers to SA, and 

help miners know what to do when SA is lost. Classroom training, active 

scenarios, and cross-training are beneficial related activities. Gaba and 

Howard [1995] suggest that some aspects of SA can be specifically taught 

including the use of checklists, allocation of attention, multi-tasking, and 

pattern recognition.

Continuous 

learning

Research in organizational settings has shown that less than 10% of 

competency acquisition occurs through formal training [Flynn et al. 2006; 

Tannenbaum 1997]. Hoebbel et al. [2018], Kingsley-Westerman and 

Peters [2011], and Radomsky et al. [2009] all stress the importance of 

informal training activities that can be held in a locker room, shop, at preshift, or even during shifts. “Spot checks” can be regularly conducted to 

informally quiz miners on the mine layout, situational awareness, lifeline 

symbols, etc. 

Fidelity Research demonstrates mixed results when it comes to the relationship 

between training fidelity (the accurate representation of the processes 

required for a given task) and training effectiveness [Maitlis and 

Sonenshein 2010; Norman et al. 2012]. Both low-fidelity and high-fidelity 

simulations have been shown to be effective in promoting learning, and 

safety trainers can employ the level of fidelity that best fits the needs of 

the situation.

Organizational 

factors

Research suggests that workers who perceive greater organizational 

support for safety (“safety climate”) and who have greater levels of 

organizational commitment are likely to enter training with higher levels 

of self-efficacy [Tracey et al. 2001]. A meta-analysis by Christian et al. 

[2009] found that group-level perceptions of the supportiveness of the 

organizational safety climate were strongly predictive of safety 

performance, which was confirmed by Haas et al. [NIOSH 2020].

Recommendations Based on Identification of Training Strategies

Based on the literature and other document reviews, gOE/Aptima [2016b] developed a list of 

recommended strategies to improve self-escape training. These are presented in six categories 

below: (1) clarifying training needs; (2) communication about training; (3) timing of training; (4) 

training design and methods; (5) training assessment; and (6) specific self-escape suggestions.
37

Clarifying Training Needs

In order to better clarify the training needs, mine safety and health professionals should consider 

using the following approach:

• Conduct a TNA to identify or confirm training needs.

• Utilize the ISD methodology to develop training that enhances the acquisition of miners’

knowledge and skills.

• Conduct research to better understand skill decay and identify empirically based 

refresher targets.

Communicating about Training

In order to better communicate about training, trainers should consider the following training 

strategies: 

• To increase trainee self-efficacy and motivation to learn, describe what the training will 

involve and why it is important prior to beginning training.

• Develop and provide advance organizers (e.g., outlines, checklists) at the beginning 

of training that describe what the training will involve.

• Communicate the organization’s commitment to and support for ensuring the safety 

of miners.

Timing of Training

In order to increase the effectiveness of training, trainers should consider the following timing: 

• Conduct unannounced training and/or “opportunistic” drills that occur at varying times 

and include “surprises.”

• Train miners when they are relatively unoccupied to enhance retention.

• Where possible, have routine events double as opportunities for cross-training events 

(e.g., allow non-maintenance workers to shut down the belt for normal maintenance, 

rotate the operation of man-trips).

Training Design and Methods

In order to increase the effectiveness of training, trainers should consider the following designs 

and methods:

• Train miners on the distinction between information that can be accessed (e.g., the mine 

map) versus information that needs to be known (e.g., the location of the mine map).

• Design curricula and activities (“training flows”) that deliver content using a broad range 

of methods (e.g., lecture, videos, hands-on practice, role plays, and computer-based

modules) that include key decision points and actionable feedback.

• Ensure that the training includes ample challenge, but structure it so that trainees leave 

with a sense of efficacy at the end of training.

• If time allows during training, ensure each trainee can properly demonstrate or explain a 

procedure or topic before moving to the next training area. If necessary, utilize taskspecific experts within the class (e.g., emergency medical technicians (EMTs), mine 

rescue team members, etc.) to assist in assessing performance.
38

• Adopt strategies to train miners to work together as a team (e.g., shared leadership, 

shared understanding) in the event of an emergency, rather than relying on the existing 

hierarchy.

• Provide opportunities for miners to communicate about how they will work together 

during an emergency to establish or confirm their roles, responsibilities, objectives, and 

priorities.

• Use part-task trainers to help miners learn the cognitive aspects of a task (e.g., the 

sequencing of parts during assembly) so trainees can focus future training time on 

practicing physical skills to develop automaticity.

• Provide some leadership training to all miners and cross-train rank-and-file miners in 

backup behaviors (e.g., occasionally place non-leader individuals in a leadership position 

during drills).

• Structure training so that decisions need to be made quickly and under some sense of 

pressure (e.g., time compression) and discuss potential tradeoffs and limitations of 

making quick decisions.

• Use realistic training experiences to help miners accurately assess a situation and gain an 

understanding of how they might respond emotionally.

• Develop training that involves reduced situational awareness or that challenges miners to 

gain/regain situational awareness to enhance psychological fidelity.

• Employ the type and level of fidelity in training that best fits the needs of the situation; 

explore opportunities to utilize lower levels of fidelity (e.g., chalk lines, role playing, 

“What if?” scenarios) when appropriate.

• Determine which type of fidelity is most important for a given situation—physical or 

psychological—and build training to meet that need (e.g., use “hands-on” training for 

SCSRs and other equipment and incorporate realistic scenarios into decision-making 

exercises.)

• Include surprises, equipment problems, etc., during annual refresher training to see how 

trainees respond.

Training Assessment

In order to ensure effective training assessment, trainers should consider the following:

• Periodically assess miners’ KSAs through verbal or written quizzes during pre-shift or 

“spot checks” throughout the workday.

• Develop mechanisms to evaluate training at the team level (e.g., during quarterly 

escapeway drills).

• Conduct team debriefs following training events to clarify and confirm understanding.

Self-escape Specific Suggestions

In order to improve specific aspects of self-escape training, trainers should consider the 

following training approaches:

• Communicate the organization’s commitment to and support for ensuring miners’

readiness to self-escape.

• Generate potential self-escape options based on given situational constraints to enable 

miners to focus on selecting the best option when under stress.
39

• Practice donning and switching/swapping SCSRs often enough so that the physical task

becomes automatic, leaving the miner with the mental capacity to focus on other

information and response decision points.

• Provide responsible persons (RPs) with “cue cards” of scenarios and prepare them to

conduct “spot checks” throughout work-shifts by asking questions such as: “If X

happened right now, what would we do?”

Identifying Existing Gaps in Perceived Self-escape Competency 

among Mineworkers

As previously described, significant efforts to improve mine emergency response have been 

made since the passing of the MINER Act in 2006. However, it is difficult to know with any 

certainty whether these efforts have been effective. Additionally, the level of workforce 

preparedness remains difficult to ascertain. By contrast, many of the structural and technological 

advancements (e.g., location of lifelines, placement of SCSR caches, and redundant two-way 

communication systems) are observable, measurable, and have likely contributed to the 

improved post-accident survivability of underground mineworkers.

Industry consensus that deficiencies in competence in critical tasks required for effective selfescape exist is based largely on anecdotal evidence and stakeholder conjecture. That is, absent 

the opportunity to directly measure mineworker self-escape competency, researchers and 

practitioners have been left to speculate about the effectiveness of efforts aimed at improvement. 

Therefore, to aid in the identification and prioritization of existing self-escape competency gaps 

and to contribute to the understanding of actual miner capabilities, NIOSH researchers developed 

a survey to establish a gross baseline measure of the existing gaps in self-escape preparedness 

from the perspective of the mineworkers themselves. This survey effort was based on NAS 

Recommendation 7B as well as the recommendation from gOE/Aptima to clarify training needs

[2016a, 2016b].

Purpose

To effectively identify and prioritize gaps to advance self-escape training and assessment, 

NIOSH researchers had three goals:

1. To quantify the level of perceived competence in critical self-escape knowledge, skills,

and abilities (KSAs) among a sample of underground coal miners

2. To provide actionable, mine-specific feedback to participating mines

3. To characterize mineworkers’ perceptions of their own competence in self-escape KSAs

and their organization’s commitment to health and safety

Survey Development

The NIOSH-developed survey included 48 items designed to characterize the study sample, to 

gain a broad sense of worker perceptions as they relate to current organizational and individual 

efforts toward enhancing self-escape preparedness, and to quantify perceived competence in 

critical self-escape competency areas. A copy of the survey is available in Appendix H.
40

Individual and Organizational Characteristics

Fifteen survey questions captured demographic data including age, time in mining, time in job, 

time in current mine, background related to leadership experience, and specialized emergency 

response training or experience. Additionally, three questions related to miners’ perceptions of 

the value placed on safety and health training (“training priority”), the realism of the self-escape 

training offered by their mine (“training realism”), and the level of importance the mineworkers

place on their own self-escape preparedness (“individual motivation”). On a six-point Likert 

scale, participants were asked to indicate their level of agreement (from “strongly disagree” to 

“strongly agree”) with the following statements:

1. Health and safety training is a priority here.

2. My mine’s escape training is usually realistic and “hands-on.”

3. It is important to put in extra effort toward improving my mine’s ability to respond 

to an emergency.

Self-escape Confidence

Given the aforementioned difficulties of directly assessing competence in the KSAs required for 

non-routine tasks in dangerous and dynamic situations, it was necessary for NIOSH researchers 

to develop an instrument that could readily identify and quantify broad gaps in self-escape 

competency among underground miners. Previous research suggests that when competence is 

difficult or impossible to measure, “self-efficacy,” or self-reported confidence in one’s ability to 

perform a task, can serve as a reliable predictor of performance, particularly in very specific 

task domains [Bandura 2006; Pajares 1996] such as mine self-escape. In keeping with social 

cognitive theory [Bandura 1986], researchers often assess self-efficacy by asking individuals to 

report their level of confidence in their capability to “succeed” in accomplishing a task [Pajares 

1997]. Therefore, in this study, mineworkers’ self-reported confidence in their ability to 

properly demonstrate or explain critical self-escape tasks was used to quantify levels of 

perceived competence.

Survey items were derived from multiple sources [e.g., NIOSH 2015a; NRC 2013; Peters and 

Kosmoski 2013] and from results from the PTA [gOE/Aptima 2016a]. After items were 

reviewed by NIOSH SMEs, a final list of 29 items was selected for inclusion. These 29 items 

cover broad competency areas that all underground coal miners, regardless of self-escape role, 

should be able to confidently demonstrate or explain. Based on participant feedback about its 

clarity and appropriateness, item #26 (mineworker confidence in ability to correctly explain the 

mine’s atmospheric monitoring system) was eliminated from the final analysis.

Methods and Materials

To maximize participation and reduce burden, convenience sampling was used to recruit 

volunteer mine sites and individual miners. The NIOSH Human Research Protection Program 

(HRPP) determined that this research activity (NIOSH Protocol 16-PMRD-01XM) was exempt 

from IRB review under 45 CFR 46.101(b)(2), and the activity was approved by the OMB 

(Control No. 0920-1135). Upon receiving the necessary approvals, NIOSH researchers used 

existing contacts, mining conferences, and other stakeholder interactions to invite underground 

coal mine operations across the U.S. to participate in the survey.
41

Participants

Eight hundred and ninety-five miners from eight underground coal mines volunteered to 

participate in this study (n = 895). The respondents consisted of rank-and-file miners (hourly 

workers with no formal self-escape leadership training; n = 589), miners in self-escape 

leadership positions (including all workers trained for the role of responsible person (RP); 

n = 284), contractors (n = 15), and a small number of unclassified individuals (n = 7). All 

participant sites were underground bituminous operations located in the Appalachian Basin in the 

eastern U.S.

Informed Consent

NIOSH research staff visited each participating mine site to provide volunteer mineworkers with 

a paper-and-pencil survey and to describe the informed consent process and answer any 

questions. Mineworkers were informed that participation in the survey research was voluntary 

and confidential, that individual results would not be shared with employers or anyone outside 

the research project, and that their consent to participate could be withdrawn at any time with no 

penalty. Oral consent was obtained for those who volunteered to complete the surveys. Refusal 

to participate was not recorded but was believed to be minimal based on the number of workers 

assigned to each shift and the number of surveys collected. 

Survey Administration

NIOSH researchers administered the surveys in above-ground facilities either during pre-shift 

meetings or during scheduled training activities. The paper-and-pencil survey took approximately 

10 minutes to complete. NIOSH researchers visited each site for the administration and collection 

of data in an effort to maximize the anonymity of individual responses. 

Analysis

The 28-item self-escape confidence scale demonstrated high internal consistency with a 

Cronbach’s alpha of α = .96, which suggests it is a reliable measure of the “construct” of 

self-escape confidence. Exploratory factor analysis did not reveal any underlying constructs 

within the scale.

Analyses of survey data included descriptive, parametric, and non-parametric statistical methods

where necessary. NIOSH researchers explored participants’ individual characteristics, 

organizational perceptions, and confidence in their own self-escape KSAs. All three areas were 

examined across the whole sample and as a comparison between rank-and-file mineworkers and 

self-escape leadership. Descriptive statistics and frequency distributions characterizing the study 

sample are presented first, followed by a presentation of participants perceived competence in 

critical self-escape KSAs. 

Key Findings Based on Self-escape Competency Survey

The self-escape competency survey highlighted outcomes in three major areas. As a result of the 

survey, NIOSH researchers were able to measure and characterize differences in individual 

factors, organizational perceptions, and levels of self-escape confidence between rank-and-file 

mineworkers and mineworkers in self-escape leadership roles. These results allowed for the 
42

identification of potential gaps in existing self-escape training as well as discrepancies between 

rank-and-file mineworkers’ and self-escape leadership’s confidence in their own ability to selfescape. The key findings are presented by each major area in the sections that follow.

Individual Characteristics

In general, the demographic makeup of participants in the self-escape competency survey were 

similar to national estimates of the underground coal workforce. As last estimated in 2008, U.S. 

coal mining employees (surface and underground operations) were 96% male with an average of 

16 years of mining experience and 17% had post-high-school education [NIOSH 2012].

Comparatively, among this survey sample of 895 mineworkers:

• 99% of all respondents were male.

• 59% of all respondents have been in the mining industry between 6 and 15 years.

• 32% of all respondents reported a post-high-school education.

• 66% of all respondents reported being “multi-generation” mineworkers

(i.e., their parents or grandparents were miners).

Although it is uncertain to what extent a convenience sample is representative of the population, 

the similarity to the national descriptives of the underground coal mining workforce suggests that 

the trends identified within this data may be more widely applicable across the industry. 

However, as indicated above, it is important to note that this sample was more educated than the 

general coal mineworker population, with almost double the percentage of respondents reporting 

a post-high school education. Appendix I shows the frequency distributions of all background 

and experience responses for the total sample and each subset of data (rank-and-file miners 

versus self-escape leadership). 

Significant differences in the distributions of age, primary workgroup, time in current job, time 

in the mining industry, education level, general work schedule, primary work location, and the 

percentage of the working day spent underground were found between self-escape leadership and 

rank-and-file miners. Compared to self-escape leadership, rank-and-file miners tended to be: 

• Younger

• More likely to work in production

• Less experienced in their current job

• Less experienced in the mining industry

• Less likely to hold a degree beyond high school

• More likely to have a shiftwork schedule

• More likely to work at the face

• More likely to spend 100% of their workday underground

With regard to specific training and experience, the data also indicated:

• A much larger percentage of self-escape leadership (63%) reported some specialized

emergency response training or experience compared to 34% of rank-and-file

mineworkers.

• One hundred and forty-seven (147) mineworkers reported currently holding the role of

the responsible person (RP), 66% of whom were hourly workers and the rest were

salaried.
43

• Seventy-seven (53%) of the RPs indicated the working face as their primary work 

location and only 10 (7%) reported working primarily on the surface (e.g., operations 

center, hoist).

It is important to note that a majority of the hourly workers reporting current RP status likely 

received RP training to serve in a back-up or support role in the event of an emergency and could 

be considered part of what has been informally termed as the “responsible person team” [NRC 

2013, p. 108]. Although not mandated by law, data from all eight mines revealed a purposeful 

practice of cross-training hourly workers in the role of RP, which was confirmed by NIOSH 

researchers during subsequent mine-specific research briefings. Ongoing NIOSH research is 

further examining how this role is being operationalized within the industry with a focus on more 

clearly characterizing the various roles and responsibilities of the “RP Team” and its interactions 

with other components of the mine emergency management system. Frequency distributions for 

specialized experience responses across subsets can be found in Appendix I, Table I-2.

Organizational Perceptions

Overall, participants in the self-escape competency survey reported that health and safety 

training is a priority, realistic training is provided, and they felt motivated to prepare for an 

emergency. As indicated by the levels of agreement with the self-escape training and 

preparedness value statements listed in Table 7 below, most of the respondents reported that they 

“agree” or “strongly agree” with all of the statements. This result suggests that mine sites within 

this sample have developed a positive organizational culture supportive of mineworker safety 

and health. This is often seen in convenience sampling where organizational support for health 

and safety is apparent by virtue of the organization’s willingness to participate in the research.

The self-selection of both mines and mineworkers often precludes wide variability in employee 

perceptions on measures such as these.

However, the data also identifies differences between rank-and-file mineworkers and self-escape 

leadership. Table 7 shows that a larger proportion of self-escape leadership personnel agreed or 

strongly agreed with all three self-escape training and preparedness value statements than did 

rank-and-file miners, with a significant difference in levels of agreement for the statement, 

“health and safety training is a priority here.” These trends are often seen in mine safety and 

health climate data [NIOSH 2020] and present interesting lines of inquiry for researchers and 

important considerations for health and safety practitioners. A full comparison of the distribution 

of responses between rank-and-file miners and self-escape leadership can be found in Appendix I

Table I-3.
44

Table 7. Percent who ‘agree’ or ‘strongly agree’ with

self-escape training and preparedness value statements

Value Statements Rank-and-file

(n=589)

Self-escape 

leadership

(n=284)

Health and safety training is a priority here

(training priority) 77* 86*

My mine’s escape training is usually realistic and 

“hands-on” (training realism) 65 70

It is important to put in extra effort toward improving 

my mine’s ability to respond to an emergency

(individual motivation)

83 86

*Results significant at the p<0.05 level based on Pearson chi-square tests

Self-escape Confidence 

NIOSH researchers characterized levels of mineworkers’ self-escape confidence in a number of 

ways. This was done to broadly characterize gaps in self-escape KSAs and to examine 

meaningful differences between rank-and-file and self-escape leadership. Self-escape confidence 

was reported as participants’ average self-escape confidence, levels of high and full confidence 

by KSA, and differences between rank-and-file and self-escape leadership. 

Overall, as depicted in the box and whisker plot (Figure 7), the distributions of the self-escape 

confidence responses were highly and negatively skewed for both rank-and-file miners and selfescape leadership, with ranges of 42.50%–100% (x̄ = 90.37%, SD=0.94) and 47.14%–100% 

(x̄=93.05%, SD=0.85), respectively. Although both groups, on average, reported high confidence 

in their ability to demonstrate or explain most self-escape KSAs, rank-and-file mineworkers

reported lower average confidence than mineworkers in self-escape leadership positions, with 

statistically significant differences in 20 of the 28 items. The average percent confidence for all 

self-escape items is detailed for each subsample in Appendix I Table I-4. 

Figure 7. Box and whisker plot of average self-escape confidence for 

rank-and-file miners and self-escape leadership. The rectangle contains the 

25th to 75th percentiles of dataset split at the median value (50th percentile). The 

whiskers mark the 5th and 95th percentiles, and the dots representing values

beyond the lower bounds are considered outliers.
45

Due to the skewness of these data, NIOSH researchers also used distributions descriptive 

analysis to report the number and percentage of mineworkers who reported being “less than 

highly” (i.e., less than 80%) and “less than fully” (i.e., less than 100%) confident in their ability 

to properly demonstrate or explain each KSA. These cutoff points were established to identify 

areas in need of improvement based on the expected level of confidence for each item. For 

example, the expectation might be that all miners must be fully confident in their ability to 

explain where their primary and secondary escapeways are located, and at least highly confident 

in their ability to read mine map symbols. Alternatively, such expectations may not apply to all 

miners’ abilities to confidently explain their mine’s emergency response plan or the full chain of 

command for reporting a mine emergency.

Mine-specific survey feedback reports were also provided to participating organizations as 

descriptive distributions in order to allow mine operators and safety trainers to infer that, for 

example, “30% of our rank-and-file miners are not fully confident they can explain where our 

escapeways are,” or in other words, “60 of our 200 miners need help with this.” Framing the 

feedback within this context enabled organizations to target and prioritize areas on which to 

focus training activities, based on mine-specific results and expectations.

Table 8 depicts the 28 self-escape items along with the percentage of rank-and-file miners and 

miners in self-escape leadership positions who reported that they are not fully or highly confident 

in each of the self-escape tasks, respectively.

When comparing rank-and-file miners to those in self-escape leadership positions, the key 

findings are:

• Rank-and-file miners reported less than full or high confidence on 24 of 28 items 

compared to self-escape leadership who reported less than full of high confidence on 16 

of 28 items. 

• While both groups of mineworkers reported their highest confidence as their ability to 

demonstrate or explain when and how to properly don an SCSR, almost one in four rankand-file miners (23.6%) and one in seven miners in self-escape leadership positions 

(14.8%) reported less than full confidence in their ability to demonstrate or explain how 

to properly don an SCSR.

• Roughly 43% of rank-and-file miners and 37% of miners in self-escape leadership 

positions reported less than full confidence in their ability to demonstrate or explain 

where their mine’s escapeways or SCSR caches are located.

• Both groups of mineworkers reported their highest confidence as their ability to 

demonstrate or explain when and how to properly don an SCSR.

• Both groups of mineworkers reported their lowest confidence as their ability to explain 

their mine’s emergency response plan (ERP) or the chain of command for reporting a 

mine emergency.

The total frequency distributions of responses to all 28 confidence questions can be found in 

Appendix I, Table I-5.
46

Table 8. Percentage of sample reporting less than full and less than high confidence 

in ability to properly demonstrate or explain the following to a new miner by subset

Self-escape Competency Items** < Full

R&F

< Full

Lead

< High 

R&F

< High

Lead

Your mine’s emergency response plan 78.0* 67.3* 40.7* 30.2*

The chain of command for reporting a mine emergency 63.1* 55.5* 26.6* 18.9*

How to construct a proper barricade 59.2* 44.2* 24.0 20.1

Ventilation/smoke leakage 57.6* 40.1* 19.7* 12.4*

What alarms/alerts mean 56.6* 39.4* 21.7* 9.9*

How to read mine map symbols 56.5* 33.5* 21.0* 11.3*

How to reestablish ventilation 56.4* 43.3* 21.6* 15.8*

Your own role in your mine’s ERP 54.7* 41.8* 21.7* 15.4*

Your mine’s communication and tracking system 52.3* 37.3* 21.3* 12.2*

When to construct a barricade 52.2* 39.6* 19.8 17.0

How to operate your mine’s refuge alternative (RA) 49.4* 33.6* 15.4* 7.8*

If or when to fight a fire 48.0* 38.0* 13.7 9.5

How to fight a fire 45.2* 35.5* 11.6 8.5

What lifeline symbols mean 44.4* 31.7* 14.0* 7.0*

Where your mine’s SCSR caches are located 43.0* 26.3* 13.5* 6.0*

The location of your mine’s escapeways 42.6* 26.7* 14.9* 7.5*

Where RA(s) is/are located 40.7* 27.0* 10.9* 6.8*

What to expect when using an SCSR 40.6* 27.2* 13.0* 5.7*

Where your mine’s tetherlines are located 40.1* 30.7* 11.8 9.6

When to enter your mine’s refuge alternative (RA) 38.5* 28.5* 11.6 8.1

Where to report in the event of a mine emergency 37.2 31.8 12.1 9.3

How to test roof conditions 36.4 30.6 8.5 7.7

Where your mine’s escapeway maps are located 34.6 28.1 7.7 6.4

How to use a tetherline 31.7* 23.7* 9.5 6.8

How to use nonverbal communication 29.8 26.0 10.4 7.1

How to identify explosive atmosphere with a gas meter 28.6* 20.9* 8.2* 3.9*

When to don an SCSR 26.5* 16.9* 5.3 3.5

How to properly don an SCSR 23.1* 14.5* 4.8 2.8

* Indicates significant difference between R&F and Lead based on Pearson chi-square tests (p<0.05).

** Sorted from largest to smallest proportion of rank-and-file miners reporting less than full confidence for each item. 

R&F = rank-and-file; Lead = self-escape leadership
47

Discussion of the Training and Assessment Strategies Identified to 

Address Gaps in Perceived Self-escape Competency among 

Mineworkers

The exploration of the literature associated with existing training and assessment in high-risk 

industries enabled gOE/Aptima researchers to identify strategies applicable to self-escape from 

underground coal mines. gOE/Aptima identified and explored topics that reflect well-established 

learning theory as well as emerging trends in approaching training and assessment. Of particular 

relevance are those strategies that focus on non-routine emergency response KSAs. Such KSAs 

are unique in that they are relevant to scenarios with low-probability, high-severity potential and 

may never be used. That is, many of the challenges associated with competency training in 

general (e.g., skill decay, knowledge retention) are exacerbated when skills are rarely, if ever,

used. This can be particularly true in situations where performance of infrequently used KSAs is 

required during dynamic and potentially dangerous situations. Furthermore, the importance of 

non-routine KSAs may not be as obviously or directly aligned with operational objectives and 

organizational success and could inadvertently be dropped in priority.

The mining industry has, to some extent, begun to address these issues through mandates related 

to refresher training content, SCSR expectations training frequency, and the quarterly escapeway 

drill requirement (e.g., the MINER Act). In addition to the 30 CFR minimum requirements, some 

individual mines have also chosen to implement their own policies and procedures to increase 

the frequency and/or complexity of these training exercises even more, which could range from 

random and informal KSA spot checks throughout the workday to unannounced, hands-on,

mine-wide drills to test the effectiveness of the mine’s ERPs. As discussed in this chapter, 

identification of additional training targets (i.e., KSAs and/or personnel) for more frequent 

refreshers can be accomplished through observations, checklists, and debriefing sessions.

The self-escape competency survey furthers this idea by identifying trends in perceived strengths 

and weaknesses in emergency response preparedness. That is, out of all KSAs surveyed,

mineworkers reported their highest confidence in their ability to demonstrate or explain when 

and how to properly don an SCSR. Although there is no baseline to validate the claim, the 

increase in SCSR training mandated by the MINER Act may have improved mineworkers’ 

confidence in this skill. In terms of weaknesses, NIOSH researchers have identified “lowhanging fruit” that can be addressed immediately through routine training reinforcement 

throughout the workday [Hoebbel et al. 2018]. For example, all miners who work underground 

should be fully confident in declarative knowledge items such as the locations of their 

escapeways, SCSR caches, RAs, and escapeway maps. Since the survey revealed that a 

surprising percentage of mineworkers are not fully confident in this critical knowledge, it may be 

beneficial to briefly cover these items every shift, or periodically as the working sections move, 

or as part of the crew pre-shift meetings or via informal “quizzes” or “spot checks” during the 

workday as recommended by gOE/Aptima. A case study of how one participating mine site 

utilized its survey results to target tasks such as firefighting, SCSR donning, and map reading 

throughout the year is detailed in Ryan et al. [2018]. 

Furthermore, although the results from the self-escape competency survey indicate that most 

mineworkers report high confidence in their ability to demonstrate or explain the self-escape 

KSAs included on the survey, a surprising number of mineworkers reported being less than fully 
48

or highly confident they could do so. This suggests that there is room for improvement with all 

of the KSAs included in the survey. On top of that, the self-escape confidence question 

introduces no complicating conditions (e.g., stress, smoke, real-world emergency), so the 

responses should indicate how confident each participant is in his or her ability to properly 

demonstrate or explain these tasks to a new miner under normal conditions. The phrasing of the 

question, combined with other limitations of self-reported data (e.g. social desirability, concerns 

about confidentiality, and over-inflation of confidence), further suggest the results could be 

viewed as “best-case scenario” estimates of confidence. With that being said, it is also important 

to recognize that it is not realistic to expect all miners to be fully—or even highly—confident in 

all of the KSAs included on the survey (e.g., all the details of the emergency response plan or 

their ability to effectively make decisions under the stress of an unfolding emergency). 

Therefore, it is important to clarify training needs, support training through good 

communication, increase training effectiveness through strategic timing and design, and assess

the results as suggested in the recommendations by gOE/Aptima. As a starting point, the results 

of the self-escape confidence survey also identify mining experience [Haas et al. 2019] and 

training realism [Hoebbel et al. 2022] as critical factors related to self-escape confidence for all 

mineworkers. Mine operators may consider exploring more hands-on and experiential training as 

possible ways to improve confidence in self-escape.

It is worth mentioning, however, that there are several limitations to the self-escape competency 

survey study described in this chapter that could limit the generalizability of the identified trends. 

First, the survey sample was drawn from a limited geographic region using convenience 

sampling. Furthermore, the cross-sectional design of the study does not enable causal 

relationships between individual factors, organizational factors, and perceived self-escape 

competence to be ascertained. Additionally, self-reporting can lead to overstating or understating 

levels of confidence due to social desirability, acquiescence, and/or concerns about the 

confidentiality of responses. Despite these limitations, the results of this study tend to confirm 

the widely held opinion among mining industry stakeholders that there is considerable room for 

improvement in the preparation of individual mineworkers to effectively escape a mine 

emergency.

As acknowledged earlier in this chapter, not all mines have the resources to conduct formal TNA 

activities, but they may benefit from insight gained from trends that were identified within the 

literature and through the NIOSH self-escape competency survey study. Overall, these results 

suggest that, despite the united efforts made by mining legislators, policy makers, researchers, 

operators, trainers, and other stakeholders to improve self-escape from underground coal mines, 

it is likely that several gaps in self-escape training and preparedness remain. The findings from 

this study have thus confirmed the need for the advancement of self-escape training and provided 

several considerations for the development and implementation of self-escape training, targeting 

a range of KSAs across multiple variables including levels of mining experience, organizational 

characteristics, and training realism.
49

Chapter 4: Preparing Miners for Decision-making Under Stress

This chapter details how NIOSH identified necessary tasks and subtasks and contracted with 

gOE/Aptima to perform a literature review and cognitive task analysis (CTA) based on the 

National Academy of Sciences (NAS) report recommendation 5, summarized as follows:

Recommendation 5. NIOSH should use current decision science research to inform the 

development of self-escape training materials for effective decision-making for the 

predictable components of self-escape.

Based on the review of the literature and CTA and their relevance to self-escape, gOE/Aptima 

researchers focused their attention on naturalistic decision-making (NDM). This effort was 

designed to provide information to assist in optimally preparing mineworkers to perform critical 

self-escape tasks with a substantial cognitive component during dynamic and emergency 

situations.

Exploring the Literature to Develop Decision-making Strategies

As part of their research, the authors of the NAS report conducted their own review of decision 

science to consider the theoretical applicability of various approaches to decision-making during 

self-escape. Rather than a normative approach to decision-making, which presumes that the 

decision-maker possesses all of the information necessary to choose a favorable course of action, 

the authors focused on descriptive and naturalistic theories of decision-making to approach 

decision-making under the stress of a mine emergency. Citing Shafir and Tversky [2002] to 

frame the discussion, the focus was on the many factors (e.g., experiences, emotions, and biases) 

that can affect how decisions are made in dynamic, dangerous, and stressful situations. The NAS

report concluded that, “to effectively self-escape in the event of a mine emergency, miners need 

to have more than knowledge of their equipment and surroundings; they must also have the 

psychological tools to make effective decisions and communicate successfully” [NRC 2013, p. 

83]. To this end, NIOSH expanded the task analysis statement of work (SOW) and contracted 

with gOE/Aptima to include the development of training recommendations related specifically to 

decision-making under stress.

Purpose

Utilizing the Instructional Systems Development (ISD) framework described in Chapter 1 of this 

report, this effort was designed to provide information to assist in preparing mineworkers to 

optimally perform the critical self-escape tasks determined to have substantial cognitive 

components. To provide practical guidance to the mining industry, gOE/Aptima researchers had 

three goals:
50

1. To review current decision science literature to identify the most appropriate theoretical

and practical approaches to improving self-escape from underground coal mines.

2. To define the cognitive processes associated with the critical cognitive self-escape tasks

identified in the preliminary task analysis (PTA).

3. To develop recommendations on how to optimally prepare underground mineworkers to

perform critical cognitive tasks with a particular focus on decision-making during

dynamic and stressful emergencies.

Literature Review 

The importance that the role of non-technical skills such as decision-making in emergency 

response has been emphasized by mining stakeholders for decades. One challenge associated 

with preparing miners to make decisions in dynamic and dangerous conditions is the seemingly 

infinite series of cognitions and decision points that could be associated with any given 

emergency scenario. Furthermore, emergency response management is multi-layered, and 

successful decision-making in an incident like a mine emergency is “dependent not only on 

endogenous, situation-specific training of individuals, but also on the interconnected exogenous 

factors associated with inter-team coordination and strategic response” [Alison et al. p. 261, as 

cited in Fuller 2014, p. 28]. In addition to these challenges, it is important to note that the state 

of Queensland, Australia has been conducting annual, full-scale “Level 1” exercises since 1998 

and flawed decision-making during the exercises is regularly reported as a major concern 

indicating that further improvements to emergency response are necessary [Fuller et al. 2012, 

Queensland Government 2022]. In order to more effectively prepare individual workers to make 

effective decisions within the complex system of a mine emergency, the NAS [2013] suggests 

starting with the identification of the predictable components of self-escape that could be 

practiced in a variety of scenarios to varying degrees of complexity. Importantly, the decisionmaking processes in mine emergency response must be considered within a psychosociotechnical system while recognizing that group-level decision-making can be even more 

complex than individual decision-making due to differing perceptions, communication styles,

and levels of experience [Fuller 2014]. To inform the development of self-escape training 

materials for effective decision-making in response to a mine emergency, NIOSH contracted 

with gOE/Aptima to develop training recommendations based on a thorough review of existing 

literature. 

Researchers from gOE/Aptima took an integrated human-systems approach to completing the 

decision-making literature review, considering the decision environment, work processes, and 

individual- and team-level cognitive factors (e.g., decision-making, memory, and attention) that 

may facilitate or impede successful self-escape under stress. Search topics included decisionmaking theory and practice, cognitive performance, psychological factors, real-world situations, 

working memory, emergency actions, and automatized behavior. 

After a thorough search of business and academic databases related to current decision science, a 

selective review focused on literature from the publications of the highest quality (i.e., 

determined by impact ratings and reputation) was conducted. Researchers from gOE/Aptima 

reviewed peer-reviewed academic and technical literature published in scientific journals related 

specifically to training for decision-making under stress and integrated it with content from 

relevant NIOSH publications. Particular attention was paid to strategies that are currently in use 
51

in other industries and that could be feasibly applied to the mining sector. In addition, 

gOE/Aptima researchers also examined conference-delivered “grey literature”—materials and 

research produced by organizations outside of traditional commercial or academic publishing—

and articles from periodicals. Some key findings of the literature review were extracted from the 

contractor report [gOE/Aptima 2017a] and are included below. The full report, “Improving Selfescape from Underground Coal Mines Training Initiative: Decision-making” is available upon 

request from mining@cdc.gov.

Naturalistic Decision-making

From the literature, researchers from gOE/Aptima concluded that naturalistic decision-making

(NDM) approaches are best suited for self-escape. NDM approaches are concerned with how 

people make decisions in demanding, real-world contexts [Klein and Klinger 1991]. They also 

consider how the decision-making process may change based on people’s experience, the biases 

they bring with them, and their work culture [NRC 2013]. Research has shown that traditional 

decision-making approaches do not apply in many real-life situations, and that decision-making 

cannot be meaningfully separated from the context in which it resides [Klein et al. 1993;

Zsambok and Klein 1999]. NDM approaches, which rely on hypervigilant or intuitive processes, 

are more effective in operational settings, such as emergency response [Johnston et al. 1997;

Payne et al. 1988]. According to NDM theories, decision-makers become more selective when 

searching for information; they evaluate data quickly, consider fewer alternatives, and select a 

solution from memory without extensive review or reevaluation. Although some researchers 

have argued that hypervigilance is impulsive and disorganized and a sign of degradation in 

performance [Janis 1982; Janis and Mann 1977], “others view hypervigilant decision-making as 

an adaptive response to naturalistic task demands” [Johnston et al. 1997, p. 615].

Effects of Stress on Individuals and Teams

The underground mining environment during an emergency is a complex, dynamic environment 

that poses physical, emotional, and cognitive threats to the mineworkers attempting to selfescape. These stresses can affect both individual- and team-level cognitive capabilities. 

Specifically, stress can negatively impact cognitive capabilities such as attention and memory 

[Driskell et al. 1999].

There is a rich body of research that suggests that stress tends to narrow attention, shifting focus 

from non-essential tasks to essential tasks [Gladstein and Reilly 1985; Staw et al. 1981].

However, during times of severe stress, team members may narrow their range of attention, 

shifting from a team focus to an individual focus [Gladstein and Reilly 1985]. According to 

Driskell et al. [1999], this shift can disrupt encoding, storage, and retrieval capabilities of 

individuals. As a result, people may start to look internally for solutions, rather than seeking help 

from those with expertise. This response not only changes team dynamics but could endanger the 

team if a poor decision is made.

Limitations with working memory can also be impacted by stress. Working memory is believed 

to be an executive function with limited capacity that is involved in the transient holding, 

processing, and handling of information immediately pertinent to the task at hand [Miyake and 

Shah 1999]. According to a model proposed by Baddeley [1986], individuals have a limited 

amount of working memory capacity available for various tasks. Therefore, each additional 

demand or stressor placed on working memory can compromise the quality of the decision-
52

making. This is especially pertinent during mine disasters, where mineworkers have many 

competing tasks demands and must make high-risk decisions, such as deciding when to don and 

switch/swap SCSRs, when to use a refuge alternative, and when to continue with escape.

Fortunately, behaviors that are well-learned tend to be more resilient to stress than other 

behaviors [Price et al. 2007]. Moreover, in stressful situations, individuals tend to revert to welllearned responses, particularly when knowledge, skills, or behaviors are overlearned (i.e.,

learned or practiced beyond the point of mastery). Frequent and deliberate practice can lead to 

automaticity or proceduralization of tasks, which can also minimize the role of working memory 

capacity on task performance [Reber and Kotovsky 1997].

Teams also present unique opportunities in the domain of decision-making, especially under 

stress. Teams can leverage teamwork skills (e.g., trust, cohesion, and adaptability) and shared 

mental models to cope more effectively with complex environments [Orasanu and Salas 1993]. 

The process improvements produced by teams can result in enhanced quality, safety, efficiency, 

and adaptability [Banker et al. 1996; Burke et al. 2006a; Cohen and Ledford 1994; Foushee 

1984]. Teams can also be trained to make better decisions [Orasanu and Fischer 1997], to 

perform better under stress [Driskell et al. 1999], and to make fewer errors [Wiener et al. 1993].

Cognitive Skills Underlying Naturalistic Decision-making

Much of the research suggests that NDM-based decision-making, as suggested by its name, is a 

cognitive skill that naturally develops as a result of experience and expertise and cannot be

directly trained [Flin et al. 1996; Klein 1993]. However, in order to support decision-making, 

mitigate additional stressors, and build more effective teams, many researchers believe that 

certain knowledge, skills, and processes can be developed. Cannon-Bowers and Bell [1997]

identified the attributes of an effective decision, in that expert decision makers are: (1) flexible, 

(2) quick, (3) resilient, (4) adaptive, (5) calculating, and (6) accurate. In addition, gOE/Aptima 

researchers explored relevant competencies that can be trained to “accelerate” natural decisionmaking processes. These findings have been updated by the authors to include recent NIOSH 

research and are briefly summarized in Table 9.

Table 9. Cognitive skills that support effective decision-making in stressful situations

Cognitive 

Skill

Relevance to Self-escape Training 

Situational

Awareness

Situation assessment (i.e., situational awareness) refers to the “ability to 

make rapid, accurate assessments of the decision situation” [CannonBowers and Bell 1997, p. 106]. In terms of self-escape, it refers to miners’ 

ability to continually assess or maintain awareness of the relevant and 

crucial elements of the environment, including mine conditions and 

equipment, crew member status, mine features (e.g., escapeways), their 

own location in the mine, and the evolving nature, extent, and severity of 

the situation.
53

Cognitive 

Skill

Relevance to Self-escape Training 

Hazard 

Recognition

Hazard recognition refers to the ability to detect visual cues in the 

workplace and recognize them as significant [Cannon-Bowers and Bell

1997]. In terms of self-escape, hazard recognition refers to a miner’s ability 

to (a) perceive critical warning indicators in the mine environment, such as 

obstacles, water, smoke, and alarms, and then (b) correctly diagnose the 

cues as hazardous.

Pattern 

Recognition

Pattern recognition refers to the ability to perceive and identify an entire 

pattern of pertinent cues when evaluating a situation [Kaempf et al. 1993;

Klein 1989]. Seasoned decision-makers often use pattern recognition skills 

to determine whether the situation at hand reflects normal operations or an 

anomaly. For self-escape from an underground mine, patterns may refer to 

the usual location of equipment or personnel during operations, how 

equipment typically operates, or the cycle of changes in a mine 

environment over time. These patterns can help miners recognize when 

something is amiss [Klein 1993].

Risk 

Perception

Risk perception refers to one’s ability to accurately perceive, recognize, 

and assess the degree of risk associated with a situation [Deery 2000]. It 

involves assessments of both the external situation and one’s internal 

capabilities. Research suggests that during stressful events people tend to 

underestimate the risk associated with a potential hazard and overestimate 

their ability to cope with the hazard. During self-escape, this can cause 

mineworkers to misjudge the risks associated with a situation, make poor 

decisions, or engage in high-risk behaviors [Hunter 2002]. Research also 

suggests that misperception of risk can impact both decision-making and 

accidents in many industries including mining [Brown and Groeger 1988;

Hunter 2002].

Template 

Matching and 

Mental 

Simulation

Research suggests that subject matter experts are better at organizing 

knowledge in a meaningful way [Druckman and Bjork 1991]. It is believed 

that experts store knowledge reference problems, or templates [Noble 

1993]. These templates can be more easily retrieved and employed in 

decision-making. When a situation is new to the decision maker (i.e., they 

have no reference problem for solving it), they use a process called mental 

simulation to visualize and select a potential solution [Klein 1989]. 

According to Klein [1989], mental simulation allows the decision maker to 

determine whether a potential solution is feasible. Related to self-escape, 

mineworkers can develop a well-organized body of knowledge or 

collection of reference problems to draw on in stressful situations, allowing 

them to make decisions more rapidly and accurately.
54

Cognitive 

Skill

Relevance to Self-escape Training 

Metacognition Metacognition refers to the awareness and understanding of one’s own 

thought processes [Cannon-Bowers and Salas 1998]. It allows subject 

matter experts to flexibly modify their decision-making strategy when they 

encounter new or contradictory information, or when the situation changes 

or evolves, especially in stressful situations like self-escape [CannonBowers and Bell 1997]. Because of metacognition, experts are also better 

at understanding their own level of knowledge, assessing the difficulty of 

the situations they encounter, and noticing when their line of thinking is 

wrong [NRC 2013]. It also helps decision makers determine how much 

time they have to make a decision, which reduces the likelihood of 

decision bias and other errors that could critically derail a self-escape 

attempt [Cohen et al. 1998].

Reasoning 

Skills

Reasoning skills refer to the ability to diagnose dynamic or ill-defined 

situations, generate a creative or novel solution to a problem, or apply an 

existing solution in a new way. Good reasoning skills can be useful in 

many situations, particularly when problems are ambiguous like selfescape [Orasanu and Connolly 1993]. However, a part of reasoning skills is 

understanding when critical thinking is and is not required. Namely, critical 

thinking should only be employed when the risk of delay is acceptable, the 

cost of error is high, and the situation is non-routine or problematic.

Reasoning skills are critical for self-escape decision-making in that the 

problems are often non-routine, but time can be critical.

Domainspecific 

Problemsolving Skills

Subject matter experts tend to have more domain-specific knowledge than 

subject matter novices. Experts use domain knowledge to determine how 

and when to employ various decision-making strategies [Glaser 1984]. 

Because NDM is meaningfully tied to the context in which it occurs, 

focusing solely on enhancing general problem-solving skills will not 

improve decision-making performance in naturalistic settings [CannonBowers and Bell 1997]. Mineworkers can improve their self-escape 

specific problem-solving skills by increasing their self-escape knowledge

[NRC 2013], including (1) knowledge of the mine emergency response 

plan, (2) knowledge of wayfinding (i.e., how to use alternate directional 

equipment, such as track and belt lines to evacuate the mine), (3) rote 

knowledge of primary and alternate escapeways, (4) knowledge of the 

spatial layout of the mine (e.g., the ventilation system, SCSR caches, 

lifelines, communication systems, and refuge alternatives), and (5) how to 

use the environment to find resources needed for self-escape.
55

Cognitive 

Skill

Relevance to Self-escape Training 

Ad hoc 

Groups and 

Collective 

Decisionmaking 

Under Stress

Also relevant and specific to self-escape is the “ad hoc” nature of escape 

groups. That is, the “escape team” is typically formed based on location 

and proximity to one another at the time of an emergency event. In a 

literature review specific to ad hoc group decision-making, Bauerle [2016] 

cited research that suggested that the lack of inter-group familiarity 

negatively affected mental model similarity and accuracy [Resick et al. 

2010], the utilization of group member expertise [Nemiroff et al. 1976], the 

ability to resolve group conflict through compromise [Hall & Williams 

1966], and the willingness to engage in interventions designed to improve 

group decision-making [Curseu & Schruijer 2012]. Specific to self-escape 

group decision-making, Bauerle [2016] conducted a mixed-methods study 

of transcripts from interviews conducted with survivors of actual mine 

emergencies [NIOSH 2000] in an effort to characterize and assess selfescape decision-making performance. Findings were consistent with 

previous research and suggested that greater team performance was 

exhibited by groups with a “more centralized group structure with greater

collectivism and certainty regarding decision-making processes” p. 130.

The ultimate decision as to whether and how to self-escape could be made 

more challenging within groups of endangered miners who may lack the

clear hierarchy of authority that is found in other contexts, such as

firefighting and the armed forces. 

Key Findings based on Decision-making Strategies Literature Review 

The first major outcome of the decision-making literature review was the framing of self-escape

in the context of naturalistic decision-making (NDM). Although as previously described, NDMbased decision-making skills develop naturally rather than through formal training, it is believed 

that the training of cognitive skills required for effective decision-making in natural 

environments can accelerate decision-making proficiency in real-world situations [CannonBowers and Bell 1997]. As detailed in the literature review of the previous section, effective 

decision-making requires general and domain-specific problem-solving skills along with other 

cognitive strengths including situational awareness, hazard recognition, pattern recognition, risk 

perception, template matching, mental simulation, metacognition, and reasoning skills, all of 

which can be practiced. 

The second major outcome of the exploration of decision-making was the identification of the 

cognitive processes related to self-escape. Based on the PTA results, the comprehensive review 

of current decision science, and researcher expertise, gOE/Aptima researchers identified nine 

cognitive processes that are particularly relevant to successful performance (Table 10) and could 

be strategically addressed during existing self-escape training exercises and drills. These 

cognitive processes go a step beyond decision-making and consider the cognitive task 

requirements of overall self-escape and are central to expertise. 
56

Table 10. Cognitive processes relevant to self-escape

Cognitive Process Definition

Sensemaking/situational 

assessment

Collecting, assembling, and corroborating existing and emerging 

information, and assessing how it informs potential explanations, 

decisions, and events to form and/or reform an understanding of 

the situation

Coordination Managing activities across multiple individuals acting in roles that 

have common, overlapping, or interacting goals

Managing 

uncertainty/risk

Coping with unknowns by reflecting and iteratively comparing the 

characteristics of the current situation with previous real-world or 

simulated training experiences

Detecting problems Noticing anomalies or events that may be taking an unexpected 

(positive or negative) direction and may signal a need or 

opportunity to reframe the situation and/or revise plans in progress

Shared cognition Building shared team knowledge of what to do under different 

escape conditions and circumstances; understanding how team 

member actions affect one another

Managing attention Simultaneous tracking, processing, prioritizing, attending to and 

storing essential pieces of information while ignoring other nonessential information

Automaticity Executing a task or process without consciously thinking about the 

details and actions required, allowing it to become an automatic 

response pattern or habit

Declarative knowledge Memorized information that can be recalled quickly

Decision-making A continuous process conducted under time pressure that involves 

examining default decisions within ongoing plans of action, which 

results in the commitment to one or more options

Resilience13 “The process and outcome of successfully adapting to difficult or 

challenging life experiences, especially through mental, emotional, 

and behavioral flexibility and adjustment to external and internal 

demands” [American Psychological Association 2022].

13 “Resilience” added to contractor table and recommendations that follow based on SME feedback and external 

reviews of draft documents
57

The final major outcome of the decision-making literature review was the compilation of training 

strategies to address the cognitive tasks of self-escape. Using the nine identified cognitive 

processes outlined in Table 10, gOE/Aptima researchers developed a training strategy matrix 

(TSM) to provide the framework for research and development approaches to training for 

decision-making under stress. Congruent with the NAS recommendation to develop “training 

flows,” discussed in Chapter 5, gOE/Aptima researchers recommended using systematic training 

procedures to cover the content included in the TSM framework. Effective training flows use a 

variety of training methods and consist of several phases of instruction, which typically include 

some form of classroom instruction, hands-on practice, scenario walkthroughs, teamwork 

challenges, feedback, and demonstration of mastery [Cannon-Bowers and Salas 1998; NRC 

2013]. Importantly, as cited in NIOSH [2015a], while a large body of research supports the 

incorporation of simulated environments within training flows to cultivate effective decisionmaking under stress [e.g., Beilock 2010; McKinney and Davis 2003], simulations do not have to 

be costly nor elaborate to be effective. 

The TSM is organized according to the nine cognitive processes described above and includes 

strategies for the mastery of requisite knowledge, methods that can be used to demonstrate 

correct behaviors, recommended low-fidelity options that can be used to practice complex 

cognitive skills, and recommendations for providing feedback, considering higher-fidelity 

options, accelerating individual expertise, and enhancing team effectiveness. An abbreviated 

TSM—modified to provide specific examples of previously identified KSAs, relevant ISD 

considerations, and selective training media and methods—is provided in Appendix J.

Analyzing the Cognitive Components of Self-escape Performance

In addition to explicit and observable behavioral tasks (e.g., declarative knowledge, procedural 

skill), there are also critical, but less observable cognitive tasks (e.g., decision-making, 

maintaining situational awareness) that could be required for successful self-escape. To respond 

to NAS Recommendation 5, gOE/Aptima conducted a detailed analysis of the critical cognitive 

tasks associated with self-escape [gOE/Aptima 2017c]. In keeping with the model depicted in 

Figure 6, researchers used results to develop recommendations based on whether tasks could be 

eliminated, redesigned, or augmented through tools, technology, or other equipment, or whether 

cognitive capabilities could be enhanced through training. The methods utilized for this phase of 

the work and related training recommendations are also described in detail in Keeney et al. 

[2018] and are summarized in the following sections. The full contractor report, “Emergency 

self-escape phase 4 report: Cognitive task analysis and recommendations,” is available upon 

request from mining@cdc.gov.

Purpose

To further inform the development of self-escape training, protocols, and materials for training 

for effective decision-making during a mine emergency, gOE/Aptima researchers had two goals:

1. Further deconstruct the critical cognitive tasks required to identify distinctive elements of

cognitive functioning central to self-escape performance

2. Produce a set of specific recommendations for training miners to improve cognitive

performance during self-escape
58

Methods and Materials

Considering the four NIOSH-defined self-escape roles (inby worker, outby worker, responsible 

person [RP], and escape group leader [EGL]) and emergency scenarios (fire, explosion, 

impoundment/gas or water inundation, and rock burst/roof fall), gOE/Aptima researchers visited 

the two mine sites that participated in earlier phases of the task analysis (see Chapter 2). 

Experienced underground coal miners were “nominated” for participation by mine management 

at each location, and 14 miners volunteered to participate in the CTA.

Participants

Fourteen participants were selected by mine management based on their high levels of 

experience in underground coal mining and knowledge of mine emergency response. At least 

one participant from each mine was a state-certified foreman. Participants also included the

safety managers from each mine, other supervisors, a mine owner, a senior mine manager, a 

section boss, and a number of crew members, one of whom was also a mine rescue team member 

who was deployed to the Upper Big Branch disaster in 2010.

Informed Consent

Researchers from gOE/Aptima conducted the individual interviews in private, above-ground 

facilities provided by mine management. The project purpose, interview process, and the 

informed consent document of the NIOSH Institutional Review Board (IRB Protocol; #14-

OMSHR-10XP) approved protocol were explained, and each participant was given the 

opportunity to ask questions to seek clarification. All participants provided their oral consent,

and no one refused to participate in the research.

Interviews

At each location, mine managers provided access to the volunteer participants for a total of 

approximately eight hours (16 hours across the two mines), and each interview lasted 

approximately two hours. Two researchers were present for each interview—one facilitated the 

discussions while the other took handwritten notes. 

Researchers reviewed each of the four emergency scenarios (Appendix C) with participants prior 

to the data collection. Using the semi-structured interview approved by the NIOSH Institutional 

Review Board (IRB) (Appendix K) to guide the discussion, one researcher asked participants to 

recount related personal experiences and to identify any key decision points they have faced. 

Whenever possible, the participants were asked to draw pictures and use mine emergency 

response features and apparatus (e.g., self-contained self-rescuers [SCSRs], mine maps, lifelines)

to illustrate how and why decisions were made, the level of difficulty in making the decision, 

whether and how their expertise played a role in their decision, and if and how emergency 

response mine features and/or equipment helped or hindered their efforts. If participants had no 

experience with any of the four scenarios, they were asked about past training experiences they 

thought were particularly difficult, valuable, or could provide useful lessons for fellow miners.

During the interviews, the second researcher took handwritten notes to capture the timeline, 

significant events, decision points, and decisions made. Both researchers asked probing “What 

if?” questions where appropriate to add richness to the data. Each session was concluded with 

participants being asked to describe what they believed to be the biggest challenges to adequate 

self-escape training and why, as well as to offer any suggestions on how to improve training.
59

Analysis

Based on the general CTA process offered by Rosen et al. [2012] and methodology presented by 

Crandall et al. [2006], the raw interview content was divided into separate and distinct elements

for further analysis. Meaning was extracted by coding, categorizing, synthesizing, and 

summarizing the elements to identify central themes. Initially, the notes from the first set of 

interviews from the first mine were transcribed and reviewed separately by the two gOE/Aptima 

researchers who then engaged in discussions to identify trends and gaps for further exploration in 

the second set of interviews conducted at the second mine. This process was repeated with the 

second set of interview data, followed by discussions between the researchers to resolve any 

differences in interpretation and classification of the data.

This initial content analysis was followed by an examination of the preliminary set of 75 critical

tasks identified in the PTA to identify those that present high cognitive demands (e.g., active 

information processing) and to exclude tasks that were primarily physical in nature or likely to 

depend on automatized mental processing (e.g., routine, or automatic procedures, rote 

knowledge). Three analysts from gOE/Aptima developed two sets of task inclusion criteria based 

on established CTA methodology [Crandall et al. 2006; Rosen et al. 2012].

The first considerations were the frequency with which the task appeared in the interview content 

and whether or not the task required the following: (a) perception of and attendance to relevant 

environmental stimuli; (b) effortful use of strategies and the application of knowledge and 

reasoning to generate goals; (c) planning of behaviors to achieve these goals; or (d) the 

communication of goals and plans to other miners.

The second criterion was met if the task involved any one of six cognitive elements (i.e., mental 

models, situational awareness, information sharing, goal setting, emotional control, or workload 

management) and could feasibly be practiced and improved through mental simulations or 

mental rehearsals.

Three rounds of analysis with intervening discussions were conducted to refine a shared 

understanding of the criteria and to reach consensus on classification of tasks that were not 

clearly cognitive or non-cognitive. Based on the outcomes of these activities, gOE/Aptima 

researchers worked to develop results-based recommendations to enhance training and 

preparation for self-escape decision-making, problem solving, and other cognitive aspects of 

self-escape.

Key Findings based on Cognitive Components of Self-escape Performance Analysis

The first key outcome of the CTA was the development of six high-level categories of cognitive 

tasks related to self-escape. These categories formed the basis for later recommendations 

development and were as follows:

1. Decisions miners have to make during emergencies and self-escape

2. Pre-emergency escape planning and preparation

3. Sharing situational awareness (SA) through communications practices

4. Mental simulation for continuous planning

5. Preparation to lead

6. Training philosophy and methods
60

The process of identifying which of the initial PTA critical tasks were cognitive versus noncognitive in nature resulted in the classification of 45 (60%) of the initial 75 critical tasks as 

cognitive [Appendix E], meaning that the task of self-escape requires a great deal of effective 

cognitive function. Finally, based on the totality of results from all task analysis activities, 

researchers designed a concept map [Crandall et al. 2006; Moon et al. 2011] of one possible view 

of a series of cognitions associated with self-escape as presented in Keeney et al. [2018].

Following this framework, an infinite number of such conceptual diagrams utilizing these 

cognitions, decisions, and KSAs could be developed for training and debriefing purposes. 

The second key outcome of the CTA was the generation of nine recommendations relating 

primarily to increasing self-escape performance capabilities through improved self-escape 

training. In general, the CTA was framed around whether the task could be eliminated, changed, 

or whether associated KSAs could be improved through training, tools, and/or technologies. 

Based on the results of this analysis, no recommendations were made by gOE/Aptima to

eliminate or redesign any self-escape tasks. The recommendations based on the CTA 

[gOE/Aptima 2017c p. 19–44] are briefly summarized as follows: 

Helping Mine Operators to Balance Production and Protection

Leadership training can be developed to enhance understanding of the tradeoffs associated with 

balancing production and protection requirements [Reason 1997, 2016]. It is beneficial to both 

worker safety and the corporate bottom line for mine operators to maintain awareness of the 

human and economic costs associated with worker injuries and fatalities.

Enhancing Training Philosophy and Methods

Augmentations to legally mandated training are worthy of consideration. This is not to suggest 

that the training-related burden be significantly increased, but that a shift in training philosophy

can enable operators to adopt local solutions (e.g., the integration of mine-specific equipment, 

situations, and KSAs) to increase cognitive workload through enhanced training fidelity.

Providing Leadership Training

Due to the dynamic and stressful conditions faced by escaping miners, all miners could benefit from 

leadership training. For many reasons, designated leaders may become incapacitated during escape 

or otherwise unable to lead a self-escape group. Group dynamics are likely to change during 

emergencies, and all miners should be prepared to emerge as leaders should it become necessary.

Teaching Miners Mental Simulation Techniques

Mental simulation (MS) is the mind’s ability to imagine actions taken and the most likely results 

of those actions. MS allows an individual to envision future possibilities and rehearse strategies 

for dealing with them [Taylor and Schneider 1989]. By envisioning realistic situations, miners 

may discover new and different approaches to responding.

Teaching Miners How to Build Cognitive Maps

Although it is critical for miners to be able to read and interpret physical mine maps and navigate 

using tactile lifeline symbols, it is also important for them to rely on mental representations, 

known as cognitive maps [Anderson 1990], of the general layout of the mine, the locations of 

emergency response features and apparatus (e.g., escapeways, SCSR caches), places (e.g., power 

center, “dinner hole”), and other landmarks.
61

Teaching Miners the Value of Standardized Communication 

In addition to guidelines for structured communication, radio discipline, and nonverbal 

communication developed by NIOSH [2011a,b,c], the adoption of standardized radio messaging 

practices can be encouraged, which can reduce the dependence on speech as the primary 

transmittal mode. 

Teaching Miners to Avoid Functional Fixedness When Using Equipment 

Functional fixedness refers to the default perception that tools and equipment have specific 

intended uses. “Out of the box” thinking could provide opportunities for optimal use of available 

equipment during emergencies. For example, miners could be reminded that refuge alternatives 

(RAs) can be utilized for situations other than as a “last resort.” Alternatively, the RA could be 

used for treating an injured miner and as a source of breathable air. 

Developing an Escape Hoist Simulation 

Mine escape hoists are essentially improvised elevators that come in a variety of temporary and 

permanently installed configurations. This technology is intended for emergency use only, and 

miners are prohibited by law to otherwise use the escape hoist, which precludes the opportunity 

to conduct realistic hands-on training. Development of a simulation that replicates ride 

conditions and communication methods but would not present serious technological challenges 

could provide an ideal “out of the box” training solution. 

Building Resilience among the Workforce 

Based on a recent literature review on mental health in mine workers, Pizarro and Fuenzalida 

[2021] concluded that risky conditions, shift work, work-life balance, and high job stress were 

among many factors that can expose miners to occupational mental health risks and 

recommended specific programs to promote mental health and well-being among miners. 

Chronic stressors such as these as well as the potential for acute physical and psychological 

trauma resulting from life-threatening accidents and emergencies suggest that resilience training, 

in particular, could have beneficial effects for mineworkers. As cited in Seligman [2019], in 

working with the U.S. Department of the Army, which has since institutionalized the training, 

Harms et al. [2013] found that soldiers who participated in a program of resilience exercises 

based on the principles of Positive Psychology were significantly less likely to be diagnosed with 

posttraumatic stress disorder, anxiety, and depression than those without resilience training and 

that the rate of substance abuse among those who received the training was half that of those 

who did not. Although mine operators likely lack the resources to offer programs for protracted 

resilience training, both preventive and recuperative approaches to managing psychological 

trauma and the availability of counseling upon request were salient across high risk occupations 

(i.e. mining, policing, and emergency medicine) explored by Jonker et al. [2020]. Furthermore, 

this exploration revealed that mineworkers valued management support over family support 

while recovering from traumatic work-related events bolstering the suggestion that mine 

management be attuned to and supportive of the psychological needs of its workers. 
62

Discussion of Self-escape Decision-making and Cognitive Components 

Perhaps the most difficult tasks a mineworker could be called upon to accomplish during an 

emergency are those that require non-technical skills such as situational awareness, decisionmaking, and stress management. Not surprisingly, these are also the most challenging skills to 

train and reliably assess. In fact, NDM theories suggest that these skills cannot be directly taught 

[Flin et al. 1996]. However, as evidenced in the literature review, it is well-supported that 

competency-based training that helps trainees to work together and master the critical KSAs 

required for the predictable components of self-escape could help prepare mineworkers to 

preserve adequate physical and cognitive capacity to devote their attention to stressful and 

otherwise unexpected events. For example, training concrete critical KSAs, such as SCSR 

donning and switching/swapping to automaticity or “overlearning” communication techniques 

and technologies, can free up cognitive resources (i.e., working memory) and allow decisionmakers to focus their attention on the situation at hand. 

The literature also supports the idea that domain-specific knowledge, such as rote memorization 

and knowledge of the mine layout and locations of mine emergency response features can lessen 

mineworkers’ cognitive workload. NDM dictates that decision-making cannot happen in the 

absence of context [Cannon-Bowers and Bell 1997]. An increase in contextual knowledge can 

help improve mineworkers’ situational awareness, thereby reducing stress responses and 

increasing the capacity for detecting problems, managing uncertainty, and, ultimately, effective 

decision-making. 

There is also evidence that training specifically designed to support cognitive skills can help 

accelerate NDM decision-making skills [Cannon-Bowers and Bell 1997]. Skills such as 

metacognition, template matching, and mental simulation can be practiced, as exemplified in the 

recommendations developed by gOE/Aptima based on the CTA. For example, avoiding 

functional fixedness relates back to metacognition and the awareness of how one is approaching 

a problem. Flexible and adaptable thinking is critical for effective decision-making. Despite the 

limitations in sample size and geographic region of the CTA participants, it is clear that 

cognitive processes are critical throughout self-escape. Planning, decision-making, and

communicating as individuals and as a team are critical tasks of self-escape that cannot be

overlooked in training development. 

Beyond the specific CTA recommendations outlined in this chapter, the contractor-developed 

TSM [Appendix J] provides specific examples of previously identified KSAs, relevant ISD 

considerations, and selective training media and methods recommendations to guide mine safety 

and health professionals when considering the cognitive processes required for effective selfescape. As suggested in the TSM, the identified cognitive tasks [Appendix E] can be 

incorporated into scenario-based training for practice in working through a variety of decisions 

and combinations of both physical and cognitive critical tasks that may be required for effective 

self-escape. 
63

Chapter 5: Developing Components for Self-escape

Training Flows

This chapter describes NIOSH’s efforts to provide learning objectives and training delivery and 

assessment mechanisms for developing self-escape training flows. These efforts are based on the 

National Academy of Sciences (NAS) report recommendation 7C, summarized as follows:

Recommendation 7C. The Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) and NIOSH 

should revise or develop training flows to bring individual miners and mine management 

to mastery in critical self-escape KSAOs.

Before the “final” design and implementation phases of ADDIE can be carried out by mine 

safety and health training professionals, appropriate training content, learning objectives, and 

training delivery mechanisms must be established. According to Gagne [1962 p. 88]:

The basic principles of training design consist of: (a) identifying the component 

tasks of a final performance; (b) insuring that each of these component tasks is 

fully achieved; and (c) arranging the total learning situation in a sequence which 

will insure optimal mediational effects from one component to another.

The term “training flow” is sometimes used to describe a systematic training procedure that can 

enhance learning through a variety of methods by creating opportunities for practice, focus, 

immersion, and assessment. As noted in the NAS report [NRC 2013], training flows are often 

used in industries outside of coal mining (e.g., the military, firefighting, and space exploration) 

to train and “prepare individuals and teams to escape a confined work environment under dire 

circumstances” [p. 114]. Much like the process put forth by Cannon-Bowers and Salas [1998], 

mentioned in Chapter 3, these training flows are typically sequenced to begin with classroom 

activities that present “the big picture” and “hands-on” procedures training. These are followed 

by the use of simulations with guided practice that progresses to independent practice and 

concludes with an assessment of mastery. Although these steps can be roughly adhered to 

through existing miner training, the opportunities for practice, focus, immersion, and assessment 

require flexibility to account for variations in availability of time and resources. Table 11 

provides a scaled down hypothetical example of a self-escape training flow adapted from an 

example used for preparing astronauts for fire containment on missions aboard the International 

Space Station provided in the NAS report [NRC 2013 pp. 114–115]. A real-world case study of 

an underground coal mine’s self-escape training components is provided in the related guidance 

document, “Self-escape Core Competency Profile: Guidance for Improving Underground Coal 

Miners’ Self-escape Competency [NIOSH 2023]. 

It is important to note here that the entire flow, which begins with concrete identification of the 

learning objectives, plays a critical role in learning. The KSAs identified and prioritized 

throughout this report provide this basis. The following sections of this chapter discuss the 

finalization of the self-escape framework and materials that can be used to support it. 
64

Table 11. Phases of a self-escape training flow example,

adapted from NRC [2013, pp. 114–115]

Phase Training Flow

1 Formal and informal instruction that presents the “big picture” of post-event 

survival and escape from an underground coal mine. Mandated training topics such 

as communication systems, refuge alternatives, roof or ground control, ventilation, 

mine gases, and response plans (30 CFR 48.8) are covered. Learning is reinforced

through informal assessment activities such as “spot checks” throughout the work 

day (e.g., “What would you do if...?”) and brief reminders about the mine layout 

and locations of emergency features and apparatus during pre-shift meetings.

2 Traditional instructional activities are followed by classroom-based critical KSA 

familiarization activities that focus on hands-on training with first aid procedures 

and equipment and the use of devices and tools such as SCSRs (donning and 

transferring), communication technologies, lifelines, etc. 

3 Instructor-led “walk-through” of plans and procedures using high- or low-tech 

simulated environments (e.g., virtual reality, on-site simulated mine sections, 

training facility rooms and hallways, etc.) to provide more familiarization with 

tools such as multi-gas detectors, fire extinguishers, mine maps, lifelines, SCSRs 

(with actual expired units if available), firefighting equipment, etc. during

scheduled activities such as annual “fire school” and smoke training.

4 Safety trainers or supervisors provide details of imaginary unfolding emergency 

scenarios for mineworkers to physically or mentally simulate or demonstrate 

critical self-escape KSAs during quarterly response drills.

5 Repeated quarterly training with various scenarios requiring simulation or 

demonstration of both technical and non-technical self-escape KSAs, including 

decision-making and situational awareness. If feasible, annual (or more frequent)

unexpected mine-wide drills and exercises are conducted.

Finalizing the Self-escape Competency Framework

To produce the “big picture,” effective training flow development must begin with valid training 

content. Answering the question “What is to be learned?” has long been acknowledged as the 

highest priority in training development [e.g., Gagne 1962; Hicks et al. 1996]. In fact, if training 

content is not valid, trainees might be “successful” in learning and transferring knowledge, skills, 

and abilities (KSAs) that are irrelevant, or worse, inappropriate for effective performance 

[Baldwin and Ford 1988].
65

However, what should be learned is often a difficult question. As previously stated, when task 

analyses are carefully designed and conducted, the content validity of the performance domain 

(e.g., self-escape) can be assumed. That is, if the SMEs involved in the task analyses include 

both workers and management who are true experts, then it is unlikely that the content validity

can be reasonably challenged [Lawshe 1975]. “However, the parallel between curriculum 

content validity and job content validity is not a perfect one” [Lawshe 1975, p. 564]. The 

distinction is subtle, but it means that valid task analysis results may not precisely mirror optimal 

domain-specific training curricula. For example, a specific KSA may have been identified in the 

task analysis as required but is not practically important or common and does not need to be 

included in general training or should not be the major focus in the training curriculum. For this 

reason, a panel of mine emergency response curriculum experts was convened by NIOSH to 

finalize the content of the self-escape competency framework.

Purpose

Given the various types of emergencies, mine layouts, mining methods, mine structures, and 

other potential emerging hazards, underground coal miners could face a myriad of emergency 

scenarios from which self-escape may be necessary. Since no training program can reasonably be 

expected to cover the full range of KSAs that might be required for all miners to effectively selfescape, careful consideration and prioritization of final training curriculum and learning 

objectives is required. To advance the development of training objectives for use in improved 

self-escape training flows, NIOSH researchers had three goals:

1. To conduct consensus-building focus groups with mine safety and health subject matter

experts (SMEs) to confirm task analysis criticality and to establish expected proficiency

levels for rank-and-file underground coal miners for both inby and outby worker roles

2. To develop a standardized, competency-based framework with valid and practicable

training content and relevant training and assessment strategies

3. To investigate past disasters and lessons learned to enhance the relevance of training

content for self-escape trainees

Developing Self-escape Competency Profiles

As summarized in Chapter 2, a formal task analysis was conducted which resulted in the 

identification of 214 critical and “trainable” KSAs for the “job” of self-escape, 192 of which are 

applicable to all miners, regardless of self-escape role. Task analysts from gOE/Aptima relied 

upon the PTA, HTA, CTA, mining SMEs, and their own task analysis expertise to judge the 

criticality of tasks and maintain content validity. Inherent in this process was continuous and 

iterative refinement of identified tasks through interviews with mine management, focus groups 

with veteran mineworkers, and several reviews by mining SMEs, including a panel of NIOSH 

researchers (see Chapters 2 and 4). This rigorous process produced the base content of the selfescape competency profiles.

To prepare the results of the formal task analysis for practical implementation, a reorganization 

was required. This reorganization was done to structure the material in a way that might enable 

practitioners to design modules for different phases of escape and/or consider when planning or 

assessing quarterly escapeway drills or other scenario-based training activities. To this end, 
66

NIOSH researchers reorganized the 21 critical competency areas and related KSAs into a 

sequential structure of seven major self-escape activities, presented loosely in the temporal order 

in which they might occur during a mine emergency. The related KSAs for each major activity 

became the performance criteria, where the draft competency profiles were created as 

hierarchical checklists in table format and included the major self-escape activities, competency 

areas, and critical KSAs (i.e., performance criteria). The complete draft competency profiles,

which can be found in Appendix L, are based on the following major activities derived from the 

task analysis: 

• Communicating

• Wayfinding

• Using Self-contained Self-rescuers

• Carrying, Using, and Maintaining Other Personal Tools and Equipment

• Assisting in Emergency Response

• Leading, Directing, and Managing

• Post-exit Activities

To further ensure the successful translation of these competency profiles into practical and 

feasible guidance for the industry, NIOSH researchers then sought the perspective of a number 

of mine safety and health professionals, including well-experienced mine safety trainers, to 

validate and build consensus around the final competency framework training content and 

appropriate performance criteria for rank-and-file miners. This final review is in line with the 

recommendations of the NAS committee, gOE/Aptima, and the earlier data collections. 

Specifically, the NAS committee recommended that upon completion of the identification of 

critical tasks, a group of mining stakeholders should meet to build consensus around competency 

standards and acceptable performance levels. In gOE/Aptima’s recommendations for future 

work, they call for further examination of the critical KSAs across the four specified self-escape 

roles to establish expected levels of proficiency for each. For example, rank-and-file inby and 

outby workers might need a basic or moderate level of proficiency in a certain skill, while miners 

in self-escape leadership positions (e.g., mine management, responsible person) might need an 

advanced level. Lastly, the need to establish proficiency levels was also identified by the selfescape competency survey (see Chapter 3). These consensus-building activities are described in 

the following sections.

Methods and Materials

The NIOSH Human Research Protection Program (HRPP) determined that this research activity 

(NIOSH Protocol 18-PMRD-04XM) was exempt from IRB review under 45 CFR 46.101(b)(2).

Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval was not required as the total number of 

participants did not exceed nine.

Participants

A total of eight underground coal mine emergency response training SMEs participated in one of 

two focus groups.
67

Group A participants were drawn from those in attendance at the 2018 Joseph A. Holmes Safety 

Association Annual Meeting (JAHSAAM) in Denver, Colorado. Two underground coal mine 

emergency response training SMEs in attendance volunteered to participate. Both had command

center experience and extensive experience in mine safety training and mine rescue. One of the 

two participants also had served in the role of the RP and had experience evacuating a mine 

during an emergency. 

Group B participants were drawn from known industry contacts and identified by NIOSH 

researchers as underground coal mine emergency response SMEs. These SMEs were invited via 

email/telephone to participate in a focus group session at NIOSH’s campus in Pittsburgh, PA. 

Group B consisted of a total of six participants, including representatives from MSHA, industry, 

and private consulting firms. These participants had a combined experience of approximately 

200 years in underground coal mining, 75 years as members of mine rescue teams, and 75 years 

as mine safety trainers. All reported active participation in actual mine emergency events, either 

in the command center or under apparatus, on over 20 occasions combined.

Informed Consent

The project purpose and process were thoroughly explained to each focus group participant, and 

each was provided an informed consent document. All participants were informed that their 

participation was voluntary and were given the opportunity to ask questions and/or withdraw 

their consent at any time with no penalty. Participants provided their verbal consent, and no one 

refused to participate in the research.

Focus Groups

Two semi-structured focus groups with mine emergency response SMEs (“Group A” and “Group 

B”) were convened by NIOSH researchers to review the draft self-escape competency checklist 

(hereafter referred to as the “draft checklist,” Appendix L). The goal of these focus groups was to 

confirm the relevance and criticality of the draft checklist content for both inby and outby rankand-file mineworkers and establish the expected proficiency levels (EPLs). Prior to the group 

activities, all participants were provided with an overview of the research project and the purpose 

of the group activities. The participants were then given the opportunity to review instructions, 

ask questions, and individually review each item in the draft checklist.

Focus Group A

During a scheduled presentation at the 2018 JAHSAAM in Denver, CO, NIOSH researchers 

provided attendees with the “Self-escape from Underground Coal Mines Training Initiative”

[NIOSH 2018] project status update, which included a presentation of the self-escape 

competency framework development process. Those who expressed interest were recruited to 

participate in a focus group activity on the following day and were provided with the draft 

checklist (Appendix L) and instructions. Prior to the focus group, Group A participants were

asked to review the checklist content and to independently either concur with the criticality of 

competencies and associated KSAs (e.g., “Yes, it is critical that an inby and/or outby rank-andfile miner know(s) this”) or suggest the revision, addition, or deletion of items in writing.

After brief introductions, NIOSH researchers facilitated a group discussion beginning with 

general SME feedback on the overall framework content. Following general discussion, each 

self-escape KSA was considered, in turn, as to whether it was critical for inby workers, outby 
68

workers, both, or neither to master. If consensus was not reached during the allotted time or 

participants provided other comments or suggestions related to the content, researchers recorded

handwritten notes and flagged the items for later consideration by the research team. Focus 

Group A lasted approximately 1.5 hours.

Focus Group B

The second focus group, Group B, took place at the Bruceton Research Center in Pittsburgh, PA. 

Again, prior to the focus group, Group B participants were asked to review the checklist content 

and to independently either concur with the criticality of competencies and associated KSAs or 

to suggest the revision, addition, or deletion of items in writing. Additionally, participants in 

focus Group B were asked to consider minimum EPLs for each critical task prior to the group 

exercise by rating them on the 6-point scale that was modified from the National Institutes of 

Health (NIH) Proficiency Scale [NIH 2009], as follows:

(0) Not Applicable (“not critical”)

(1) Fundamental Awareness (basic knowledge)

(2) Novice (limited experience)

(3) Intermediate (practical application)

(4) Advanced (e.g., applied theory, deep understanding)

(5) Expert (recognized authority)

After brief introductions, NIOSH researchers facilitated a group discussion beginning with 

general SME feedback on the overall framework content. Following general discussion, each 

self-escape KSA was considered, in turn, as to its criticality and EPL. However, during the 

discussion, all SMEs and researchers agreed that a simplified EPL scale would be more useful 

for the exercise. Each critical task was subsequently rated on the following 3-point scale:

(1) “Not critical for rank-and-file miners to practice”

(2) “Good to know, but not necessarily critical” (supplemental competency)

(3) “Need to know” (core competency)

whereby zeroes (0s) would be removed from the rank-and-file competency profile development 

process, ones (1s) would be considered “supplemental” KSAs, and twos (2s) would be 

considered the “core” KSAs that all underground mineworkers should master.

Similar to focus Group A, if consensus was not reached during the allotted time or participants 

provided other comments or suggestions related to the content, researchers recorded handwritten 

notes and flagged the items for later consideration by the research team. Focus Group B activities 

lasted approximately five hours.

Key Findings on Self-escape Competency Framework

The first major outcome of the self-escape competency review was that all rank-and-file 

mineworkers, regardless of work location, require the same set of critical KSAs. Both focus 

groups agreed that distinguishing between inby (closer to the working face) or outby (closer to 

the mine entry/egress point) mineworkers was not necessary for a training and assessment 

framework based on the following observations: 
69

1. Many mineworkers are cross trained for a variety of positions underground.

2. There could be any number of scenarios where underground workers could be situated in

a location in which they do not typically work.

3. Annual trainings and drills are typically made up of entire crews regardless of job title or

position.

As an example, one point of discussion was whether it was critical for outby workers to know 

where to meet in the event of a mine emergency. It was agreed that all mineworkers should 

understand that one should never travel inby during an emergency for the sole purpose of 

meeting up with others. All mineworkers could find themselves facing such a decision and must 

know that if self-escape is possible, they should proceed toward the mine egress rather than 

deeper into the mine. Similarly, workers who work primarily outby the designated meeting place 

may find themselves inby, in which case they must know where best to proceed in an emergency.

The second major outcome of the self-escape competency review was the reorganization of the 

KSAs in the self-escape competency framework into nine competency areas with core and

supplemental performance criteria. SMEs recommended adopting this new organization rather 

than the 21 critical competency areas identified by gOE/Aptima researchers or the eight major 

activities identified by NIOSH researchers. This outcome was primarily generated by the 

discussion of Group B. As described above, the SMEs in Group B felt it was more useful to 

operationalize performance into “need to know” (core), “nice to know” (supplemental), and “not 

critical for rank-and-file miners to practice” (not critical). The core and supplemental KSAs were 

mapped to the appropriate competency areas and retained in the final competency framework for 

mine safety and health professionals to consider incorporating into training activities. Based on 

these research activities, nine core competency areas were identified for inclusion in this 

technical report’s sister NIOSH guidance publication [NIOSH 2023] and are as follows:

• Everyday preparedness

• Situational awareness: mine layout

• Emergency diagnosis and response

• Wayfinding

• SCSRs: locating and donning/switching/swapping

• SCSRs: using and expectations

• Communication

• Refuge alternatives

• Firefighting

The ratings of each KSA along with focus group SME notes and suggestions are included in 

Appendix L.14

14 Minor modifications to the draft competency checklist were made and noted based on external SME reviews of this 

document and its companion IC, “Self-escape Core Competency Profile: Guidance for Improving Underground Coal 

Miners’ Self-escape Competency”.
70

Designing and Developing the Virtual Reality Mine (VR Mine) as a 

Mechanism for Training, Research, Development, Delivery, and 

Evaluation 

As described in Table 11, simulated scenarios that include the practice of critical tasks to meet 

learning objectives are a key component of effective training flows. Research has shown that 

effective training is engaging, authentic, and understandable [Burke et al. 2006b; Burke and 

Hutchins 2007; Wilkins 2011], playing a significant role in the absorption and retention of the 

material. Trainees not only benefit from exposure, but additional context and realism has also 

been shown to improve mineworkers’ abilities to identify and understand hazards [KowalskiTrakofler and Barrett 2003]. The added context also supports practice with NDM [CannonBowers and Bell, 1997]. Characteristics of good training flows also include opportunities to 

demonstrate, practice, debrief, and assess [Salas and Cannon-Bowers 2001], and effective 

learning can result from the ability to visualize important concepts, the repetition of exposure, 

the inclusion of feedback, and the ability to determine if the skill has been mastered. Virtual 

reality (VR) is a mechanism that supports all of these characteristics. 

In addition to its utility as a training tool, VR offers a safe place with high fidelity to simulate 

situations that would be too dangerous or costly to simulate in the real world. Among other 

things, VR can be used to communicate a message, provide hands-on experience, and measure 

performance. While it can be difficult and expensive to recreate complex manual tasks (e.g., an 

aviation flight simulator), a VR environment can easily incorporate visual and cognitive tasks 

related to mining (e.g., wayfinding, decision-making), making it a good addition to a training 

curriculum. As recent examples, VR has been used effectively in post-traumatic stress treatment 

[Loucks et al. 2019], emergency preparedness [Lovreglio et al. 2018], and safety training 

[Chittaro et al 2018]. 

In addition to the training content and learning objectives that were generated as a result of the 

work described in this report, NIOSH researchers have developed a simulated environment 

platform—VR Mine—that could be adapted to serve as a mechanism for self-escape training 

delivery and competency assessment as well as the empirical study of self-escape competencies. 

VR Mine can readily be deployed using large theater spaces, head mounted displays (HMDs), 

and desktop computers. VR Mine also allows for single and multiplayer configurations that are 

collocated or remote. Training content could be modified based on the target objective, 

participants, and availability of hardware. 

The VR Mine platform design and features as they relate to self-escape training material 

development and delivery are summarized below. 

Purpose 

Extensive reviews of the training literature conducted as part of this study suggest that effective 

training curricula and activities (i.e., training flows) should deliver content using a broad range 

of methods (e.g., lecture, videos, hands-on practice, role plays, computer-based modules) that 

include key decision points and actionable feedback. To provide options for some training flow 

content delivery, NIOSH researchers had two goals: 
71

1. To create a VR platform to facilitate the rapid generation of custom VR software

2. To create example training scenarios for use in the mining industry

The overarching purpose of this development was to provide a modifiable virtual environment 

that can be adapted by mine safety and health professionals for specific training research and 

development needs, including self-escape. 

Background 

NIOSH researchers have developed immersive virtual environments and digital assets under 

several research projects over the course of the last two decades [Bellanca et al. 2019; Filigenzi 

et al. 2000; Navoyski et al. 2015; Orr et al. 1999, 2015, 2016, 2020]. This previous work 

provided researchers with a strong knowledge base for VR design and development. However, 

barriers to the stable and pervasive use of VR in the U.S. mining industry remain [see Bellanca 

et al. 2019; Orr et al. 2020], including limited industry collaboration [Stothard and Swadling 

2010], rapid technology advancement [Stothard and Swadling 2010], a large time and resources 

commitment [Bauerle et al. 2016a; Navoyski et al. 2015; Stothard 2008], and limited asset reuse 

[Orr et al. 1999]. 

To combat these barriers, it is critical to understand that VR can be used in many different ways 

outside the traditional first-person training simulation, and simulation can be designed with 

greater flexibility to allow continued use. At its core, VR is a controlled environment that can be 

used to track events and data. Further, VR provides a way to bring prototypes to life, depict 

invisible concepts, make data more intuitive, and bring teams together. By providing an intuitive 

mechanism to integrate humans and layered information, VR has the potential to aid in solving 

complex problems in any domain of training, research, and development. Some of the major 

benefits include increased measurement, increased control, improved validity, enhanced 

engagement, improved accessibility, and increased collaboration [Bellanca et al. 2019; Kizil 

2003; Vasquez et al. 2019]. 

VR Mine Development 

NIOSH researchers developed VR Mine—a VR platform that allows the rapid generation of VR 

and virtual environment (VE) software applications—which can serve as a platform for selfescape training and assessment. In particular, the VE can be modified to represent a variety of 

mine layouts and conditions that can be used to provide opportunities for the practice of critical 

self-escape KSAs, such as establishing and maintaining situational awareness, wayfinding, and 

decision-making. 

Technical Considerations 

A high level of rigor is required in order to develop quality VR applications. During 

development, one must carefully consider the technical implications of (1) accuracy, 

(2) flexibility, and (3) control. Accurate conclusions can only be drawn when it is clear when,

what, and how something was done. This is true for both training and research. Accuracy is

necessary for quality feedback and assessment. Flexibility requires that an application be both

modular and scalable, while supporting additional development. Flexibility is important to avoid

the pit falls of previous VR development that resulted in fixed simulations that had limited use.
72

Control is important, specifically related to timing and responsiveness, to maintain a consistent 

and immersive simulation. Part of developing good training is controlling when and how trainees

are exposed to certain scenarios depending on the individual and mine location. The modifiable 

nature of this technology allows for customization of specific training objectives.

Features

NIOSH researchers chose to develop VR Mine using the Unity15 game engine—a stable,

commercial off-the-shelf game engine with a large user base that offers life cycle support 

required for ongoing research and development activities. As a part of VR Mine, researchers 

developed features for the Unity editor as well as for use in the end applications. Some of the key 

features of VR Mine related to self-escape training and research include: (1) logging, (2) auto 

mine creation, (3) mine networks, (4) real-time ventilation, and (5) an experiment configuration 

interface. These features allow developers to rapidly create new scenarios that users can 

realistically experience and interact with. For example, the VR Mine is integrated with MFIRE—

which is a dynamic, transient-state, mine ventilation network simulation program [Zhou et al. 

2016]. MFIRE gives VR Mine the ability to simulate ventilation, smoke, and gas propagation 

through the mine in real time. These parameters can be measured and manipulated by users by 

opening man doors in the virtual mine, hanging curtains, and moving equipment. This level of 

realism and accuracy highlights the advantages of simulation to train and assess decisionmaking. In contrast to physical simulations, users can actually visualize and experience the 

consequences of their actions, giving them increased context and understanding that supports the 

development of expertise.

15 These materials are not sponsored by or affiliated with Unity Technologies or its affiliates. “Unity” is a trademark 

or registered trademark of Unity Technologies or its affiliates in the U.S. and elsewhere.

Asset Development

Because VR is a highly visual methodology, asset development typically plays a key role in 

application design and in achieving the high fidelity desired for engaging and immersive 

training. Assets in VR Mine ranged from coal materials to mobile equipment (e.g., scoop, 

mantrip). In order to produce a highly immersive environment for research purposes, NIOSH 

researchers chose to develop high-fidelity assets according to engineering specifications (Figures

8 and 9). However, level of effort and detail can and should be scaled by the purpose of the 

simulation. 
73

Figure 8. An example of an engineering accurate, three-dimensional

battery hauler model developed for VR Mine.

Figure 9. Images depicting an example of the high level of visual fidelity 

incorporated into VR Mine. The left-hand image shows the modeled scoop

bucket next to the reference photograph on the right.

Competency Visualizations

As described earlier, many critical KSAs of self-escape can be visualized using VR to more 

clearly describe the targeted skills required during the self-escape process. Below are several 

examples that could be implemented in VR Mine as dynamic tasks. These examples (in italics)

come from this report’s sister publication, the NIOSH IC “Self-escape Core Competency Profile: 

Guidance for Improving Underground Coal Miners’ Self-escape Competency” [NIOSH 2023].
74

Wayfinding

There are several wayfinding or navigation tasks that were identified as critical to effective selfescape [NIOSH 2023]. One example is as follows:

Knows how to use other tactile wayfinding techniques (rib line, power cables, waterlines, 

belt, a cane or stick, if available) if a lifeline is not available

VR Mine can be used to depict such situations and can even be tailored to the specific layout of a

specific section or individual mine (see Figure 10).

Figure 10. Screen capture from VR Mine depicting mine 

infrastructure that can be used in the KSA of wayfinding. 

Communication

Several critical aspects of communication also play a critical role in effective self-escape. The 

dynamic interactive nature of a VR simulation allows users and trainers to embed examples as 

well as evaluate performance. VR Mine has several built-in communication networks that 

facilitate these actions. Specifically, one example KSA is as follows [NIOSH 2023]:

Knows how and when to communicate critical information about the situation (severity, 

conditions of the mine, affected areas, air quality, smoke, visibility, conditions of 

equipment, and needs).

Configuration of the wireless communication mesh node or mine phone systems will influence 

how successfully mineworkers can communicate in the event of an emergency. VR Mine can

replicate various communication networks (see Figure 11) as well as provide a variety of 

scenarios that would allow users to practice how to communicate as well as determine what 

information is critical to communicate and to whom. 
75

Figure 11. Screenshot of mesh node and mine phone digital assets in VR Mine. 

These assets can be used to play a pre-recorded message or send a 

communication during a training scenario. VR Mine provides context to 

the message content through the dynamic events of a staged scenario. 

Situational Awareness 

Knowing where one is and where they are located in relation to their surroundings is another 

common theme in self-escape competence. Mineworkers must not only be able to locate critical 

emergency items but must understand how to get there and when to travel there. One relevant 

KSA is as follows [NIOSH 2023]: 

Recognizes one’s personal position within the mine relative to the locations of all 

emergency features and resources including primary and secondary escapeways, exits, 

and fresh air.

The example in Figure 12 shows where a power center and SCSR cache may be located on a 

section. The added context of the equipment, cabling, and personnel can help give the worker the 

knowledge and understanding of his or her position with respect to known objects in the mine. In

this example, the colocation of the power center and SCSR cache allows mineworkers to more 

easily locate the SCSR cache by following power cables.
76

Figure 12. Screenshots of a power center and SCSR cache along with

an overhead view of where these items are located on the section. The

white rectangle in the overhead shot indicates the location of the callout image.

Ventilation

The integration of MFIRE within VR Mine enables dynamic interaction with the simulated 

mine’s ventilation. Because aspects of ventilation have been identified as critical competencies

for self-escape leadership roles in particular, this is another key example of how VR Mine can be 

used in training. Specific KSAs relevant to this scenario are as follows [NIOSH 2023]:

Understands the basics of mine ventilation and expected airflow/ventilation in the mine.

Understands impact of fire, gases, and smoke on air quality.

Figure 13 depicts a dynamic example where a ventilation control (i.e., brattice curtain) could be 

removed to release an inundation of methane coming from the face that would interact with a fire 

further outby. Users would then be able to simulate monitoring the gas levels using a handheld 

gas meter. 

The purpose of this section was to introduce the reader to the functionality of the NIOSHdeveloped VR Mine and to provide examples of self-escape KSAs that can be practiced or 

reinforced in simulated environments. Interested readers are directed to Bellanca et al. [2019] for 

a more detailed description of the design and features of VR Mine and Orr et al. [2020] for

details surrounding the technical development of VR Mine’s digital assets (non-programmed 

elements such as 3D models, audio, and the user interface). 
77

Figure 13. An overhead depiction of a section of a mine with methane liberation coming 

from the face of the third entry from the right and a fire two crosscuts outby as modeled 

by MFIRE. The small particle system represents the airflow velocity and methane 

concentration (i.e., blue = inert, red = explosive, white = none). The dots within the mine 

indicate the level of contaminant by color (i.e., red = high, white = none), which would 

typically be hidden from the user. The callout depicts a multigas detector, which users 

would be able to control to monitor the changes in methane, at the “measurement 

location” in the overhead view. 

Discussion of the Utility of Incorporating the Self-escape Competency 

Framework and VR Mine into Self-escape Training Flows 

Critical to effective competency-based training and assessment is a solid framework consisting of 

clear learning objectives, a variety of delivery mechanisms, and opportunities for meaningful 

assessment. Importantly, results of the NIOSH survey described in Chapter 3 suggest that 

training realism is directly associated with self-escape confidence for both rank-and-file miners 

and those in self-escape leadership positions [Hoebbel et al. 2022]. The development of the 

competency framework for rank-and-file miners enables mine safety and health professionals to 

utilize validated checklists for all critical tasks and subtasks in a variety of ways through both 

classroom instruction and scenario-based, hands-on learning. The development of VR Mine 

enables immense opportunities for the creation of applications for laboratory-based data 

collection, the development of VR training tools, and is expected to foster collaboration among 

mining safety and health researchers, trainers, and other stakeholders. 
78

The self-escape competency framework and VR Mine developed under this NIOSH research 

project will add to the library of NIOSH-developed self-escape training resources (Appendix M) 

that are available to researchers and practitioners to continue to advance mine safety and health 

training and assessment. 

As an extension of this work, NIOSH is also actively collaborating with MSHA to implement 

VR Mine at the MSHA academy in Beckley, WV. While the current focus of this iteration is 

mine rescue (i.e., VR Mine Rescue Training), once implemented, it could also be repurposed for 

self-escape training. VR Mine Rescue Training is a salient example of how the VR Mine 

platform can be utilized to quickly develop targeted training. Furthermore, NIOSH is also 

working to package VR Mine Rescue Training as a stand-alone training package that can be used 

by individuals and organizations without programming knowledge. This software release would 

not only allow for the greater development and sharing of training materials, but enable adoption 

at smaller operations. As described above, the VR Mine platform and specifically VR Mine 

Rescue Training can be used with many different hardware and distribution configurations. The 

advance of less expensive HMDs also allows VR to be more easily accessed by small or remote 

operations (e.g., lower cost to entry, easily transportable). Additionally, the ability to join 

training remotely can facilitate additional collaboration and access to additional resources. 

A low-tech real-world example of how early results of this study were used by one participating 

mine to develop a self-escape training flow utilizing new strategies and existing training 

opportunities is included in “Self-escape Core Competency Profile: Guidance for Improving 

Underground Coal Miners’ Self-escape Competency” [NIOSH 2023] and is summarized in the 

article, “Using Performance Management Strategies to Improve Mine Emergency Training and 

Preparedness” [Ryan et al. 2018]. 

Training strategies identified by gOE/Aptima [Appendix J] provide detailed guidance for mine 

safety and health professionals to consider in the development of new or revised training flows. 

Additionally, the identified cognitive tasks [Appendix E] can be incorporated into scenariobased training components for practice in working through a variety of decisions and 

combinations of critical physical and cognitive self-escape tasks. 
79

Chapter 6: Other Activities and Future Plans

The research described in this technical report focuses on the four recommendations to advance 

self-escape training that NIOSH was equipped to address in the short term through project and 

contract research. In addition to these activities, other research pertaining to the NAS

recommendations to accelerate the development of technologies associated with wayfinding

(Recommendation 2) [Martell et al. 2019; Sammarco et al. 2020], breathable air supplies

(Recommendation 3) [NIOSH 2019b], communication and tracking (Recommendation 3)

[NIOSH 2019b], and to further the study of safety culture in the mining industry 

(Recommendations 6A and 6B) [NIOSH 2020] has taken place and is ongoing. The full text of 

these recommendations is provided in Appendix A. Other activities closely related to the work 

described herein are also underway, and the groundwork is laid for researchers and practitioners 

to focus attention on the remaining NAS Recommendations 1, 7D, and 7E, described in 

Appendix A. In keeping with the ADDIE framework, these recommendations focus on the 

further development, implementation, and evaluation of self-escape training flows.

The work presented in earlier chapters of this document focused on knowledge, skills, and 

abilities (KSAs) that are critical to effective self-escape for all underground coal miners, 

regardless of self-escape role. However, miners in self-escape leadership positions must also be 

competent in other areas of emergency response and could be responsible for leading escape 

efforts. In response to NAS Recommendation 7C, NIOSH researchers also began a deeper 

examination of the responsible person (RP) requirement and how this critical role is currently 

being operationalized within the mining industry. Materials were collected from subject matter 

experts (SMEs) from six underground coal mine companies in the U.S., with interviews 

conducted and observations made to determine how mines meet the Mine Safety and Health 

Administration (MSHA) requirement for annual RP training. Through this effort, NIOSH 

researchers noted great variability in how RP training is approached across participating mines

and reported findings and recommendations in the article, “Ideas from the Field: Training 

Responsible Persons to Lead and Succeed” [Connor and Gallick 2018]. Additionally, it has been 

determined that designated RPs within the self-escape competency survey sample were 

significantly more confident in all critical self-escape KSAs than rank-and-file miners and 

significantly more confident on most critical self-escape KSAs than all other members of selfescape leadership positions (i.e. mine management) [Hoebbel and Sbaffoni 2021]. While this 

suggests that either RP training is working to some degree, or that operators are selecting more 

“qualified” or confident personnel to fill these positions, there is still significant room for 

improvement in the training and preparation of responsible persons.

To further the self-escape training needs analysis (TNA) described in this report, NIOSH 

researchers and other SMEs are currently working toward a deeper understanding of the role of 

the RP and other self-escape leadership positions, while exploring opportunities to maximize the 

benefit of existing training opportunities for more comprehensive evaluation of the mine 

emergency response system. Questions, such as, “How should the responsible person support 

team and its task be structured?; How many people are necessary to do the job?; How should 

they divide their roles?; What training should be provided to them?” [NRC 2013 p. 81], and 

others need to be more comprehensively addressed.
80

Related to this, and in response to NAS Recommendation 1, NIOSH field researchers also 

attended several mine emergency response training exercises to review current escapeway drill 

practices and to share observations with the personnel involved in each. The findings of the 

“first-order” assessment revealed great variability in how emergency response preparedness is 

approached across the U.S. [NIOSH 2015b]. Based on these observations, NIOSH researchers 

concluded that the feasibility and effectiveness of incorporating comprehensive self-escape 

scenarios into the mine-wide emergency preparedness processes should be further examined with 

consideration for differences in protocols, equipment, facilities, and conditions. NIOSH 

researchers are also exploring opportunities to maximize the benefit of existing self-escape 

training and drills, as well as the feasibility of more deeply integrating elements of emergency 

management into mine health and safety management systems. This integration might allow for 

the ongoing assessment of the mine emergency management system with an initial focus on selfescape preparedness and initial emergency response.

Stakeholder input meetings continue to be held to identify areas of need and opportunities for

industry collaboration in the ongoing effort to improve self-escape. In addition to the need to 

develop and implement new training flows and study their effectiveness (NAS Recommendation 

7D), further study of the non-technical aspects of emergency response such as decision-making 

and situational awareness has been identified as a priority. Importantly, findings from 20+ years 

of Queensland Level 1 mine emergency exercises support this conclusion [Fuller 2014, Fuller et 

al. 2012] among which the following observation was made:

There is a further need to establish a clear organisational structure for the 

management of an emergency, including information gathering techniques, 

decision-making processes, and communication mechanisms. These are available 

within professional emergency services organisations and should be reviewed and 

considered for adaptation to the mining environment [Queensland Government 

2003, p. 7]. 

The need to expand this work to address mine emergency management in all underground 

mining subsectors is also apparent.

Finally, the availability of critical components of effective self-escape training flows, such as the 

self-escape competency framework for rank-and-file miners and VR Mine (discussed in Chapter 

5) will allow opportunities for MSHA, mine organizations, and universities to evaluate whether 

existing training programs and facilities could support self-escape simulation and scenario 

training and assessment (NAS Recommendation 7E) utilizing these tools.

To begin this effort, NIOSH is currently collaborating with MSHA to leverage VR Mine to 

develop a multiplayer VR mine rescue application—VR Mine Rescue Training—to be 

demonstrated and evaluated in upcoming mine rescue competitions in the U.S. The VR mine 

rescue application allows a mine rescue team to explore several emergency scenarios together 

while wearing HMDs. Mine rescue teams will be able to explore, put out a fire, map the area, 

rescue trapped mineworkers, and ventilate the section. These scenarios aim to provide mine 

rescue teams with experiential training and assessment that is specifically focused on decisionmaking and other cognitive skills that are also relevant to self-escape and other aspects of mine 

emergency response. Another strength of VR Mine is its flexibility—the simulated environment 

can be modified for a variety of mining subsectors, layouts, and other mine specific 

characteristics and regional differences. The integration of MFIRE allows ventilation decision 
81

making to be incorporated into a full problem scenario or the creation of stand-alone interactive 

ventilation exercises which can help to promote teamwork and decision-making among groups of 

mineworkers. Data is generated and recorded by the system which allows for detailed 

retrospection and debriefing of actions taken and decisions made. Multiple pilot demonstrations 

of this product have yielded positive feedback regarding the acceptability and usability of this 

product, which is expected to be utilized by trainers and MSHA’s National Mine Health & 

Safety Academy after more formal evaluation activities, which will include a field deployment 

case study. The results of this case study could have important implications for making VR Mine 

more widely accessible to mine operators, who while recognizing the value of using simulated 

environments for emergency response training, have historically considered the availability and 

cost of providing simulated training as prohibitive [GAO 2007]. Additionally, once an operation 

has invested in the equipment to offer this training, which has significantly decreased in price, 

the availability may allow for the expansion of employees that are given mine rescue training as 

there is no additional cost outside of the employees time. This cross training also has the 

potential of increasing self-escape competencies. 

In closing, ongoing health and safety issues and emerging priorities (e.g., silicosis, black lung 

disease, COVID-19) combined with the potential for complacency (as of this writing, the U.S. 

mining industry is experiencing its longest period without a disaster) require that all stakeholders 

keep the critical importance of emergency preparedness at the forefront of research and practice. 

Although much work remains, the outcomes of the efforts described within this report have laid 

the foundation for NIOSH and other interested stakeholders to further the development of 

workplace solutions to improve the post-disaster survivability of mineworkers.
82

References

30 CFR. Parts 1-199, Mineral Resources. Code of Federal Regulations. United States 

Department of Labor, Mine Safety and Health Administration.

https://arlweb.msha.gov/regs/30cfr/.

45 CFR. Electronic Code of Federal Regulations. United States Government Publishing Office. 

https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title45/45cfr164_main_02.tpl.

Adelman C [1993]. Kurt Lewin and the origins of action research. Ed Act Res 1(1):7–24.

Albert A, Hallowell MR, Kleiner B, Chen A, Golparvar-Fard M. [2014]. Enhancing construction 

hazard recognition with high-fidelity augmented virtual reality. J Const Eng Man

140(7):04014024.

Ali PA, Naylor PB [2013]. Intimate partner violence: A narrative review of the feminist, social 

and ecological explanations for its causation. Aggress and Viol Beh 18(6):611–619.

Alison L, van den Heuvel C, Waring S, Power N, Long A, O’Hara T, Crego J [2013]. Immersive 

simulated learning environments for researching critical incidents: A knowledge synthesis of the 

literature and experiences of studying high-risk strategic decision making. J Cogn Eng Decis 

Mak. 7(3):255–72.

Anderson JR [1990]. Cognitive psychology and its implications. WH Freeman/Times 

Books/Henry Holt & Co. 680 pp.

Arthur W Jr., Bennett W Jr., Stanush PL, McNelly TL [1998]. Factors that influence skill decay 

and retention: A quantitative review and analysis. Hum Perf 11(1):57–101.

Baddeley AD [1986]. Working memory. Oxford, UK: Claredon.

Baldwin TT, Ford JK [1988]. Transfer of training: A review and directions for future research. 

Per Psych 41(1):63–105.

Bandura A [1977]. Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psych Res

84(2):191.

Bandura A [1982]. Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. Am Psych 37(2):122.

Bandura A [1986]. The explanatory and predictive scope of self-efficacy theory. J Soc Clin 

Psych 4(3):359–373.

Bandura A [2006]. Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales. Self-efficacy Bel Adol

5(1):307–337.

Banker RD, Field JM, Schroeder RG, Sintia KK [1996]. Impact of work teams on manufacturing 

performance: A longitudinal field study. Acad Manage J 39(4):867–890.

Bauerle TJ [2016]. Ad hoc groups engaged in emergency decision-making: A mixed-methods 

study to improve successful self-escape from underground coal fires. Doctoral Dissertation.

Mansfield, Connecticut: Johns Hopkins University of Connecticut.

Bauerle T, Brnich MJ, Navoyski J [2016a]. Exploring virtual mental practice in maintenance task 

training. J Work Learn 28(5):294–306.
83

Bauerle T Bellanca JL, Orr TJ, Helfrich W, Brnich M [2016b]. Improving simulation training 

debriefs: Mine emergency escape training case study. In: The Interservice/Industry Training, 

Simulation and Education Conference (I/ITSEC):16319.

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

have to. New York, NY: Free Press. 384 pp.

Belbase A, Sanzenbacher GT, Gillis CM [2015]. Does age-related decline in ability correspond 

with retirement age? Center for Retirement Research at Boston College Working Paper 2015–24.

Belbase A, Sanzenbacher GT, Gillis CM [2017]. Beyond blue and white collar: Age-related 

decline, occupation, and retirement timing. J Ret 5(2):26–41.

Bell BS, Kozlowski SWJ [2009]. Toward a theory of learner-centered training design: An 

integrative framework of active learning. In: SWJ Kozlowski, E Salas (Eds.), Learning, training, 

and development in organizations. New York: Routledge. 263 pp.

Bellanca JL, Orr TJ, Helfrich W, Macdonald B, Navoyski J, Demich B. [2019]. Developing a 

virtual reality environment for mining research. Mining, Metallurgy & Exploration 36(4):597–

606.

Bennett W Jr., Alliger GM, Rowe L, Colegrove C [2012]. Skill decay and the value of training. 

Paper presented at the NATO RTO System Analysis and Studies Panel (SAS).

Blume BD, Ford JK, Baldwin TT, Huang JL [2010]. Transfer of training: A meta-analytic 

review. J Man 36(4):1065–1105.

Branson RK [1977]. Interservice procedures for instructional systems development: Task V final 

report.

Branson RK [1978]. The interservice procedures for instructional systems development. Ed Tech 

18(3):11–14.

Branson RK, Rayner GT, Cox JL, Furman JP, King F [1975]. Interservice procedures for 

instructional systems development. Executive summary and model. Florida State University

Tallahassee Center for Educational Technology.

Brown ID, Groeger JA [1988]. Risk perception and decision taking during the transition between 

novice and experienced driver status. Ergonomics 31(4):585–597.

Burke LA, Hutchins HM [2007]. Training transfer: An integrative literature review. Hum Res 

De. Rev 6:263–296.

Burke MJ, Sarpy SA, Smith-Crowe K, Chan-Serafin S, Salvador RO, Islam G [2006a]. Relative 

effectiveness of worker safety and health training methods. Am J Pub Health Marketing 

96(3):480–487.

Burke CS, Stagl KC, Salas E, Pierce L, Kendall D [2006b]. Understanding team adaptation: A 

conceptual analysis and model. J of Appl Psychol 91(6):1189–1207.

Cannon-Bowers JA, Bowers C [2011]. Team development and functioning. In: APA Handbook 

of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Vol 1: Building and Developing the Organization. 

Zedeck S, ed. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association: 597–650.

Cannon-Bowers JA, Salas E [1998]. Making decisions under stress: Implications for individual 

and team training. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
84

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

Implications of the naturalistic decision-making perspective. In C. E. Zsambok & G. Klein 

(Eds.), Naturalistic decision-making. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: 99–110.

https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA483721.pdf

Champaloux SW, Young DR [2015]. Childhood chronic health conditions and educational 

attainment: A social ecological approach. J Adol Health 56(1):98–105.

Cheang KI [2009]. Effect of learner-centered teaching on motivation and learning strategies in a 

third-year pharmacotherapy course. Am J Pharm Educ 73(3).

Chittaro L, Corbett CL, McLean GA, Zangrando N [2018]. Safety knowledge transfer through 

mobile virtual reality: A study of aviation life preserver donning. Saf Sci 102:159–168.

Christian MS, Bradley JC, Wallace JC, Burke MJ [2009]. Workplace safety: A meta-analysis of 

the roles of person and situation factors. J Appl Psych 94(5):1103–1127.

Cohen SG, Ledford GE [1994]. The effectiveness of self-managing teams: A quasi-experiment. 

Hum Relat 47(1):13–43.

Cohen MS, Freeman JT, Thompson BT [1998]. Critical thinking skills in tactical decisionmaking: A model and training method. In: Decision-making under stress: Implications for 

training and simulation. Canon-Bowers J, Salas E, eds. Washington, DC: American 

Psychological Association.

Colquitt JA, LePine JA, Noe RA [2000]. Toward an integrative theory of training motivation: A 

meta-analytic path analysis of 20 years of research. J Appl Psych 85(5):678–707.

Comfort LK [2007]. Crisis management in hindsight: Cognition, communication, coordination, 

and control. Pub Admin Rev 67:189–197.

Commonwealth of Australia [2020]. Escape from hazardous situations unaided. RIIERR203D. 

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

Relations. Industry Skills Council. https://training.gov.au/Training/Details/RIIERR203E.

Connor BP, Gallick J [2018]. Ideas from the field: Training “responsible persons” to lead and 

succeed. Coal Age 123(3):32–34.

Connor BP, Brnich MJ, Mallett LG, Orr TJ [2016]. Effective group training with computerbased virtual environments. Coal Age 121(6):44–49.

Cook NM [1989]. The applicability of verbal mnemonics for different populations: A review. 

Appl Cog Psychol 3(1):3–22.

Crandall B, Klein G, Klein GA, Hoffman RR [2006]. Working minds: A practitioner's guide to 

cognitive task analysis. MIT Press.

Curseu P, Schruijer S [2012]. Normative interventions, emergent cognition, and decision 

rationality in ad hoc and established groups. Manag Decis 50(6):1062–1075.

David DG [1997]. Decision-making training for aircrew. In: Decision-making Under Stress. Flin 

R, Salas E, Strub M, Martin L, eds. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate. pp. 243–251.

Deery HA [2000]. Hazard and risk perception among young novice drivers. J Safety Res 

30(4):224–236.
85

DeGrosky MT, Parry CS [2011]. Beyond the AAR: The action review cycle (ARC). Proceedings 

of 11th International Wildland Fire Safety Summit, Missoula, MT.

Denissen JJ, Zarrett NR, Eccles JS [2007]. I like to do it, I'm able, and I know I am: Longitudinal 

couplings between domain‐specific achievement, self‐concept, and interest. Child Dev 

78(2):430–447.

DoD [2001]. Department of Defense Handbook: Instructional systems development/systems 

approach to training and education [Part 2 of 5]. MIL-HDBK-29612-2, Washington, DC. U.S. 

Department of Defense.

Driskell JE, Salas E, Johnston J [1999]. Does stress lead to a loss of team perspective? Group 

Dyn Theory Res Pract 3(4):291–302.

Druckman D, Bjork RA [1991]. Modeling expertise. In: In the mind’s eye: Enhancing human 

performance. Druckman D, Bjork RA, eds. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. 57 pp.

Drury CG [1983]. Task analysis methods in industry. Appl Ergo 14(1):19–28.

Engle RW, Kane MJ, Tuholski SW [1999]. Individual differences in working memory capacity 

and what they tell us about controlled attention, general fluid intelligence, and functions of the 

prefrontal cortex. In: Models of Working Memory: Mechanisms of Active Maintenance and 

Executive Control. Miyake A, Shah P, eds. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

FEMA [2019]. FEMA glossary. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

https://training.fema.gov/programs/emischool/el361toolkit/glossary.htm.

Filigenzi MT, Orr TJ, Ruff TM [2000]. Virtual reality for mine safety training. Appl Occ Env 

Hyg 15(6):465–469.

Flin R, Slaven G, Stewart K. [1996]. Emergency decision-making in the offshore oil and gas 

industry. Hum Factors 38(2):262–277.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0925753596000112

Flynn D, Eddy ER, Tannenbaum SI [2006]. The impact of national culture on the continuous 

learning environment. Journal of East-West Business 12(2-3):85–107.

Ford JK, Schmidt AMJ [2000]. Emergency response training: Strategies for enhancing realworld performance. J Haz Mat 75(2-3):195–215.

Foushee HC [1984]. Dyads and triads at 35,000 feet: Factors affecting group process and aircrew 

performance. Am Psychol 39(8):885–893.

Fuller R, Cliff D, Horberry T [2012]. Optimising the use of an incident management system in 

coal mining emergencies. In: Earth: Fire and Rain. Disaster and Emergency Management 

Conference, pp. 166–176.

Fuller RG [2014]. The impact of non-technical issues on decision-making by coal mining 

incident management teams. Thesis. Brisbane, Australia: The University of Queensland.

Gaba DM, Howard SK [1995]. Situation awareness in anesthesiology. Hum. Factors 37(1) 20–

31.

Gagne RM [1962]. Military training and principles of learning. Am Psych 17(2):83.

https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1963-02067-001.
86

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

in Australia. Galvin and Associates Pty Ltd, St. Ives NSW, Australia: Unpublished contract 

report for Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety 

and Health.

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.

Health and Safety Executive: United Kingdom [2015]. Mines Regulations 2014 (149). Can be 

retrieved from https://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/books/l149.htm.

Gegenfurtner A [2011]. Motivation and transfer in professional training: A meta-analysis of the 

moderating effects of knowledge type, instruction, and assessment conditions. 3 vols, Vol. 6.

Gist ME [1987]. Self-efficacy: Implications for organizational behavior and human resource 

management. Acad Man Rev 12(3):472–485.

Gladstein DL, Reilly NP [1985]. Group decision-making under threat: The tycoon game. Acad 

Manage J 28(3):613–627.

Glanz K, Rimer BK, Lewis FM [2002]. Health behavior and health education: Theory, research, 

and practice. Third edition. Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, CA.

Glaser R [1984]. Education and thinking: The role of knowledge. Am Psychol 39(2): 93—104.

gOE/Aptima [2016a]. Emergency self-escape phase 2 report: Identify and categorize primary 

self-escape tasks. Unpublished contract report for the Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.

gOE/Aptima [2016b]. Improving self-escape from underground coal mines training initiative: 

Training and assessment strategy recommendations. Unpublished contract report for the Centers

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

gOE/Aptima [2017a]. Improving self-escape from underground coal mines training initiative: 

Decision-making. Unpublished contract report for the Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.

gOE/Aptima [2017b]. Emergency self-escape phase 3 report: Hierarchical task analysis and 

recommendations. Unpublished contract report for the Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.

gOE/Aptima [2017c]. Emergency self-escape phase 4 report: Cognitive task analysis and 

recommendations. Unpublished contract report for the Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.

Haas EJ, Hoebbel CL, Rost KA [2014]. An analysis of trainers’ perspectives within an 

ecological framework: Factors that influence mine safety training processes. Safety and Health at 

Work 5(3):118–24.

Haas EJ, McGuire J, Hoebbel CL [2017]. Workplace perceptions of safety: What do your 

workers think about health and safety, why does it matter, and what can you do about it? Rock 

Prod May:26–27, 30, 32.
87

Haas EJ, Ryan M, Hoebbel CL [2018]. Job autonomy and safety climate: Examining associations 

in the mining industry. Pro Safety 63(12):30–34.

Haas EJ, Eiter B, Hoebbel C, Ryan ME [2019]. The impact of job, site, and industry experience 

on worker health and safety. Safety, 5(1):16.

Haas EJ [2020]. The role of supervisory support on workers’ health and safety performance, 

Health Comm 35(3):364–374

Hackos JT, Redish J [1998]. User and task analysis for interface design. Wiley Computer 

Publishing. 512 pp.

Hall J, Williams MS [1966]. A comparison of decision-making performances in established and 

ad hoc groups. J Pers Soc Psychol 3(2):214–222.

Hambrick DZ, Engle RW [2002]. Effects of domain knowledge, working memory capacity, and 

age on cognitive performance: An investigation of the knowledge-is-power hypothesis. Cog 

Psych 44(4):339–387.

Hanson D, Hanson J, Vardon P, McFarlane K, Lloyd J, Muller R, Durrheim D [2005]. The injury 

iceberg: An ecological approach to planning sustainable community safety interventions. Health 

Prom J Australia 16(1):5–10.

Harms PD, Herian MN, Krasikova DV, Vanhove AJ, Lester PB [2013]. The comprehensive 

soldier and family fitness evaluation. Report #4: Evaluation of resilience training and mental and 

behavioral health outcomes. Lincoln, NE: P.D. Harms Publications. 43 pp.

https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/pdharms/10/

Hicks C, Hennessy D, Barwell F [1996]. Development of a psychometrically valid training needs 

analysis instrument for use with primary health care teams. Health Serv Man Res 9(4):262–272.

Hoebbel C, Bauerle T, Macdonald B, Mallett L [2015]. Assessing the effects of virtual 

emergency training on mine rescue team efficacy. Conference Proceeding, Interservice/Industry 

Training, Simulation and Education Conference (I/ITSEC), Orlando, FL, November 30–

December 4, 2015.

Hoebbel C, Brnich MJ, Ryan ME [2018] The ABCs of KSAs: Assessing the self-escape 

knowledge, skills and abilities of coal miners. Coal Age 123(1):30–34.

Hoebbel C, Sbaffoni J [2021]. Revisiting the role of the responsible person. Presented at the 

Joseph A. Holmes Safety Association Annual Meeting, October 14, Clearwater, FL.

Hoebbel C, Diamond J, LaFollette A [2022]. Training realism and mineworker confidence in 

self-escape KSAs: a case study of CONSOL Energy's enhanced training program. Presented at 

the Training Resources Applied to Mining (TRAM) Seminar, October 11–13, Beaver, WV.

Hunter DR [2002]. Risk perception and risk tolerance in aircraft pilots. Federal Aviation 

Administration Report No. PB2003100818. Washington, DC: Federal Aviation Administration.

Hutton RJ, Klein G [1999]. Expert decision-making. Systems Engineering: The Journal of The 

International Council on Systems Engineering 2(1):32–45.

Janis IL [1982]. Groupthink: Psychological studies of policy decisions and fiascoes. Boston, 

MA: Wadsworth Cengage.
88

Janis IL, Mann L [1977]. Decision-making: A psychological analysis of conflict, choice, and 

commitment. New York, NY: Free Press.

Jarvis P [2006]. Teaching in a changing world. In: The Theory and Practice of Teaching.

London: Routledge. pp. 17–29.

Johnson C, Gonzalez AJ [2008]. Automated after action review: State-of-the-art review and 

trends. J Def Model Simul 5(2):108–121.

Johnston JH, Driskell JE, Salas E. [1997]. Vigilant and hypervigilant decision-making. J Appl

Psychol 82(4):614–622.

Jonker BE, Graupner LI, Rossouw L [2020]. An intervention framework to facilitate 

psychological trauma management in high-risk occupations. Front Psychol 27(11):1–16.

Kaempf GL, Wolf S, Miller TE [1993]. Decision-making in the AEGIS combat information 

center. Proc Hum Factors and Ergon Soc Annu Meet 37(16):1107–1111. 

Kazak AE [1989]. Families of chronically ill children. J Consult Clin Psych 57(1):25–30.

Keeney MJ, Wiggins S, Reynolds KD, Berger JL, Hoebbel CL [2018]. Cognitive task analysis of 

miner preparedness to self-escape from mine emergencies. J Org Psych 18(4):66–87.

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

miners. Coal Age 116(9):40–43.

Kirlik A, Fisk AD, Walker N, Rothrock L [1998]. Feedback augmentation and part-task practice 

in training dynamic decision-making skills. In: Making Decisions Under Stress: Implications for 

Individual and Team Training. Cannon-Bowers JA, Salas E, eds. Washington, DC: American 

Psychological Association. pp. 91–114.

Kizil M [2003]. Virtual reality applications in the Australian minerals industry. In: Proceedings 

of the Application of Computers and Operations Research in the Minerals Industries. pp. 69–574.

Klein GA [1989]. Recognition-primed decisions. In: Advances in Man-Machine Systems 

Research. Rouse WB, ed. Greenwich, CT: JAI. 47 pp.

Klein GA [1993]. A recognition-primed decision (RPD) model of rapid decision-making. In: 

Decision-making in action: Models and methods. Klein G, Orasanu J, Calderwood R, Zsambok 

CE, eds. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. 138 pp.

Klein GA, Klinger D [1991]. Naturalistic decision-making human systems. IAC Gateway, 11(3).

Klein GA, Orasanu J, Calderwood R, Zsambok CE [1993]. Decision-making in action: Models 

and methods. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Kontoghiorghes C [2004]. Reconceptualizing the learning transfer conceptual framework: 

Empirical validation of a new systemic model. Int J Train D 8(3):210–221.

Kowalski-Trakofler KM, Barrett EA [2003]. The concept of degraded images applied to hazard 

recognition training in mining for reduction of lost-time injuries. J Safety Res 34(5):515–525.

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.
89

Lawshe CH [1975]. A quantitative approach to content validity. Personnel Psychology 

28(4):563–575.

https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.460.9380&rep=rep1&type=pdf.

Levin M, Greenwood D [2001]. Pragmatic action research and the struggle to transform 

universities. Handbook of Action Research: Participative Inquiry Practice. Reason P, Bradbury 

H, eds. London: Sage Publications. pp. 103–113.

Lewin K [1946]. Action research and minority problems. J Soc Iss 2(4):34–46.

Loucks L, Yasinski C, Norrholm SD, Maples-Keller J, Post L, Zwiebach L, Fiorillo D, Goodlin 

M, Jovanovic T, Rizzo AA, Rothbaum BO [2019]. You can do that?!: Feasibility of virtual 

reality exposure therapy in the treatment of PTSD due to military sexual trauma. J Anx Dis 

61:55–63.

Lovreglio R, Gonzalez V, Feng Z, Amor R, Spearpoint M, Thomas J, Trotter M, Sacks R [2018]. 

Prototyping virtual reality serious games for building earthquake preparedness: The Auckland 

city hospital case study. Adv Eng Infor 38:670–682.

Maitlis S, Sonenshein S [2010]. Sensemaking in crisis and change: Inspiration and insights from 

Weick. J Man Stud 47(3):551–580.

Margolis KA [2010]. Underground coal mining injury: A look at how age and experience relate 

to days lost from work following an injury. Safety Sci 48(4):417–421.

Martell MJ, Sammarco JJ, Macdonald B, Rubinstein E [2019]. Detectability of a selfilluminating lifeline for self-escape in smoke conditions of an underground mine. Lighting Res 

Technol 0:1–15.

Mathieu JE, Martineau JW [1993]. Individual and situational influences on the development of 

self-efficacy: Implications for training effectiveness. Pers Psych 46(1):125–147.

Mathieu JE, Tannenbaum SI, Salas E [1992]. Influences of individual and situational 

characteristics on measures of training effectiveness. Acad Man J 35(4):828–847.

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. 

https://usminedisasters.miningquiz.com/download/SagoMineDisasterJuly2006FINAL.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.davittmcateer.com/2015/09/the-fire-at-aracoma-alma-mine-1.html.

McAteer JD, Beall K, Beck JA, McGinley PC, Monforton C, Roberts DC, Spence B, Weise S 

[2011]. Upper Big Branch: The April 5, 2010 explosion: A failure of basic coal mine safety 

practices. Report to the Governor, the Governor’s Independent Investigation Panel.

McCombs BL [2001]. What do we know about learners and learning? The learner-centered 

framework: Bringing the educational system into balance. Educational Horizons: 182–193.

McGuire J, Haas EJ, Bohm S [2018]. Only when employees feel supported will they step up and 

say or do something if they observe an unsafe situation or behavior. Rock Prod: 112–115.

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

Human Fact 45(3):436–444.
90

McLeroy KR, Bibeau D, Steckler A, Glanz K [1988]. An ecological perspective on health 

promotion programs. Health Ed Quar 115(4):351–77.

Militello LG, Hutton RJB [1998]. Applied cognitive task analysis: A practitioner's toolkit for 

understanding cognitive task demands. Ergo 41(11):1618–1641.

MINER Act [2006]. Mine Improvement and New Emergency Response Act of 2006. United 

States Public Laws, 109th Congress – Second Session, convening January 7, 2005. PL 109-236 

(S 2803). https://arlweb.msha.gov/MinerAct/2006mineract.pdf.

Miyake A, Shah P [1999]. Models of working memory: Mechanisms of active maintenance and 

executive control. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Moon BM, Hoffman RR, Eskridge TC, Coffey JW [2011]. Skills in applied concept mapping. 

Applied Concept Mapping: Capturing, Analyzing, Organizing Knowledge. pp. 23–46.

MSHA [2007a]. Report of investigation: Fatal underground coal mine explosion, January 2,

2006, Sago Mine, Wolf Run Mining Company, Tallmansville, Upshur County, West Virginia. 

By Gates RA, Phillips RL, Urosek JE, Stephan CR, Stoltz RT, Sentosky DJ, Harris GW,

O’Donnell JR, Dresch RA. Arlington, VA: U.S. Department of Labor, Mine Safety and Health 

Administration.

MSHA [2007b]. Internal review of MSHA’s actions at the Sago Mine Wolf Run Mining 

Company, Sago, Upshur County, West Virginia. By Chao EL, Stickler RE. Arlington, VA: U.S. 

Department of Labor, Mine Safety and Health Administration.

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

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

http://www.indiaenvironmentportal.org.in/files/mining%20safety_report.pdf.

Navoyski J, Brnich MJ, Bauerle T [2015]. BG 4 benching training software for mine rescue 

teams. Coal Age, 120(12):50–55.

NIH [2009]. Competencies Proficiency Scale. National Institutes of Health, Office of 

Management. https://hr.nih.gov/working-nih/competencies/competencies-proficiency-scale.

NIOSH [1999]. The emergency communication triangle. By Mallett LG, Vaught C, Brnich MJ: 

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Centers for Disease 

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

Publication No. 99-157.

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 Publication No. 2000-126. IC 

9450.

NIOSH [2002]. Principles of adult learning: Application for mine trainers. By Kowalski KM, 

Vaught C. Pittsburgh PA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease 

Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. DHHS 

Publication No. 2008-133. IC 9463.
91

NIOSH [2008]. Age awareness training for miners. By Porter WL, Mallett LG, Schwerha DJ, 

Gallagher S, Torma-Krajewski J, Steiner LJ. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 

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

Health. DHHS Publication No. 2002-156. IC 9505.

NIOSH [2009]. Refuge chamber expectations training instructor guide and lesson plans. By 

Margolis KA, Kowalski-Trakofler KM, Kingsley Westerman CY. Pittsburgh, PA: U.S. 

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

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. DHHS Publication No. 2010-00. IC 9516.

NIOSH [2010a]. One hundred years of federal mining safety and health research. Pittsburgh, PA: 

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

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. DHHS Publication No. 2010-128. IC 

9520.

NIOSH [2010b]. Strategies for escape and rescue from underground coal mines. By Alexander 

DW, Bealko SB, Brnich MJ, Kowalski-Trakofler KM, Peters RH. Pittsburgh PA: U.S. 

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

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. DHHS Publication No. 2010-134. RI 

9522.

NIOSH [2011a]. Nonverbal communication for mine emergencies. By Kosmoski CL, Margolis

KA, Kingsley Westerman CY, Mallett LG. Pittsburgh, PA: U.S. Department of Health and 

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

Safety and Health. DHHS Publication No. 2012-104. RI 9688.

NIOSH [2011b]. Radio 101: Operating two-way radios every day and in emergencies. By

Kingsley Westerman CY, Brnich MJ, Kosmoski C. Pittsburgh, PA: U.S. Department of Health 

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

Occupational Safety and Health. DHHS Publication No. 2012-103. RI 9686.

NIOSH [2011c]. When do you take refuge? Decision-making during mine emergency escape. By 

Kosmoski C, Margolis KA, McNelis KL, Brnich MJ, Mallett LG, Lenart P. Pittsburgh, PA: U.S. 

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

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. DHHS Publication No. 2011-177C. RI 

9682.

NIOSH [2012]. National Survey of the Mining Population: Part I: Employees. By McWilliams

LJ, Lenart PJ, Lancaster J, Zeiner JR Jr. Pittsburgh, PA: U.S. Department of Health and Human 

Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety 

and Health. DHHS Publication No. 2012-152. RI 9527.

NIOSH [2015a]. Enhancing mine workers’ self-escape by integrating competency assessment 

into training. By Haas EJ, Peters RH, 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 Publication No. 2015-188. RI 9699.

NIOSH [2015b]. Review of current practices of ERP training and drills. By Trackemas J. 

Pittsburgh, PA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control 

and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. Unpublished report.
92

NIOSH [2018]. Mining project: Self-escape from underground coal mines training initiative. 

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

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. 

https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/mining/researchprogram/projects/project/selfescape.html.

NIOSH [2019a]. Coal mining disasters: 1839 to present. Pittsburgh, PA: U.S. Department of 

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

Occupational Safety and Health. https://wwwn.cdc.gov/NIOSH-Mining/MMWC/MineDisasters/Table

NIOSH [2019b]. NIOSH Mining Program: Evidence package for 2008–2018. Pittsburgh, PA: 

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

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. 

https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/programs/review/pdfs/MiningProgramEvidencePackage508compliant.pdf

NIOSH [2019c]. NIOSH Mining Program: Strategic Plan FYs 2019–2023: U.S. Department of 

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

Occupational Safety and Health. 

https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/mining/UserFiles/researchprogram/strategicplan/StrategicPlan11-10-

2019_508-1.pdf

NIOSH [2020]. Assessing the impact of safety climate constructs on worker performance in the 

mining industry. By Haas EJ, Hoebbel CL, Yorio PL. 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 No. 2020-120, RI 9704. 

NIOSH [2023]. Self-escape core competency profile: Guidance for improving underground coal 

miners’ self-escape competency. By Ryan ME, Brnich MJ, Hoebbel 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 No. 

2023-133 (revised 06/2023), IC 9534.

Nemiroff PM, Pasmore WA, Ford DL [1976]. The effects of two normative structural 

interventions on established and ad hoc groups: Implications for improving decision making 

effectiveness. Decis Sci 7(4):841–855. 

Noble D [1993]. A model to support the development of situation assessment aids. In: Decisionmaking in action: Models and methods. Klein G, Orasanu J, Calderwood R, Zsambok CE, eds. 

Norwood, NJ: Ablex. 287 pp. 

Noe RA [1986]. Trainees’ attributes and attitudes: Neglected influences on training 

effectiveness. Acad Man Rev 11(4):736–749. 

Noe RA, Schmitt N [1986]. The influence of trainee attitudes on training effectiveness: Test of a 

model. Pers Psych 39(3):497–523. 

Norman G, Dore K, Grierson L [2012]. The minimal relationship between simulation fidelity and 

transfer of learning. Med Ed 46(7):636–647. 
93

National Research Council (NRC) [2010]. A database for a changing economy: Review of the 

occupational information network (O*NET). Panel to Review the Occupational Information 

Network (O*NET). National Research Council (NRC), Committee on National Statistics, 

Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National 

Academies Press. 

National Research Council (NRC) [2013]. Improving self-escape from underground coal mines. 

Committee on Mine Safety: Essential Components of Self-escape. National Research Council, 

Board on Human-Systems Integration, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and 

Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. 

O*NET Resource Center [2016]. U.S. Department of Labor, Employment & Training 

Administration. https://www.onetcenter.org/. 

Orasanu J, Connolly T [1993]. The reinvention of decision-making. In: Decision-making in 

action: Models and methods. Klein G, Orasanu J, Calderwood R, Zsambok CE, eds. Norwood, 

NJ: Ablex. 3 pp. 

Orasanu J, Fischer U [1997]. Finding decisions in natural environments: The view from the 

cockpit. In: Naturalistic decision-making. In: Zsambok C, Klein GA, eds. Hillsdale, NJ: 

Erlbaum. 343 pp. 

Orasanu J, Salas E [1993]. Team decision-making in complex environments. In: Decisionmaking in action: Models and methods. Klein G, Orasanu J, Calderwood R, Zsambok CE, eds. 

Norwood, NJ: Ablex. 327 pp. 

Orr TJ, Filigenzi MT, Ruff TM [1999]. Hazard recognition computer based simulation. In: 

Proceedings of the Thirtieth Annual Institute on Mining Health, Safety and Research 21–28. 

Orr TJ, Macdonald BD, Iverson SR, Hammond WR [2015]. Development of a generic mine 

visualization tool using unity. In: Proceedings of the Thirty-Seventh International Symposium on 

the Application of Computers and Operations Research in the Mineral Industry. 

Orr TJ, Bellanca JL, Navoyski J, Macdonald B, Helfrich W, Demich B [2020]. Development of 

visual elements for accurate simulation. In: Cassenti, D. (ed.) Advances in Human Factors and 

Simulation, AHFE 2019. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing. Vol. 958. Springer, 

Cham. 

Orr TJ [2016]. NIOSH Mine emergency escape simulation technology available for developers. 

NIOSH Science Blog. https://blogs.cdc.gov/niosh-science-blog/2016/05/12/mine-escapesimulation/. 

Ostroff C, Ford JK [1989]. Assessing training needs: Critical levels of analysis. In: Frontiers of 

Industrial and Organizational Psychology. The Jossey-Bass Management Series and The JosseyBass Social and Behavioral Science Series. Training and Development in Organizations San 

Francisco, CA, US: Jossey-Bass. pp. 25–62. 

Pajares F [1996]. Self-efficacy beliefs in academic settings. Rev Ed Res 66(4):543–578. 

Pajares F [1997]. Current directions in self-efficacy research. Adv Motiv Ach 10(149):1–49. 

Parker CP, Baltes BB, Young SA, Huff JW, Altmann RA, Lacost HA, Roberts JE [2003]. 

Relationships between psychological climate perceptions and work outcomes: A meta-analytic 

review. J Org Beh 24(4):389–416. 
94

Payne JW, Bettman JR, Johnson EJ [1988]. Adaptive strategy selection in decision-making. J 

Exp Psychol Learn 14(3):534–552.

Peters R, Kosmoski C [2013]. Are your coal miners prepared to self-escape? Coal Age 

118(1):26–28.

Peters RH, Vaught C, Mallett L [2010]. A review of NIOSH and U.S. Bureau of Mines research 

to improve miners’ health and safety training. In: Extracting the Science: A Century of Mining 

Research. Brüne J, ed. Littleton, Colorado: Society for Mining, Metallurgy and Exploration.

Pizarro JM, Fuenzalida FA [2021]. Mental health in mine workers: a literature review. Ind

Health. 59(6):343–70.

Price JL, Catrambone R, Engle R [2007]. When capacity matters: The role of working memory 

in problem solving. In: Learning to Solve Complex Scientific Problems. Jonassen, DH ed. New 

York: Lawrence Erlbaum. pp. 49–76.

Proctor RW, Dutta A [1995]. Skill acquisition and human performance. Sage Publications, Inc.

451 pp.

Queensland Government [2022]. Queensland level 1 mine emergency exercise reports. The State 

of Queensland, Department of Natural Resources, Mines and Energy, 

https://www.publications.qld.gov.au/dataset/queensland-level-1-mine-emergency-exercisereports.

Queensland Government [2012]. Recognised standard 11: Training in coal mines. The State of 

Queensland: Queensland Government Department of Natural Resources and Mines,

https://www.dnrme.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0016/240370/recognised-standard-11.pdf.

Queensland Government [2003]. Report of the level 1 mine emergency exercise held at Crinum 

Coal Mine. The State of Queensland, Department of Natural Resources, Mines and Energy, 

https://www.publications.qld.gov.au/dataset/e2cbc3e5-52e0-46b9-a2e8-

7a764f0055ca/resource/7c1a23bf-8c67-4e39-9592-75c85298e46f/download/2003-crinum-mineemergency-exercise-report.pdf.

Quiñones MA [1995]. Pretraining context effects: Training assignment as feedback. J Appl 

Psych 80(2):226–238.

Radomsky M, Flick J, DeSalvo J, Grayson L, Ramani R [2009]. Escape & 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. 

https://sites.psu.edu/minertraining/files/2016/11/Escape-Evaculation-Handbook-2mapgm3.pdf.

Reason J [1997]. Managing the risks of organizational accidents. Burlington: Ashgate. 252 pp.

Reason J [2016]. Managing the risks of organizational accidents. Vol. 1, London: Routledge. 272 

pp.

Reber PJ, Kotovsky K [1997]. Implicit learning in problem solving: The role of working memory 

capacity. J Exper Psych: General 126(2)178.
95

Resick CJ, Dickson MW, Mitchelson JK, Allison LK, Clark MA [2010]. Team composition, 

cognition, and effectiveness: Examining mental model similarity and accuracy. Group Dyn 

Theory Res Pract 14(2):174.

Rich BL, Lepine JA, Crawford ER [2010]. Job engagement: Antecedents and effects on job 

performance. Acad Man J 53(3):617–635.

Rosen MA, Salas E, Lazzara EH, Lyons R [2012]. Cognitive task analysis: Methods for 

capturing and leveraging expertise in the workplace. In: The Handbook of Work Analysis: 

Methods, Systems, Applications and Science of Work Measurement in Organizations. Wilson

MA, Bennet W Jr., Gibson, SW, Alliger GM, eds. pp. 185–200.

Ross KG, Klein GA, Thunholm P, Schmitt JF, Baxter HC [2004]. The recognition-primed 

decision model. Mil Rev LXXIV(4):6–10.

Ryan ME, Diamond J, Brnich MJ, Hoebbel C [2018]. Using performance management strategies 

to improve mine emergency training and preparedness. Coal Age 123(9):37–39.

Salas E, Cannon-Bowers JA [2001]. The science of training: A decade of progress. Ann Rev

Psych 52(1):471–499.

Salas E, Tannenbaum SI, Kraiger K, Smith-Jentsch KA [2012]. The science of training and 

development in organizations: What matters in practice. Psych Sci Pub Interest 13(2):74–101.

Sallis JF, Owen N, Fisher E [2015]. Ecological models of health behavior. Health Behavior: 

Theory, Research, and Practice. Fifth edition. Glanz K, Rimer BA, Viswanath K, eds. JosseyBass Public Health Series. pp. 43–64.

Sammarco JJ, Demich B, Macdonald B, Rubinstein EN, Martell M [2020]. Recognition of 

illuminated colored markers that designate primary and secondary mine escapeways. Lighting 

Res Tech. Apr 19:1477153520916776.

Schmidt FL, Hunter JE, Outerbridge AN, Trattner MH [1986]. The economic impact of job 

selection methods on size, productivity, and payroll costs of the federal work force: An 

empirically based demonstration. Pers Psych 39(1):1–29.

Schmidt RA, Lee TD [2011]. Motor control and learning: A behavioral emphasis. Fifth edition.

Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. 597 pp.

Seligman ME [2019]. Positive psychology: A personal history. Annu Rev Clin Psychol 15(1):1–

23.

Shafir E, Tversky A [2002]. Decision-making. In: Foundations of Cognitive Psychology, 

Chapter 26. pp. 601–620.

Siegrist M, Cvetkovich G [2000]. Perception of hazards: The role of social trust and knowledge. 

Risk Anal Inter Jour 20(5):713–720.

South African Government. [1998]. Skills development act 97 of 1998 as amended. 

https://www.gov.za/documents/skills-development-act.

Squire LR, Schacter DL [2003]. Neuropsychology of memory. Third edition. New York: 

Guilford. 519 pp.

Stanton NA [2006]. Hierarchical task analysis: Developments, applications, and extensions. Appl 

Ergo 37(1):55–79.
96

Staw BM, Sandelands LE, Dutton JE [1981]. Threat rigidity effects in organizational behavior: A 

multilevel analysis. Adm Sci Q Dec 1:501–524.

Stokols D, Perez Lejano R, Hipp J [2013]. Enhancing the resilience of human–environment 

systems: A social ecological perspective. Ecol Soc 18(1):7.

Stothard P [2008]. Developing an enhanced VR simulation capability for the coal mining 

industry. UNSW School of Mining Engineering.

Stothard P, Swadling P [2010]. Assessment of maturity of mining industry simulation. Min Tech 

119(2): 102–109.

Surface EA [2013]. Training needs assessment: Aligning learning and capability with 

performance requirements and organizational objectives. In: The Handbook of Work Analysis. 

Routledge. pp. 437–462.

Swearer SM, Hymel S [2015]. Understanding the psychology of bullying: Moving toward a 

social-ecological diathesis–stress model. Am Psych 70(4):344.

Tannenbaum SI [1997]. Enhancing continuous learning: Diagnostic findings from multiple 

companies. Human Res Man 36(4):437–452.

Tannenbaum SI, Cerasoli CP [2013]. Do team and individual debriefs enhance performance? A 

meta-analysis. Hum Fact 55(1):231–245.

Tannenbaum SI, Yukl G [1992]. Training and development in work organizations. Ann Rev 

Psych 43(1):399–441.

Taylor SE, Schneider SK [1989]. Coping and the simulation of events. Soc Cog 7(2):174–194.

Thunholm P [2005]. Planning under time pressure: An attempt toward a prescriptive model of 

military tactical decision-making. In: How Experts Make Decisions. Montgomery H, Lipshitz R,

Brehmer B, eds. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum. pp. 43–56.

Tracey JB, Hinkin TR, Tannenbaum S, Mathieu JE [2001]. The influence of individual 

characteristics and the work environment on varying levels of training outcomes. Human 

resource development quarterly 12(1):5–23.

TRADOC [2017]. Army training and doctrine command, mission command training program. 

TRADOC Regulation 350-70. Fort Eustis, VA: U.S. Army TRADOC, July 10, 2017.

https://adminpubs.tradoc.army.mil/regulations/TR350-70.docx.

Tziner A, Fisher M, Senior T, Weisberg J [2007]. Effects of trainee characteristics on training 

effectiveness. Int J Sel Assess 15(2):167–174.

Vasquez G, Bendell R, Talone A, Nguyen B, Jentsch F [2019]. The use of immersive virtual 

reality for the test and evaluation of interactions with simulated agents. In: Advances in Human 

Factors in Simulation and Modeling. Cassenti D, ed. AHFE 2018. Advances in Intelligent 

Systems and Computing 780.

Vaught C, Brnich M, Wiehagen W, Cole H, and Kellner H [1993]. An overview of research on 

self-contained self-rescuer training. Pittsburgh, PA: US Department of the Interior, Bureau of 

Mines, Bulletin 695. https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/mining/userfiles/works/pdfs/bul695.pdf.

Waugh WL Jr., Streib G [2006]. Collaboration and leadership for effective emergency 

management. Pub Admin Rev 66(1):131–140.
97

Wiener EL, Kanki BG, Helmreich RL, eds. [1993]. Cockpit resource management. San Diego, 

CA: Academic Press.

West Virginia Mine Safety Technology Task Force [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. https://minesafety.wv.gov/.

Wilkins, JR [2011]. Construction workers’ perceptions of health and safety training programmes. 

Constr Manage Econ 29(10):1017–1026.

Wu KK, Gray TA [2008]. Review of best practices for escape and rescue from underground coal 

mines in China. Tetra Tech NUS, Inc., Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: CDC contract for the National 

Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Pittsburgh Research Laboratory.

Zhou L, Smith AC, Yuan L [2016]. New improvements to MFIRE to enhance fire modeling 

capabilities. Min Eng 68(6):45–50.

Zimmerman BJ [2000]. Self-efficacy: An essential motive to learn. Cont Ed Psych 25(1):82–91.

Zsambok C, Klein G. (eds.). [1999]. Naturalistic decision-making. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
98
99

Appendix A: Full Text of NAS Recommendations to Improve Selfescape from Underground Coal Mines

The 12 recommendations listed in the table below are from the National Academy of Sciences 

(NAS) report, “Improving Self-escape from Underground Coal Mines,” [NRC 2013].

NAS Recommendation

1 At least annually, and in conjunction with one of the required quarterly 

escapeway drills, mine operators should conduct a comprehensive self-escape 

scenario exercise at every underground mine. These exercises should be an 

integrative practice incorporating the roles of miners, the responsible person as 

defined in 30 Code of Federal Regulations § 75.1501, the mine 

communications center, and any other stakeholders that the operator deems 

pertinent to a successful self-escape, including representatives of the miners 

where applicable. The scenario should test all aspects of the mine’s emergency 

response plan and mine emergency evacuation and firefighting program to 

assure that these are effective and up to date. Information gathered from the 

proposed annual exercises will speak to the effectiveness of current practices 

and processes specifically with regard to effective decision-making and 

action(s) at both the individual and systems levels.

Appropriate staff from NIOSH should attend as many exercises as necessary to 

collect and interpret pertinent outcomes and lessons learned using a standard 

process. The NIOSH assessment of performance at individual mines of all key 

personnel, both internal and external, and the effectiveness of emergency 

response systems should be shared with the personnel involved in each 

exercise. In addition, a report that has been scrubbed of identifying markers, 

detailing the outcomes and lessons learned should be prepared and entered into 

a public database for use by any interested parties to develop better self-escape 

capabilities (overall practices, policies, technologies, and training). New 

resources for NIOSH to accomplish this responsibility should be identified so

as not to draw resources from critical program elements.

2 NIOSH and MSHA should review their operational requirements for 

emergency supplies of breathable air. Furthermore, NIOSH should allocate 

funds for research and development to improve the functionality of emergency 

supplies of breathable air, with special focus devoted to resolving a wide range 

of issues including verbal communication, positive pressure, facial hair, device 

weight and size minimization, device changeover or air replenishment in toxic

environments, fit testing where applicable, and adequate vision through 

clearing or removal of condensation.
100

NAS Recommendation

3 NIOSH, MSHA, and technology companies should accelerate efforts to 

develop technologies that enhance self-escape. These technologies should use 

human-centered design principles with specific attention to facilitating 

improved situational awareness and decision-making. The technologies should 

include, but are not limited to communications, both miner to miner and miner 

to surface; real-time gas monitors that are appropriate for all miners; fail-safe 

tracking that is hardened and survivable; and multifunction devices that 

combine technology to reduce physical burden and excessive demands on 

attention.

4 NIOSH and MSHA should reexamine their technology approval and 

certification processes to ensure they are not deterring innovation in relation to 

self-escape technologies that are used in other industrial sectors and global 

markets. They should collaborate in convening a joint industry, labor, and 

government working group to identify a range of mechanisms to reduce or 

eliminate any barriers to technology approval and certification, which should 

include exploring opportunities to cooperate with other international approval 

organizations to harmonize U.S. and international standards without 

compromising safety.

5 NIOSH should use current decision science research to inform development of 

self-escape training, protocols, and materials for training for effective 

decision-making during a mine emergency. Miners and mine operators should 

be knowledgeable of typical warning signals and able to determine if a true 

emergency exists and decide how to respond appropriately. All miners should 

be trained using standard protocols developed for predictable components of 

self-escape. This will allow miners to devote adequate attention to unexpected 

events and enhance situational awareness.

6A NIOSH, in coordination with mining stakeholders, should compile the existing 

research and recommendations on safety culture from other high hazard and 

process industries and disseminate them to the mining industry. Such 

information would provide a useful resource that mine stakeholders could use 

to examine their own safety cultures and identify strengths and weaknesses 

specific to their organizations.
101

NAS Recommendation

6B NIOSH should expand its safety culture research efforts to include a larger and 

more generalizable sample of mining organizations as well as to examine 

linkages between cultural attributes and safety performance, ideally using 

longitudinal data on safe work practices and accident and injury outcomes. 

NIOSH’s current database of qualitative and questionnaire data would appear 

to provide a strong basis for this expansion. Ultimately, the results from this 

research effort could be used to produce a set of safety culture tools that could 

be used by the entire mining community. This compilation of data collected 

using these tools could then be used for further analyses and benchmarking 

activities.

7A NIOSH should conduct or sponsor a formal task analysis and an analysis of the 

knowledge, skills, abilities, and other personal attributes (KSAOs) required for 

miners to self-escape effectively in coordination with the efforts of the 

responsible person, the communication center and mine management.

7B On the basis of these analyses and working with interested stakeholders, 

NIOSH should undertake the research required to identify the training 

modalities, techniques, and protocols best suited for those KSAOs as well as 

the interactions between miners, responsible persons, the communication 

center, and mine management. Thereafter, NIOSH should review current 

training and identify existing gaps within the mining industry.

7C On the basis of the research and review in step B. above, and using best 

practices within the training field, the Mine Safety and Health Administration 

(MSHA) and NIOSH should revise or develop training flows that bring 

miners, responsible persons, communication centers, and mine management to 

mastery in those KSAOs, including interactions between those three groups.

7D NIOSH should conduct research to verify the effectiveness of training 

developed in step C. above and miners’ retention of information learned under 

simulated emergency conditions.

7E In its current review of facilities supporting mine rescue training, MSHA 

should also evaluate whether these facilities could support self-escape 

simulation and scenario training.
102

Appendix B: Description of Mine Sites Participating in Formal Task 

Analysis

Two mines—one large and one small—were identified and subsequently approved by NIOSH to 

be included in the formal task analysis. Both mines are located in the Northern Appalachian 

Region and a brief description of each follows.

Large Mine

At the large mine, extracted coal is transported by belt to underground storage cars and is raised 

to the surface via two large, counterbalanced skip hoists. The mine currently employs 250–300 

miners working three shifts. This mine has an average seam height of 84 inches. The coal is 

extracted using the longwall mining method. Two continuous miners develop the mine openings 

required for longwall operations. Personnel and supplies are transported via trolley powered, rail 

mounted vehicles. Management consists of a general manager, mine superintendent, mine 

foremen, shift and assistant shift managers, and front line supervisors. The safety department 

consists of a safety manager and five safety supervisors. Underground communications consist 

of radio handsets and mine (pager) phones that access the leaky feeder system; there is a 

personnel tracking system that continuously updates the location of everyone in the mine. The 

mine has carbon monoxide sensors along the entire belt. A dispatcher monitors the tracking 

system, alarms, manages communications and coordinates transportation. Lamp room personnel 

maintain and calibrate safety equipment. Mine phones are present in several offices on the 

surface besides the dispatcher’s office. Requirements and the day-to-day job duties of surface 

personnel vary across states and mining operations. Miners receive annual safety training and 

practice mine-specific escape via drills quarterly.

Small Mine

The small mine is a single-section drift mine with approximately 45 miners working three shifts. 

The average seam height is 48 inches. A single continuous miner extracts the coal, which is 

transported out of the mine by a conveyer belt. Personnel transportation is via tire-mounted, 

battery-powered mantrips. Carbon monoxide sensors are present along the belt conveyor system. 

A dispatcher’s office is located on the surface; among other responsibilities, the dispatcher 

operates systems for tracking, monitoring, and communicating with the underground crew. 

Relevant alarms can also be heard outside the office by means of outdoor speakers. There is a 

tracking system for identifying the location of miners underground. Because of tire-mounted 

mantrips rather than rail-mounted trolley vehicles ae used and due to the small number of 

employees per shift there is no need for a full-time dispatcher to coordinate underground traffic. 

Underground communications include mine phones and radios; the latter are based on a leaky 

feeder system. Mine management includes a mine superintendent, mine president, mine foreman, 

and shift/section supervisors. Safety is shared among management. Miners participate in 

maintaining their own safety equipment and they receive annual safety training and practice 

escape via drills quarterly.
103

Appendix C: Preliminary Task Analysis Focus Group Protocol and 

Four Disaster Scenarios and Worker Roles Included in Formal Task 

Analysis

Initial Task Analysis Focus Group Session: At each of the two mines, approximately six

underground miners (for a total of 12) will participate in an initial task analysis focus group. An 

initial task analysis focus group could require up to 12 hours of participation per participant, 

which could be split across multiple days or sessions.

Following is the protocol for conducting the Initial Task Analysis Focus Group Session:

1. Obtain verbal participant consent and document their agreement to participate; provide 

them with the Informed Consent document.

2. Introduce facilitators.

3. Give session introduction.

We are examining mine self-escape. In this workshop, we will be asking you about the tasks that 

need to be accomplished to successfully self-escape in the face of several different disaster 

scenarios. The information you provide will be grouped together and referenced for similar and 

differing opinions. Our discussion will last no more than 12 hours total, across two or three 

sessions. Your responses to each question will be confidential, and we encourage you to not 

share information that other people provide during the discussion. We are not recording any of 

your names, and 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.

1. Ask participants to introduce themselves, using first names only.

2. Begin session.

During this session, we will focus on identifying the emergency escape tasks for the following 

four roles:

• Crewman (working face)

• Outby Worker

• Escape Group Leader

• Responsible Person

What are the equivalent positions in your mine?

We’ll use the following four scenarios as a starting point:

#1. Fire

A belt drive will be the source of the ignition for the fire. A hydraulic hose slowly fails on the 

hydraulic belt take-up letting pressure bleed off the belt system; over a period of time, hydraulic 

oil is sprayed over the take-up and drive pulleys resulting in small accumulations around the 

pulley areas. The belt slip switch had malfunctioned, allowing the drive pulleys to spin,

generating enough heat to ignite the hydraulic oil and small coal accumulations around the area. 

The belt drive and fire are located on the main entries on one of the transfer belts to convey coal 
104

out of the mine. This belt is ventilated with air traveling outby from the sections. The belt is 

monitored by a mine monitoring system which detects the fire and elevated carbon monoxide 

levels and goes into an alarm status. This belt system is located outby the operating sections.

Role Location What information do they have?

Crewman 

(working face)

Sections Notified location of elevated carbon 

monoxide (CO)

Outby worker Outby belt Aware of belts shutdown

Escape group 

leader

Section Notified to evacuate section due to 

elevated readings

Responsible 

person

Underground Notified of possible fire location to 

investigate

#2. Explosion

During the idle period, belt repairmen had changed belt rollers on the mainline belt. The belt 

repairmen were carrying replacement rollers through a man door outby the belt line, which 

crossed above the overcast and had several bad rollers. This overcast, which was among several 

overcasts installed in conjunction with other ventilation controls, is where a continuous miner 

section breaks off from the main section. When the belt repairmen changed the worn rollers, they 

removed them from the beltline and carried them out through the man door. With their hands full 

during this process, the belt repairmen blocked the man door from closing. Once the belt 

repairmen loaded the rollers onto an empty flat car, they were notified that another belt 

repairman was having difficulty starting up one of the outby belts. The belt repairmen boarded 

their vehicle and traveled outby to assist getting the mine operational for the oncoming shift. 

They were able to get the belt running and started the subsequent belts inby. Once all of the belts 

were started, the belt repairmen traveled out of the mine, completing their shift. Through this 

process, the repairmen forgot they had left the man door along the main beltline open. Because 

the mine examiner had completed his exam of this area prior to the belt repair, the open door 

remained undetected. The mine is considered to be a “gassy” mine. The overcast area and inby 

area of the repaired beltline is not being properly ventilated because of the open door, allowing 

methane to accumulate in the high area of the overcast. After the shift starts producing coal for 

about three hours, an ignition occurs on the beltline above the overcast—possibly from a bad 

roller or poorly installed roller, producing sparks and igniting the methane. The force of the 

explosion destroys the intake overcast where the door was open and part of the return overcast 

banks, sending smoke into all entries of the continuous miner section that breaks off from the 

main section and to the continuous miner main super-section which is operating two sets of 

continuous miner equipment.
105

Role Location What information do they have?

Crewman 

(working face)

Sections Blast and smoke on section

Outby worker Travelway inby

explosion

Blast and smoke

Escape group 

leader

Section Blast and smoke on section

Responsible 

person

Outside Notified of explosion and main fan 

spike

#3. Impoundment Failure/Liquid/Gas Inundation

During the normal mining cycle sequence, the right-side miner started to take a 37-foot cut in the 

outside right entry. While mining, the miner operator noticed water coming from the face area 

while taking the third in cut sequence on the ventilation side of the cut, which was unusual as the 

mine is reasonably dry with little water issues. In addition to the water, the operator noticed the 

methane readings toward the end of the cut at the face were elevated. Suddenly, coal was ejected 

from the face followed by a heavy flow of water, followed by an inrush of methane gas. The 

mine is located in an area that saw gas well drilling in the early part of the 1900s. Most wells in 

the area were abandoned and/or re-plugged by the mine as needed as mining progressed. The 

mappings of these gas wells were mostly accurate; however, the mine had experienced problems 

with this mapping in the past. The water that rushed into the section from the face was minimal. 

Methane gas quickly filled the entry and continued to flow into the mine from what appeared to 

be the intersection of an unchartered gas well. The continuous miner operator quickly notified 

the mechanic on the section with a handheld radio to de-energize the section power at the load 

center.

Role Location What information do they have?

Crewman 

(working face)

Sections Aware of intersection of gas well on 

section 

Outby worker Beltline outby 

section

None

Escape group 

leader

Section Aware of intersection of gas well on 

section

Responsible 

person

On haulage 

traveling to 

section

None, outside trying to contact
106

#4. Rockburst/Coal Burst/Roof Fall

A section was mining, when suddenly, approximately 10 cross cuts outby, the roof failed due to 

a coal burst of a pillar. This coal burst created an excessive roof span resulting in a roof fall 

across the section, blocking all but one entry for egress from the mine. The crew on the section 

felt the air blast from the fall and experienced problems with visibility due to the dust from the 

coal burst and roof fall.

Role Location What information do they have?

Crewman 

(working face)

Sections Limited visibility, lack of ventilation, 

felt air blast from fall on section

Outby worker Travelway outby 

explosion

None

Escape group 

leader

Section Limited visibility, lack of ventilation, 

felt air blast from fall on section

Responsible 

person

Underground on 

section

Another person 

designated 

Limited visibility, lack of ventilation, 

felt air blast from fall on section

Aware of loss of communication on 

section and belt stopped operating

Process/Questions:

• Which of these disaster scenarios is the most complex? Can we order the rest of these in 

terms of complexity?

• What are the broad phases of self-escape during a disaster? We are looking for tasks that 

are performed when: “a disaster has occurred, and the decision has been made to selfescape” until self-escape has successfully occurred.

• Starting with the simplest scenario (information captured on flipcharts and one 

computer):

o What happens first?

▪ Who is involved?

▪ What cues are they attending to?

▪ What task(s) are they performing? What are the key decision points?

▪ How are decisions made?

▪ What equipment are they using?

▪ Who are they communicating with?

▪ [If not covered in above] What is the crewman doing? Outby worker? 

Responsible person? Escape group leader?
107

o What information needs to be monitored/conveyed/received? What happens next? 

(Cycle through these questions until evacuated)

▪ Who is involved? 

▪ What cues are they attending to?

▪ What task(s) are they performing?

▪ What are the key decision points?

▪ What equipment are they using?

▪ Who are they communicating with?

▪ What information needs to be monitored/conveyed/received?

▪ [If not covered in above] What is the crewman doing? Outby worker? 

Responsible person? Escape group leader?

o Which of these tasks are most critical? Which are most critical for the crewman? 

Outby worker? Responsible person? Escape group leader?

• Next scenario, we would like to add any new tasks/events for this scenario that might be 

different from the prior scenario(s) [cycle through scenarios]:

o What happens first? Is it similar?

▪ Different people involved?

▪ Different cues?

▪ Different tasks?

▪ Different decision points or processes?

▪ Different equipment?

▪ Different communications?

▪ Different information monitored/conveyed/received?

▪ [If not covered in above] What is the crewman doing? Outby worker? 

Responsible person? Escape group leader?

o What happens next? (Cycle through these questions till evacuated)

▪ Different people involved?

▪ Different tasks?

▪ Different cues?

▪ Different decision points or processes?

▪ Different equipment?

▪ Different communications?

▪ Different information monitored/conveyed/received?

▪ [If not covered in above] What is the crewman doing? Outby worker? 

Responsible person? Escape group leader?

o Which of these new tasks are most critical? Which are most critical for the 

crewman? Outby worker? Responsible person? Escape group leader?
108

Appendix D: Initial Interview: Mine Leadership and Safety

Management

In the event of a mine disaster that requires evacuating the mine, we want to be sure all mine 

personnel leave the mine safely, so we are interviewing leadership and mine personnel to learn 

how we can improve the ability of miners to self-escape.

We’d like to learn as much as we can about how mine evacuation should take place, including 

some of the best practices mines are using to prepare miners and mitigate any potential risks.

We believe you have a great deal of knowledge about what should happen and how you would 

want your mine leadership and mine crews to respond.

Time permitting, I’d like to talk with you about a few of the following:

A. What should happen during evacuation or self-escape

B. The greatest risk points as you see them

C. Training and preparation of mine management, safety managers, and miners

D. Ideas and suggestions for preventing and reducing risks

We are not evaluating you or the mine in any way. Our sole intent is to learn about how selfescape should work so we can identify effective practices to share with others, along with ideas 

for improving the process.

When we summarize our results, we will not share anything that is attributable to you by name. 

At the end of the entire project, we will provide findings to the mine.

At any point, you can request that your comments not be recorded. Any questions before we 

begin?
109

A. Self-escape/Evacuation

1. Let’s assume a decision has been made to evacuate the mine due to [a fire, an explosion, 

impoundment failure/liquid or gas inundation, rockburst/coalburst/roof fall]. Please help 

me understand what would happen once the decision has been made.

• What happens at that point?

• Then what happens? [Have them talk about what would happen in chronological order 

during the evacuation process using some of the probes below]

Potential probes include:

• What would you be doing at that point? What would you be thinking about? What are 

you concerned about and monitoring? What decisions need to be made? Where are you 

located to deal with this situation?

• What would the other leaders be doing? What are they paying attention to and who are 

they talking with?

• As the disaster unfolds, who has the most complete picture of what is happening?

• What information or updates do you need from the managers and mine personnel?

• What communications, if any, are occurring with corporate personnel (if applicable)?

• What are other mine personnel doing at this time? For example, what are team leaders 

(section supervisors) doing? What is the safety/compliance officer doing? What are 

miners doing?

• What equipment is being assembled topside, if any?

• What happens if miners are injured?

• What notifications have to be made to others (e.g., corporate, NIOSH, mine rescue 

team, local first-responders)?

• How do we track where miners are at this point? What should we do if some miners 

aren’t accounted for?

• What are the greatest risks or challenges at this point? What could hinder miners from 

performing their roles successfully? What could go wrong?

• If a challenge or problem emerged, what would be the best way to handle it?

2. We are also interested in evacuation at the team level. In an evacuation, are escape teams 

formed and how might they differ from their mining teams?

• How do supervisors account for all miners in their charge?

• If a smaller group of miners finds itself cut off from their team leader – what happens? 

Does someone assume leadership? Are there established protocols for that?

• Are individuals assigned to evacuation roles as “backup” in case the first person can’t 

perform that role? If not, how would that happen?

• Do they notify anyone?

• What roles are critical during an evacuation situation?
110

B. Greatest Risk Points

3. In general, where do you see the greatest risk points or challenges that could interfere with 

miners being able to safely self-escape? Do these differ among the four disaster scenarios?

• What are ways to prevent or mitigate these challenges?

• As necessary, probe about the following:

o Miner readiness and preparation

o Gaps between what miners are capable of doing and the demands of self-escape

o Communications between the mine leadership and team leaders/crew members; 

between miners

o Equipment challenges

o Interactions with the topside/rescuers

o Existing policies or procedures

o Conditions (e.g., power outage, radio/comm failure, miner injuries, shift 

change)

4. What does your mine do particularly well to prepare for evacuations?

• What would you recommend all mines do to be prepared for, and if necessary, to handle 

an evacuation successfully?

C. Training and Preparation

Mine Leadership/Safety Managers

5. What type of training, preparation, and drills do mine managers/safety managers 

participate in to prepare them for an evacuation?

• When did you experience this? What was the purpose of the training/drill/material? 

How was it delivered?

• What are some of the best training experiences, drills or other forms of preparation 

related to evacuation that you’ve experienced? What made them particularly useful?

• How often and when do these training experiences/drills typically take place?

6. What is the role of the mine’s senior leaders/safety managers during mine evacuation 

drills?

• What, if anything, do you or the leaders need to do to prepare for the drills?

• Do you get any feedback about the drill? What, if anything, do you or the leaders do 

with the results from the drill?
111

Miners

7. What type of training do miners receive regarding evacuation?

• Please describe each (how often does this training take place, what is done to prepare 

for the training, what happens during the training, what happens after the training)

o Note: Consider whether/how the training provides information to trainees, 

demonstrates behavior, allows for practice, and provides feedback individually 

or through a debrief, etc.

• Do miners train or drill with those on their shift?

• What are the learning objectives of that training? [collect any documentation about the 

objectives, and training methods/materials]

• How were the training requirements determined?

• Any use of videos, readings, or computer-based training?

o What is done after the training or drill to track, capture or share lessons learned?

• What ideas do you have for improving training?

8. What obstacles or challenges exist that can interfere with evacuation training?

D. Ideas and Suggestions

9. What changes, if any, would you recommend that might help improve mine and miners’

readiness to handle an evacuation?

• Any changes to training, equipment, communications, worker roles, etc.?

THANK YOU VERY MUCH!
112

Appendix E: Major Self-escape Activities and Critical KSAs Identified 

through Preliminary Task Analysis

Activity Critical KSA Cognitive 

KSA?

Accounting for 

personnel

Ensure the location, movement, and safety of “Red Hats” 

when in charge of them. Yes

Accounting for 

personnel

Take headcount at designated meeting place to determine 

miners present or missing; identify follow-on actions if crew 

members are missing (e.g., wait, try to find); if non-crew 

miners present, include in own group.

Yes

Accounting for 

personnel During headcount, identify number/type of injuries. Yes

Communicating 

nonverbally

Use nonverbal communications (e.g., hand, cap lamp signals) 

with others in the mine. No

Communicating 

nonverbally

Use nonverbal signals (e.g., tapping codes on radio/phone) 

from within the mine to communicate with others above 

ground. 

No

Communicating 

nonverbally

Use writing (e.g., paper & pencil, date boards) to 

communicate nonverbally with others in the mine. No

Communicating 

nonverbally Communicate while using SCSRs (sounds, signals). No

Communicating 

nonverbally

Use “pulls” on tagline to communicate 

stop/go/advance/retreat, using standard mine rescue lifeline 

pull sequence. 

No

Communicating verbally Communicate with escape group leader (EGL), record who is 

in group, and communicate/confirm plans. Yes

Communicating verbally

Call RP upon alarm on section or other potential disaster 

event indicator, and ensure RP knows who is talking, where 

located, situation (nature, severity, how being handled). 

Yes

Communicating verbally Receive and relay critical information to EGL, and crewman 

receive via pager/phone, radio. No

Communicating verbally Communicate escape plan to crew. No

Communicating verbally Communicate loudly and clearly; verbally repeat 

directions/information to confirm. No
113

Activity Critical KSA Cognitive 

KSA?

Decision-making

Determine escape route (e.g., escape via primary escapeway 

and go to escape shaft) and communicate, working with 

dispatcher to relay as needed. 

Yes

Decision-making

Decide on self-escape methods (e.g., walking, riding), route 

(e.g., primary, secondary escapeway) and communicate 

conditions (e.g., multigas detector readings), working with 

dispatcher to relay as needed. 

Yes

Decision-making If escapeway (e.g., primary) blocked, determine and move to 

alternate (e.g., secondary). Yes

Decision-making Decide on whether/how to move injured miner(s) in 

conjunction with crew EMT(s). Yes

Decision-making Decide to escape or receive order to escape. Yes

Decision-making Decide whether to fight fire or abandon fire and escape. Yes

Decision-making Decide to use refuge chamber. Yes

Diagnosing Help diagnose disaster (e.g., visual of problem, relay 

information (e.g., conditions, multigas detector readings). Yes

Diagnosing Diagnose: Type (e.g., fire, inundation, roof-fall, or rock burst, 

explosion), location, severity. Yes

Diagnosing Recognize dispatcher-initiated audio and/or visual 

alarms/alerts (e.g., horns, lights). Yes

Diagnosing Receive, interpret alarms/alerts/information from 

underground. Yes

Directing and managing Execute the Emergency Response Plan. Yes

Directing and managing Review Emergency Response Plan to ensure it is executed 

properly during an emergency situation. Yes

Directing and managing Handle panic in self. Yes

Directing and managing Handle panic in others. Yes
114

Activity Critical KSA Cognitive 

KSA?

Establishing and 

maintaining situational 

awareness (SA)

Recognize disaster conditions/events (e.g., change in 

ventilation, smoke, blast, water). Yes

Establishing and

maintaining situational 

awareness (SA)

Assess and maintain awareness of physical conditions of 

mine/section (e.g., water, ventilation, construction activities). Yes

Establishing and

maintaining situational 

awareness (SA)

Assess and maintain awareness of conditions of mine 

communications equipment (e.g., phones, leaky feeder). Yes

Establishing and

maintaining situational 

awareness (SA)

Understand the workings and inherent/current limitations of 

the tracking system used to track movements of miners 

underground. 

Yes

Establishing and

maintaining situational 

awareness (SA)

To the extent possible, determine and maintain awareness of 

where others on crew are in the mine and relative to own 

position. 

Yes

Establishing and

maintaining situational 

awareness (SA)

Know the identity of the current shift’s designated RP (and 

back-ups if so designated). Yes

Establishing and

maintaining situational

awareness (SA)

Maintain awareness of escapeways, SCSR cache, and refuge 

locations. Yes

Establishing and

maintaining situational 

awareness (SA)

Note signage, escapeway reflectors. Yes

Establishing and

maintaining situational 

awareness (SA)

Determine and maintain awareness of where you are in the 

mine. Yes

Establishing and

maintaining situational 

awareness (SA)

Maintain “big picture” of unfolding disaster 

(nature/extent/severity of disaster conditions, location of 

escaping miners, next likely steps). 

Yes

Firefighting Fight fire (as per appropriate role as designated in minespecific Firefighting Plan). Yes

Leading Exert calm, steady influence. Yes

Leading Manage conflict and disagreements among crew members. Yes

Leading

Assume leadership role in situations where a group is without 

a leader (e.g., leader is separated from group, no leader from 

the start of situation). 

Yes
115

Activity Critical KSA Cognitive 

KSA?

Moving Move to fresh air. No

Moving Guide self visually or tactically (follow ribs, equipment, 

cables). Yes

Moving Climb over/around debris (e.g., due to explosion, roof fall). No

Moving Travel by foot through mine where roof height is low (e.g., 

bending forward, duck walk, crawling). No

Moving If no lifeline, use other tactile techniques (rib line, power 

feeder). Yes

Moving Navigate through smoke-filled area of mine (e.g., go low, deal 

with limited visibility). Yes

Moving

Travel escapeway in darkened/changed conditions (e.g., rock 

dust blown off walls/ceiling/floor, walls/ceiling/floor covered 

in soot). 

Yes

Operating

communication 

technology

Operate mine phone for one-to-one communications and as 

mine-wide pager. No

Operating

communication

technology

Operate walkie-talkies (e.g., Leaky Feeder radios) on 

appropriate channels to communicate with others above and 

below ground. 

No

Operating

communication

technology

Operate trolley radio to communicate with others above 

ground and within the mine. No

Post-exit Assign person(s) to identify miners upon mine exit. No

Post-exit Participate in debrief (i.e., report conditions in mine, 

information about others still in mine). Yes

Supporting map usage

Ensure obsolete escapeway maps have been replaced with

current escapeway maps to ensure accurate depiction of 

location 

of escapeways, airflows, refuge chambers, SCSR caches, and 

doors on escapeways. 

No

Treating injured 

miner(s) Administer first aid to injured miners. Yes
116

Activity Critical KSA Cognitive 

KSA?

Using lifelines Locate and follow lifeline (tactile wayfinding). No

Using lifelines Identify location of caches and refuge alternatives, follow 

escapeway. 

Yes

Using mine maps Retrieve and use escapeway map. Yes

Using mine maps

Read and interpret the mine map to ensure familiarity with 

current working location and mine layout and to 

develop/maintain mine map reading skills that are important 

during self-escape scenarios. 

Yes

Using multigas detector Monitor/read air. Yes

Using multigas detector Use gas monitor. Yes

Using personal 

equipment

Conduct checks on lamp, radio, and gas monitor to ensure 

they are working. No

Using personal

equipment

Ensure a serviceable self-contained self-rescuer (SCSR) is on

own belt. No

Using refuge

alternatives Deploy. No

Using refuge

alternatives Inflate. No

Using refuge

alternatives Set up scrubbers. No

Using refuge

alternatives Purge bad air. No

Using refuge

alternatives Enter (bring in one-hour SCSRs also). No

Using refuge

alternatives

Communicate with RP/Dispatcher via phone, check outside 

air with gas detector, change/fix scrubber fan as needed. No

Using SCSRs Help others switch/swap SCSRs. No

Using SCSRs Don short-term SCSR and move to nearest one-hour SCSR 

cache No

Using SCSRs Move to cache and switch/swap own short-term SCSR (e.g., 

M-20s) for one-hour unit (e.g., OCENCOs); grab extra SCSR. No
117

Activity Critical KSA Cognitive 

KSA?

Using 

taglines/tetherlines Connect self to tagline/tetherline. No

Using 

taglines/tetherlines Walk on tagline/tetherline. No
118

Appendix F: HTA Critical KSAs by Self-escape Role

Critical KSA Self-escape

leadership

RF 

Miners

Understand what gases may be present in a mine environment 

and how they behave (e.g., substance that fills the area of 

containment; soluble gases can be released from water when 

water is disturbed).

X X

Know desired min/max gas levels (methane, CO, oxygen). X X

Know how body and mind can react when exposed to low 

oxygen levels or high CO levels and the speed with which 

effects can occur.

X X

Know procedures when air contains specific elevated levels of 

CO or low oxygen (e.g., when to don SCSR). X X

Know the explosive and inert levels of methane. X X

Know procedures when air contains specific elevated levels of 

methane (e.g., remove power to equipment). X X

Know where/how to find fresh air (e.g., go towards an intake air 

shaft). X X

Read and interpret CO systems/graphs/charts. X -

Know effect of coal dust on methane explosibility and how a 

local methane explosion can transition into a mine-wide dust 

explosion.

X X

Know that even a small, localized methane explosion can 

destroy ventilation control devices (stoppings, overcasts, etc.). X X

Understand that ventilation control devices destroyed by an 

explosion can cause fresh air to short circuit, which allows inby 

methane concentrations to increase and may result in a second 

explosion.

X X

Know that a drop in barometric pressure causes sealed areas to 

outgas. X X

Understand the potential effects of elevated methane levels on 

oxygen.

X X

Use hand-held gas meters to assess air quality. X X

Calibrate hand-held gas meters. X X

Understand why false (nuisance) alarms can occur (e.g., due to 

diesel exhaust CO). X X

Understand that both asphyxiation and poisoning can occur due 

to poor air quality. X X
119

Critical KSA Self-escape

leadership

RF 

Miners

From outside of the mine, understand significance of alarms and 

monitoring systems within the mine. -X -

Understand significance of sensor alarm activation patterns (e.g., 

multiple alarms, sequence of alarms). X X

Communicate critical information about the miners underground 

(location, headcount, names, physical condition, needs). X X

Communicate critical information about the situation (severity, 

conditions of mine, affected areas, air quality, smoke, visibility, 

conditions of equipment).

X X

Communicate important information (e.g., what you see) to 

Responsible Person/Dispatcher. X X

Communicate plans and next steps (e.g., move to meeting point, 

move to escapeway). X X

Provide updates on situation to Responsible Person/Dispatcher

(e.g., escape progress, change in plans). X X

Ensure all miners know what is in storage locations (e.g., glow 

sticks, map, hammer, tagline, or other items required by 

state/operation guidelines).

X X

Prioritize information to identify critical elements to 

communicate with Responsible Person/Dispatcher. X X

Deliver or listen to roof support plan. X X

From a location outside of the mine, gather critical information 

from those working within the mine. X -

Operate mine phones and radios. X X

Know what to do if signal is lost (e.g., move to another location 

to find signal). X X

Know direct line of site option with radio/walkie-talkie. X X

Know emergency radio channels. X X

Manage multiple/simultaneous communications. - X

Identify problems/issues with communications equipment. X X

Know backup and work-around communication options when 

there are problems with primary methods. X X

Know potential effects of disaster on communications 

equipment (e.g., impact of heat/explosion on nodes, antennas, 

and cables).

X X

Communicate in writing. X X

Confirm information provided is received and understood. X X
120

Critical KSA Self-escape

leadership

RF 

Miners

Know check-in procedures when arriving at working section 

(e.g., if maintenance man arrives, check in with foreman so 

foreman knows he is there).

X X

Know to ask yes/no questions to elicit information from 

individuals with limited verbal communication capabilities (e.g., 

a person using an SCSR).

X X

Know nonverbal cap lamp communication standards. X X

Know nonverbal communication techniques using the tagline 

(e.g., standard mine rescue crew lifeline/link line pull 

sequences).

X X

Know nonverbal tapping standards. - X

Repeat information received to confirm reception and 

understanding. X X

Speak clearly and loudly. X X

Use technology-based, nonverbal communication techniques 

where available (e.g., text pager). X X

Use various techniques to communicate with someone who has 

limited or no ability to communicate verbally (e.g., a person 

using an SCSR).

X X

Help crew members understand other points of view or opinions. X X

Manage disagreements among others. X X

Coordinate with the mine foreman and other experts and 

authorities. X -

Develop an understanding of the experience/inexperience of 

crew members. X X

Develop knowledge of all personnel working within or near 

one’s own section or area during shift. X X

Identify the Responsible Person for each shift. X X

Know crew members assigned locations. X -

Know the strengths, capabilities, and experience of individual 

crew members. X -

Know one’s own limitations and capabilities. - X

Know members of one’s own crew. X -

Contribute information to exit debrief. -X X

Know what questions to ask exiting miners. X --
121

Critical KSA Self-escape

leadership

RF 

Miners

Understand the potential impact of different 

disasters/emergencies on mine, equipment, and power (e.g., 

effects of explosion on communications infrastructure, lifeline).

X X

Detect/recognize changes in mine conditions or surroundings 

(e.g., ventilation change such as blast of air, airflow reversal). X X

Determine location of disaster. X X

Determine source of problem or emergency. X X

Recognize potential significance of the power going out. X X

Recognize your location relative to location of the disaster (e.g., 

if outby the fire). X X

Understand dangers associated with water (e.g., blocked airflow, 

hypothermia). X X

Understand significance of smoke. X X

Recognize signs of potential disaster in fan chart readings (e.g., 

spikes) and smoke from fans or exhaust shafts. X -

Carry important personal equipment/tools/supplies. X X

Conduct checks on personal equipment/tools/supplies. X X

Drive and operate all vehicles in mine, including escape 

vehicles. X X

Know importance of carrying self-escape 

equipment/tools/supplies. X X

Operate cap lamps and blinking lights. X X

Execute Responsible Person checklist (know related procedures, 

information to gather). X -

Gather, interpret, and synthesize information from multiple 

sources (e.g., sensors, people exiting mine, miners 

underground).

X -

Know the ERP. X -

Know the Rescue Notification Plan. X -

Maintain awareness of periodic changes to ERP. X -

Understand how one’s role shifts over the course of the 

emergency and in execution of the ERP (e.g., when other 

authorities arrive).

X -

Understand one’s own and others’ roles in executing the ERP. - X

Document critical information and times. X -

Know escape plans, protocols, and procedures. X X
122

Critical KSA Self-escape

leadership

RF 

Miners

Know location of escapeways (primary and secondary) relative 

to meeting point (e.g., power center). X X

Know potential alternative escape routes that crew members 

might take in emergency situations. X X

Know primary and secondary escapeways. X X

Recognize your location relative to location of primary and 

secondary escapeways. X X

Understand signage along the escapeway. X X

Know colors of reflective markers for primary and secondary 

escapeways.

X X

Know location of all exits (e.g., shafts, drift opening). X X

Judge severity of fire (e.g., based on size and spread of fire, 

location of fire). X X

Know firefighting plans. X X

Know role in fighting a fire (e.g., as supervisor, using pager to 

communicate with outside the mine, gathering fire 

extinguishers).

X X

Know where to move in the event of a fire, based on one’s own 

current location relative to fire. X X

Recognize crew members who will/will not be involved in 

fighting the fire. X X

Understand impact of fire and smoke on air. X X

Understand whether you are in a location where it is possible to 

help fight the fire (e.g., if outby the fire, if in fresh air). X X

Use firefighting equipment (fire extinguishers). X X

Visually inspect fire (put eyes on it). X X

Communicate with others underground (e.g., shift foreman) to 

gather information about personnel working within the mine 

(e.g., confirm location and conditions).

X X

Identify important unknown information (e.g., number and 

location of affected miners). X X

Know if a miner is out of communication when disaster occurs 

(e.g., someone in the bleeders). X X

Know what questions to ask to gather specific details about 

personnel involved with situation (e.g., air, potential smoke on 

section, names, location, and condition of personnel) and the 

conditions within the mine (e.g., air quality, escapeway 

conditions).

X --
123

Critical KSA Self-escape

leadership

RF 

Miners

Know/determine who is in the mine. X -

Synthesize/integrate multiple sources of information. X X

Provide clear, decisive, and confident direction and guidance to 

others. X X

Provide EGL with guidance for escape. X X

Persuade others to own point of view if necessary. X X

Receive and follow Responsible Person/Dispatcher and Escape 

Group Leader guidance. X X

During headcount, determine whether non-crew members are 

present. X X

Know headcount procedures. X X

Listen to and interpret guidance provided by Responsible 

Person/Dispatcher. X X

Interpret elevation on a mine map when depicted. X X

Know mine elevation (e.g., where higher and lower elevation 

spots are located). X X

Know to move to high elevation points during a water 

inundation situation. X X

Know your own limitations and capabilities. X X

Understand Escape Group Leader role. X X

Understand the Responsible Person role. X X

Follow and interpret lifeline indicators to navigate through the 

mine. X X

Know how to handle injured miner when escape group requires 

lifeline. X X

Know how/where to find the lifeline. X X

Know meaning of lifeline indicators (e.g., ball indicates location 

of man door). X X

Know procedures for following a lifeline. X X

Use lifeline to navigate way out of mine. X X

Maintain awareness of own location. X X

Maintain awareness of location of others on crew (e.g., using 

radios, verbal and nonverbal communication techniques). X X

Oversee assigned "Red Hat(s)" and stay with them at all times. X -

Understand mine maps. X X
124

Critical KSA Self-escape

leadership

RF 

Miners

Read and interpret mine and escapeway maps. X X

Know where maps are located. X X

Ensure all miners know where escapeway maps are located. X -

Know when and how to update maps. X -

Know where to store escapeway maps (refuge, cache locations). X X

Coordinate and communicate with EMT(s). X X

Implement basic first-aid skills. X X

Know backboard and first-aid supply locations. X X

Know basic first aid (e.g., steps, sequences). X X

Know how to operate first-aid equipment (e.g., backboard, 

oxygen). X X

Know procedures for transferring, immobilizing, and moving 

someone on a backboard. X X

Know tasks/skills in which EMTs are trained and capable. X X

Know which crew members are EMTs. X X

Recognize need to seek medical guidance or assistance for 

yourself. X X

Recognize need to seek medical guidance or assistance for 

someone else. X X

Recognize when medical treatment is needed. X X

Use backboard to lift and carry injured miner out of mine. X X

Recognize when movement of miner is too risky and how to 

stabilize/prepare him/her. X X

Know general mine characteristics (dry/wet, gassy/non-gassy). X X

Know storage locations of all emergency aid equipment (SCSRs 

caches, tethers/taglines, maps, first-aid kit, stretchers). X X

Know location of refuge alternatives. X X

Know location, direction of conveyor belts. X X

Know location of man doors. X X

Recognize changes to layout and conditions in the mine. X X

Listen and maintain awareness of communications from 

Responsible Person/Dispatcher/Escape Group Leader. X X

Know to trust your training (i.e., that you can rely on the plans, 

procedures, and equipment for self-escape). X X
125

Critical KSA Self-escape

leadership

RF 

Miners

Recognize signs of panic in others. X X

Recognize signs of panic in self. X X

Speak clearly and confidently when communicating with others 

in panic. X X

Know what can cause power to go out. X X

Know when, where, and how to shut off power. X X

Recognize when power is out. X X

Understand that SCSR caches are moved during a section power 

move and determine where they are placed after a move. X X

Recognize need to self-escape. X X

Decide whether to ride or walk. X X

Recognize when all options for escape have been exhausted 

(when no other alternatives) and refuge chamber is necessary. X X

Recognize when all options for escape have been exhausted 

(when no other alternatives) and barricade is necessary. X X

Know importance of waist strap for larger SCSRs (e.g., 

OCENCO) when crawling (i.e., so that SCSR is kept close to 

body for easier body movement).

X X

Know limitations of verbal communications when using SCSR. X X

Perform steps for opening and donning an SCSR. X X

Know procedures and steps for switching/swapping an SCSR. X X

Know SCSR use procedures (e.g., do not take out to talk). X X

Know to pick up and carry as many SCSRs as feasible. X X

Know time when SCSR was donned. Depending on type of 

SCSR, monitor and interpret increased breathing resistance or 

check oxygen gauge (if available) to monitor levels.

X X

Read and interpret SCSR gauge (if available) to monitor 

breathing air supply levels. X X

Recognize that others may need help (e.g., breaking seal on 

SCSR unit). X X

Climb over or under belt as necessary—at designated crossings, 

if possible. X X

Step/crawl through man doors. X X

Crawl through mine. X X

Walk in a bent-over posture when roof height is low X X
126

Critical KSA Self-escape

leadership

RF 

Miners

Determine the best way to navigate around debris (e.g., know 

alternate escapeways). X X

Know roof-fall event procedures (e.g., go around the roof fall, 

do not test roof, exit escapeway to into secondary, return to 

escapeway when outby the fall).

X X

Know techniques for crossing over a belt. X X

Know how to navigate in smoke (e.g., to “go low”). X X

Know to feel for and follow ribs to navigate through mine 

(tactile wayfinding). X X

Know to follow machine power cable to locate power center 

(tactile wayfinding). X X

Know to locate and follow the haulage track or belt structure as 

an alternate way out of the mine (tactile wayfinding). X X

Know when to use various self-escape methods or strategies 

(riding .versus walking). X X

Understand how rate of escape in disaster conditions can be 

reduced below normal walking speed (e.g., in dark, smoke, as a 

tethered group, due to limited SCSR air flow).

X X

Deploy refuge chamber (i.e., following provided instructions). X X

Know procedures and steps for purging bad air. X X

Know procedures and steps for setting up scrubbers. X X

Recognize when bad air is completely purged. X X

Recognize when scrubbers are properly set up. X X

Follow instructions for maintaining and repairing equipment 

within refuge chamber. X X

Know back up filtering solutions (e.g., open and spread out 

charcoal). X X

Know how to check outside air. X X

Know procedures and steps for changing scrubbers. X X

Know sequence/steps for entering the refuge chamber. X X

Know strategies for conserving resources (food, water, power). X X

Know to bring SCSRs into refuge chamber. X X

Convince others to use tether/tagline. X X

Coordinate own movements with others on tether/tagline. X X

Know how to hook self and others to tether/tagline. X X
127

Critical KSA Self-escape

leadership

RF 

Miners

Know how to navigate when tethered to a tether/tagline (e.g., 

change direction as a group). X X

Know to be in the front of the tether/tagline or in back of group 

if no tether/tagline. X -

Know to place hand on shoulder of person in front of self. X X

Know to remove tether/tagline prior to boarding a vehicle. X X

Know where taglines are stored (e.g., cache, mantrip). X X

Operate/monitor tracking system. X -

Use tracking system to identify actual or last known location of 

miners. X -

Know transportation vehicle characteristics (types, speeds, 

assigned numbers). X X

Operate vehicles. X X

Understand basics of mine ventilation (e.g., role of fans, doors, 

curtains). X X

Know the expected air flow/ventilation in the mine. X X

Understand significance of changes in ventilation (e.g., possible 

roof fall elsewhere in mine) X X

Adjust mine features (e.g., doors, curtains) to 

improve/reestablish ventilation and reduce impact of smoke X X
128

Appendix G: Task Demands Associated with Self-escape Abilities

Task Demand Ability Definition

Cognitive

Verbal

Oral comprehension

The ability to listen to and understand 

information and ideas presented through spoken 

words and sentences.

Cognitive

Verbal

Written comprehension The ability to read and understand information 

and ideas presented in writing.

Cognitive

Verbal

Oral expression The ability to communicate information and 

ideas in speaking so others will understand.

Cognitive

Verbal

Written expression The ability to communicate information and 

ideas in writing so others will understand.

Cognitive

Idea Generation 

and Reasoning

Fluency of ideas

The ability to come up with a number of ideas 

about a topic (the number of ideas is important, 

not their quality, correctness, or creativity).

Cognitive

Idea Generation 

and Reasoning

Originality

The ability to come up with unusual or clever 

ideas about a given topic or situation, or to 

develop creative ways to solve a problem.

Cognitive

Idea Generation 

and Reasoning

Problem sensitivity

The ability to tell when something is wrong or 

is likely to go wrong. It does not involve 

solving the problem, only recognizing there is a 

problem.

Cognitive

Idea Generation 

and Reasoning

Deductive reasoning The ability to apply general rules to specific 

problems to produce answers that make sense.

Cognitive

Idea Generation 

and Reasoning

Inductive reasoning

The ability to combine pieces of information to 

form general rules or conclusions (includes 

finding a relationship among seemingly 

unrelated events).

Cognitive

Idea Generation 

and Reasoning

Information ordering

The ability to arrange things or actions in a 

certain order or pattern according to a specific 

rule or set of rules (e.g., patterns of numbers, 

letters, words, pictures, mathematical 

operations).
129

Task Demand Ability Definition

Cognitive

Idea Generation 

and Reasoning

Category flexibility

The ability to generate or use different sets of 

rules for combining or grouping things in 

different ways.

Cognitive

Quantitative

Mathematical 

reasoning

The ability to choose the right mathematical 

methods or formulas to solve a problem.

Cognitive

Quantitative

Number facility The ability to add, subtract, multiply, or divide 

quickly and correctly.

Cognitive

Memory

Memorization The ability to remember information such as 

words, numbers, pictures, and procedures.

Cognitive

Perceptual

Speed of closure

The ability to quickly make sense of, combine, 

and organize information into meaningful 

patterns.

Cognitive

Perceptual

Flexibility of closure

The ability to identify or detect a known pattern 

(a figure, object, word, or sound) that is hidden 

in other distracting material.

Cognitive

Perceptual

Perceptual speed

The ability to quickly and accurately compare 

similarities and differences among sets of 

letters, numbers, objects, pictures, or patterns. 

The things to be compared may be presented at 

the same time or one after the other. This ability 

also includes comparing a presented object with 

a remembered object.

Cognitive

Spatial Abilities

Spatial orientation

The ability to know your location in relation to 

the environment or to know where other objects 

are in relation to you.

Cognitive

Spatial Abilities

Visualization

The ability to imagine how something will look 

after it is moved around or when its parts are 

moved or rearranged.

Cognitive

Attentiveness

Selective attention The ability to concentrate on a task over a 

period of time without being distracted.
130

Task Demand Ability Definition

Cognitive

Attentiveness

Time sharing

The ability to shift back and forth between two 

or more activities or sources of information 

(such as speech, sounds, touch, or other 

sources).

Psychomotor

Fine Manipulative

Arm-hand steadiness

The ability to keep your hand and arm steady 

while moving your arm or while holding your 

arm and hand in one position.

Psychomotor

Fine Manipulative

Manual dexterity

The ability to quickly move your hand, your 

hand together with your arm, or your two hands 

to grasp, manipulate, or assemble objects.

Psychomotor

Fine Manipulative

Finger dexterity

The ability to make precisely coordinated 

movements of the fingers of one or both hands 

to grasp, manipulate, or assemble very small 

objects.

Psychomotor

Control Movement

Control precision

The ability to quickly and repeatedly adjust the 

controls of a machine or a vehicle to exact 

positions.

Psychomotor

Control Movement

Multilimb coordination

The ability to coordinate two or more limbs (for 

example, two arms, two legs, or one leg and one 

arm) while sitting, standing, or lying down. It 

does not involve performing the activities while 

the whole body is in motion.

Psychomotor

Control Movement

Rate control

The ability to time your movements or the 

movement of a piece of equipment in 

anticipation of changes in the speed and/or 

direction of a moving object or scene.

Psychomotor

Reaction Time 

and Speed

Reaction time

The ability to quickly respond (with the hand, 

finger, or foot) to a signal (sound, light, picture) 

when it appears.

Psychomotor

Reaction Time and 

Speed

Wrist-finger speed The ability to make fast, simple, repeated 

movements of the fingers, hands, and wrists.

Psychomotor

Reaction Time and 

Speed

Speed of limb 

movement The ability to quickly move the arms and legs.
131

Task Demand Ability Definition

Physical

Physical Strengths

Static strength The ability to exert maximum muscle force to 

lift, push, pull, or carry objects.

Physical

Physical Strengths

Trunk strength

The ability to use your abdominal and lower 

back muscles to support part of the body 

repeatedly or continuously over time without 

‘giving out’ or fatiguing.

Physical

Endurance

Stamina

The ability to exert yourself physically over 

long periods of time without getting winded or 

out of breath.

Physical

Flexibility, 

Balance, and 

Coordination

Extent flexibility The ability to bend, stretch, twist, or reach with 

your body, arms, and/or legs.

Physical

Flexibility, 

Balance, And 

Coordination

Dynamic flexibility

The ability to quickly and repeatedly bend, 

stretch, twist, or reach out with your body, 

arms, and/or legs.

Physical

Flexibility, 

Balance, And 

Coordination

Gross body 

coordination

The ability to coordinate the movement of your 

arms, legs, and torso together when the whole 

body is in motion.

Physical

Flexibility, 

Balance, And 

Coordination

Gross body equilibrium The ability to keep or regain your body balance 

or stay upright when in an unstable position.

Sensory

Visual

Near vision The ability to see details at close range (within 

a few feet of the observer).

Sensory

Visual

Far vision The ability to see details at a distance.

Sensory

Visual

Visual color 

discrimination

The ability to match or detect differences 

between colors, including shades of color and 

brightness.
132

Task Demand Ability Definition

Night vision The ability to see under low light conditions.

Sensory

Visual

Peripheral vision

The ability to see objects or movement of 

objects to one’s side when the eyes are looking 

ahead.

Sensory

Visual

Depth perception

The ability to judge which of several objects is 

closer or farther away from you, or to judge the 

distance between you and an object.

Sensory

Visual

Glare sensitivity The ability to see objects in the presence of 

glare or bright lighting.

Sensory

Auditory and 

Speech

Hearing sensitivity The ability to detect or tell the differences 

between sounds that vary in pitch and loudness.

Sensory

Auditory and 

Speech

Auditory attention The ability to focus on a single source of sound 

in the presence of other distracting sounds.

Sensory

Auditory and 

Speech

Sound localization The ability to tell the direction from which a 

sound originated.

Sensory

Auditory and 

Speech

Speech recognition The ability to identify and understand the 

speech of another person.

Sensory

Auditory and 

Speech

Speech clarity The ability to speak clearly so others can 

understand you.
133

Appendix H: NIOSH Self-escape Confidence Survey
134
135

Appendix I: Detailed Self-escape Competency Survey Findings

Table I-1. Frequency distributions of background and experience responses 

for rank-and-file miners and self-escape leadership positions

Survey Item Response Total Sample

(n=89516)

Frequency (%)

Rank-and-file

(n=589)

Frequency (%)

Self-escape 

leadership

(n=284)

Frequency (%)

Age 18–24 42 (4.7%) 37 (6.3%) 5 (1.8%)

Age 25–34 301 (33.7%) 218 (37.1%) 80 (28.2%)

Age 35–44 273 (30.6%) 171 (29.1%) 94 (33.1%)

Age 45–54 131 (14.7%) 78 (13.3%) 48 (16.9%)

Age 55–64 137 (15.4%) 80 (13.6%) 53 (18.7%)

Age 65+ 8 (0.9%) 3 (0.5%) 4 (1.4%)

Age No response 3 2 0

Gender Male 875 (99.4%) 584 (99.5%) 280 (99.3%)

Gender Female 5 (0.6%) 3 (0.5%) 2 (0.7%)

Gender No response 15 2 2

Pay Status Hourly 695 (79.2%) 589 (100.0%) 106 (37.3%)

Pay Status Salaried 175 (20.0%) 0 (0.0%) 175 (62.6%)

Pay Status Contractor 7 (0.8%) 0 0

Pay Status No Response 18 0 3

Primary Workgroup Production 544 (61.6%) 409 (69.7%) 135 (47.7%)

Workgroup Maintenance 199 (22.5%) 109 (18.6%) 82 (29.0%)

Workgroup Safety 14 (1.6%) 3 (0.5%) 8 (2.8%)

Workgroup Engineering 7 (0.8%) 2 (0.3%) 4 (1.4%)

Workgroup Other 119 (13.5%) 64 (10.9%) 54 (19.1%)

Workgroup No response 12 2 1

16 Total N includes 22 cases that were not classified as either rank-and-file or self-escape leadership.
136

Survey Item Response Total Sample

(n=89516)

Frequency (%)

Rank-and-file

(n=589)

Frequency (%)

Self-escape 

leadership

(n=284)

Frequency (%)

Time in Current Job < 1 year 96 (10.8%) 70 (11.9%) 34 (12.1%)

Time job 1–5 years 306 (34.3%) 186 (31.7%) 82 (29.1%)

Time job 6–10 years 302 (33.9%) 218 (37.2%) 92 (32.6%)

Time job 11–15 years 112 (12.6%) 71 (12.1%) 45 (16.0%)

Time job 16–20 years 40 (4.5%) 26 (4.4%) 20 (7.1%)

Time job > 20 years 35 (3.9%) 15 (2.6%) 9 (3.2%)

Time job No response 4 3 2

Time in Industry < 1 year 12 (1.4%) 10 (1.7%) 2 (0.7%)

Time industry 1–5 years 146 (16.5%) 108 (18.5%) 37 (13.1%)

Time industry 6–10 years 349 (39.3%) 254 (43.4%) 85 (30.0%)

Time industry 11–15 years 170 (19.2%) 96 (16.4%) 70 (24.7%)

Time industry 16–20 years 77 (8.7%) 46 (7.9%) 30 (10.6%)

Time industry > 20 years 133 (15.0%) 71 (12.1%) 59 (20.8%)

Time industry No response 8 4 1

Time in Current Mine < 1 year 108 (12.2%) 70 (11.9%) 34 (12.1%)

Time in mine 1–5 years 272 (30.7%) 186 (31.7%) 82 (29.1%)

Time in mine 6–10 years 315 (35.6%) 218 (37.2%) 92 (32.6%)

Time in mine 11–15 years 118 (13.3%) 71 (12.1%) 45 (16.0%)

Time in mine 16–20 years 47 (5.3%) 26 (4.4%) 20 (7.1%)

Time in mine > 20 years 25 (2.8%) 15 (2.6%) 9 (3.2%)

Time in mine No response 10 3 2

Education Level < High school 12 (1.3%) 8 (1.4%) 3 (1.1%)

Education level High school 594 (66.6%) 426 (72.4%) 159 (56.0%)

Education level Trade/Associate’s 194 (21.7%) 112 (19.0%) 75 (26.4%)
137

Survey Item Response Total Sample

(n=89516)

Frequency (%)

Rank-and-file

(n=589)

Frequency (%)

Self-escape 

leadership

(n=284)

Frequency (%)

Education level Bachelor’s 80 (9.0%) 39 (6.6%) 38 (13.4%)

Education level Master’s+ 12 (1.3%) 3 (0.5%) 9 (3.2%)

Education level No response 3 1 0

General Schedule Set schedule 188 (21.2%) 89 (15.2%) 96 (34.0%)

General Schedule Rotates/Shiftwork 697 (78.8%) 496 (84.8%) 186 (66.0%)

General Schedule No response 10 4 2

Primary Location Working face 542 (61.4%) 394 (67.5%) 138 (49.1%)

Primary Location Outby 245 (27.7%) 154 (26.4%) 87 (31.0%)

Primary Location Surface 31 (3.5%) 12 (2.1%) 19 (6.8%)

Primary Location Other 51 (5.8%) 24 (4.1%) 37 (13.2%)

Primary Location No response 14 5 3

Family Mining History First generation 297 (33.7%) 197 (33.8%) 92 (32.9%)

Family Mining History Multi-generation 585 (66.3%) 386 (66.2%) 188 (67.1%)

Family Mining History No response 13 6 4

Percentage of Working 

Time Underground 0% 17 (2.0%) 9 (1.6%) 8 (2.9%)

% time underground 10% 7 (0.8%) 0 7 (2.5%)

% time underground 20% 7 (0.8%) 3 (0.5%) 2 (0.7%)

% time underground 30% 3 (0.3%) 2 (0.4%) 1 (0.4%)

% time underground 40% 12 (1.4%) 4 (0.7%) 5 (1.8%)

% time underground 50% 33 (3.8%) 13 (2.3%) 17 (6.1%)

% time underground 60% 15 (1.7%) 9 (1.6%) 6 (2.2%)

% time underground 70% 28 (3.3%) 14 (2.5%) 12 (4.3%)

% time underground 80% 49 (5.7%) 24 (4.3%) 24 (8.7%)

% time underground 90% 93 (10.8%) 43 (7.6%) 49 (17.7%)
138

Survey Item Response Total Sample

(n=89516)

Frequency (%)

Rank-and-file

(n=589)

Frequency (%)

Self-escape 

leadership

(n=284)

Frequency (%)

% time underground 100% 595 (69.3%) 443 (78.5%) 146 (52.7%)

% time underground No response 36 25 7

Mine Site Mine 1 95 (10.6%) 58 (9.8%) 31 (10.9%)

Mine Site Mine 2 217 (24.2%) 154 (26.1%) 59 (20.8%)

Mine Site Mine 3 273 (30.5%) 187 (31.7%) 82 (28.9%)

Mine Site Mine 4 102 (11.4%) 55 (9.3%) 44 (15.5%)

Mine Site Mine 5 47 (5.3%) 32 (5.4%) 13 (4.6%)

Mine Site Mine 6 71 (7.9%) 45 (7.6%) 24 (8.5%)

Mine Site Mine 7 24 (2.7%) 14 (2.4%) 9 (3.2%)

Mine Site Mine 8 66 (7.4%) 44 (7.5%) 22 (7.7%)

Mine Site No response 0 0 0
139

Table I-2. Specialized experience frequency distributions across subsets

Experience Response Rankand-file

Self-escape 

leadership

Self-escape leadership Responsible Person 0

17 147

Self-escape leadership Dispatcher/Operation Center 0

18 12

Self-escape leadership Shift Supervisor 0 32

Self-escape leadership Section Supervisor 0 79

Self-escape leadership Other sup/leadership role 1919 66

Emergency Response Volunteer fire-fighting 48 35

Emergency Response Professional fire-fighting 3 4

Emergency Response Military emergency response 22 20

Emergency Response EMT/Paramedic 48 96

Emergency Response Mine fire brigade 16 19

Emergency Response Mine rescue team 35 38

17 Ninety-seven hourly workers reported currently holding the role of responsible person (RP) and were classified as 

self-escape leadership.

18 Six hourly workers reported currently holding positions in the communications/operations center (e.g., dispatcher, 

tracking) and were classified as self-escape leadership.

19 Hourly workers who have some leadership responsibilities (e.g., fireboss, crew leader, assistant supervisor) but no 

formal self-escape leadership training or role were classified as rank-and-file.
140

Table I-3. Distribution of levels of agreement with individual and organizational

and individual self-escape training and preparedness value statements

Question Response

Self-escape 

leadership

Frequency (%)

Rank-and-file 

Frequency (%)

Health and safety training is a priority 

here.

Strongly disagree 4 (1.4%) 5 (0.9%)

Health and safety training is a priority 

here and safety training is a priority 

here

Disagree 4 (1.4%) 10 (1.7%)

Health and safety training is a priority 

here

Somewhat disagree 5 (1.8%) 26 (4.4%)

Health and safety training is a priority 

here

Somewhat agree 24 (8.5%) 99 (16.9%)

Health and safety training is a priority 

here

Agree 91 (32.4%) 213 (36.3%)

Health and safety training is a priority 

here

Strongly agree 153 (54.4%) 233 (39.8%)

Health and safety training is a priority 

here

No response 3 3

My mine’s escape training is usually 

realistic and “hands-on.”

Strongly disagree 5 (1.8%) 9 (1.6%)

My mine’s escape training is usually 

realistic and “hands-on”

Disagree 13 (4.6%) 18 (3.1%)

My mine’s escape training is usually 

realistic and “hands-on”

Somewhat disagree 13 (4.6%) 35 (6.0%)

My mine’s escape training is usually 

realistic and “hands-on”

Somewhat agree 53 (18.9%) 146 (25.2%)

My mine’s escape training is usually 

realistic and “hands-on”

Agree 106 (37.9%) 207 (35.7%)

My mine’s escape training is usually 

realistic and “hands-on”

Strongly agree 90 (32.1%) 165 (28.4%)

My mine’s escape training is usually 

realistic and “hands-on”

No response 4 9

It is important to put extra effort toward 

improving my mine’s ability to respond 

to an emergency.

Strongly disagree 5 (1.8%) 4 (0.7%)

It is important to put in extra effort 

toward improving my mine’s ability to 

respond to an emergency

Disagree 3 (1.1%) 12 (2.1%)

It is important to put in extra effort 

toward improving my mine’s ability to 

respond to an emergency

Somewhat disagree 8 (2.8%) 7 (1.2%)

It is important to put in extra effort 

toward improving my mine’s ability to 

respond to an emergency

Somewhat agree 24 (8.5%) 72 (12.4%)

It is important to put in extra effort 

toward improving my mine’s ability to 

respond to an emergency

Agree 98 (34.9%) 205 (35.3%)

It is important to put in extra effort 

toward improving my mine’s ability to 

respond to an emergency

Strongly agree 143 (50.9%) 280 (48.3%)

It is important to put in extra effort 

toward improving my mine’s ability to 

respond to an emergency

No response 3 9
141

Table I-4. Average percent confidence in ability to properly demonstrate or explain the

following to a brand-new miner: rank-and-file miners versus self-escape leadership

* Significant differences based on independent samples t tests ( p < .05) and confirmed with Mann Whitney U tests (p < .01).

** Sorted from rank-and-file miners’ lowest average confidence to highest average confidence.

Self-escape Competency Items Rank-and-file** Selfescape 

Your mine’s emergency response plan (ERP) 75.7 leadership 78.4

The chain of command for reporting a mine emergency* 82.5 84.4

How to construct a proper barricade* 83.9 87.8

What alarms/alerts mean* 85.2 91.4

How to read mine map symbols* 85.3 92.1

How to reestablish ventilation* 85.4 89.1

Your own role in your mine’s emergency response plan* 85.4 88.6

Your mine’s communication and tracking system 85.9 91.2

Ventilation/smoke leakage* 86.1 90.4

When to construct a barricade* 86.2 89.8

How to operate your mine’s refuge alternative (RA)* 88.1 93.0

If or when to fight a fire* 88.4 91.8

Where your mine’s escapeway maps are located 88.9 94.1

Where your mine’s escapeways are located* 88.9 94.1

Lifeline symbols* 89.3 93.6

How to fight a fire* 90.2 92.6

Where your mine’s SCSR caches are located* 90.4 94.5

Where your mine’s tetherlines are located 90.4 92.4

What to expect when using an SCSR* 90.6 94.7

When to enter your mine’s refuge alternative (RA) 90.7 92.9

Where to report in the event of a mine emergency 91.1 92.2

Where your mine’s RA(s) is/are located* 91.4 94.3

How to test roof conditions 92.5 93.6

How to use tetherlines 92.7 94.4

How to use nonverbal communication 93.1 94.1

How to identify an explosive atmosphere with a gas meter* 93.9 96.1

When to don an SCSR* 95.1 97.0

How to properly don an SCSR* 95.7 97.2
142

Table I-5. Frequency distribution of responses for all 28 self-escape confidence items

On a scale from 0% to 100%, how confident are 

you that you could properly demonstrate or 

explain the following to a brand-new miner?

Response

(% 

confident)

Self-escape 

leadership

Frequency 

(%)

Rank-and-file

Frequency 

(%)

Your mine’s emergency response plan 0 4 (1.4%) 5 (0.9%)

Your mine’s emergency response plan 10 2 (0.7%) 2 (0.3%)

Your mine’s emergency response plan 20 4 (1.4%) 7 (1.2%)

Your mine’s emergency response plan 30 7 (2.5%) 9 (1.5%)

Your mine’s emergency response plan 40 4 (1.4%) 15 (2.6%)

Your mine’s emergency response plan 50 39 (13.9%) 87 (14.9%)

Your mine’s emergency response plan 60 7 (2.5%) 30 (5.2%)

Your mine’s emergency response plan 70 18 (6.4%) 82 (14.1%)

Your mine’s emergency response plan 80 64 (22.8%) 120 (20.6%)

Your mine’s emergency response plan 90 40 (14.2%) 97 (16.7%)

Your mine’s emergency response plan 100 92 (32.7%) 128 (22.0%)

Your mine’s emergency response plan No response 3 7

The chain of command for reporting a mine emergency 0 2 (0.7%) 3 (0.5%)

The chain of command for reporting a mine emergency 10 2 (0.7%) 2 (0.3%)

The chain of command for reporting a mine emergency 20 1 (0.4%) 5 (0.9%)

The chain of command for reporting a mine emergency 30 4 (1.4%) 11 (1.9%)

The chain of command for reporting a mine emergency 40 3 (1.1%) 6 (1.0%)

The chain of command for reporting a mine emergency 50 19 (6.8%) 43 (7.4%)

The chain of command for reporting a mine emergency 60 5 (1.8%) 21 (3.6%)

The chain of command for reporting a mine emergency 70 17 (6.0%) 64 (11.0%)

The chain of command for reporting a mine emergency 80 48 (17.1%) 116 (19.9%)

The chain of command for reporting a mine emergency 90 55 (19.6%) 97 (16.6%)

The chain of command for reporting a mine emergency 100 121 (44.5%) 215 (36.9%)

The chain of command for reporting a mine emergency No response 3 6

Where your mine’s escapeways are located 0 0 (0.0%) 1 (0.2%)

Where your mine’s escapeways are located 10 0 (0.0%) 1 (0.2%)

Where your mine’s escapeways are located 20 2 (0.7%) 6 (1.0%)

Where your mine’s escapeways are located 30 1 (0.4%) 4 (0.7%)

Where your mine’s escapeways are located 40 1 (0.4%) 8 (1.4%)

Where your mine’s escapeways are located 50 4 (1.4%) 27 (4.6%)
143

On a scale from 0% to 100%, how confident are 

you that you could properly demonstrate or 

explain the following to a brand-new miner?

Response

(% 

confident)

Self-escape 

leadership

Frequency 

(%)

Rank-and-file

Frequency 

(%)

Where your mine’s escapeways are located 60 5 (1.8%) 14 (2.4%)

Where your mine’s escapeways are located 70 8 (2.8%) 26 (4.5%)

Where your mine’s escapeways are located 80 18 (6.4%) 73 (12.5%)

Where your mine’s escapeways are located 90 36 (12.8%) 89 (15.2%)

Where your mine’s escapeways are located 100 206 (73.3%) 335 (57.4%)

here your mine’s escapeways are located re your No response 3 5

Where your mine’s escapeway maps are located 0 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%)

Where your mine’s escapeway maps are located 10 1 (0.4%) 1 (0.2%)

Where your mine’s escapeway maps are located 20 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%)

Where your mine’s escapeway maps are located 30 3 (1.1%) 4 (0.7%)

Where your mine’s escapeway maps are located 40 2 (0.7%) 5 (0.9%)

Where your mine’s escapeway maps are located 50 5 (1.8%) 14 (2.4%)

Where your mine’s escapeway maps are located 60 1 (0.4%) 7 (1.2%)

Where your mine’s escapeway maps are located 70 6 (2.1%) 14 (2.4%)

Where your mine’s escapeway maps are located 80 21 (7.5%) 48 (8.2%)

Where your mine’s escapeway maps are located 90 40 (14.2%) 109 (18.7%)

Where your mine’s escapeway maps are located 100 202 (71.9%) 381 (65.4%)

Where your mine’s escapeway maps are located No response 3 6

Where to report in the event of a mine emergency 0 1 (0.4%) 2 (0.3%)

Where to report in the event of a mine emergency 10 0 (0.0%) 2 (0.3%)

Where to report in the event of a mine emergency 20 1 (0.4%) 2 (0.3%)

Where to report in the event of a mine emergency 30 1 (0.4%) 4 (0.7%)

Where to report in the event of a mine emergency 40 3 (1.1%) 5 (0.9%)

Where to report in the event of a mine emergency 50 8 (2.9%) 16 (2.8%)

Where to report in the event of a mine emergency 60 4 (1.4%) 11 (1.9%)

Where to report in the event of a mine emergency 70 8 (2.9%) 28 (4.8%)

Where to report in the event of a mine emergency 80 32 (11.4%) 53 (9.1%)

Where to report in the event of a mine emergency 90 31 (11.1%) 93 (16.0%)

Where to report in the event of a mine emergency 100 191 (68.2%) 364 (62.8%)

Where to report in the event of a mine emergency No response 0 3
144

On a scale from 0% to 100%, how confident are 

you that you could properly demonstrate or 

explain the following to a brand-new miner?

Response

(% 

confident)

Self-escape 

leadership

Frequency 

(%)

Rank-and-file

Frequency 

(%)

How to read mine map symbols 0 0 (0.0%) 5 (0.9%)

How to read mine map symbols 10 1 (0.4%) 1 (0.2%)

How to read mine map symbols 20 2 (0.7%) 4 (0.7%)

How to read mine map symbols 30 2 (0.7%) 5 (0.9%)

How to read mine map symbols 40 1 (0.4%) 5 (0.9%)

How to read mine map symbols 50 5 (1.8%) 29 (4.9%)

How to read mine map symbols 60 8 (2.8%) 22 (3.8%)

How to read mine map symbols 70 13 (4.6%) 52 (8.9%)

How to read mine map symbols 80 20 (7.0%) 107 (18.3%)

How to read mine map symbols 90 43 (15.1%) 101 (17.2%)

How to read mine map symbols 100 189 (66.5%) 255 (43.5%)

How to read mine map symbols No response 0 3

Lifeline symbols 0 0 (0.0%) 4 (0.7%)

Lifeline symbols 10 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%)

Lifeline symbols 20 0 (0.0%) 3 (0.5%)

Lifeline symbols 30 1 (0.4%) 4 (0.7%)

Lifeline symbols 40 4 (1.4%) 8 (1.4%)

Lifeline symbols 50 3 (1.1%) 14 (2.4%)

Lifeline symbols 60 3 (1.1%) 16 (2.7%)

Lifeline symbols 70 9 (3.2%) 33 (5.6%)

Lifeline symbols 80 26 (9.2%) 76 (13.0%)

Lifeline symbols 90 44 (15.5%) 102 (17.4%)

Lifeline symbols 100 194 (68.3%) 325 (55.6%)

Lifeline symbols No response 0 3

If or when to fight a fire 0 1 (0.4%) 1 (0.2%)

If or when to fight a fire 10 0 (0.0%) 2 (0.3%)

If or when to fight a fire 20 0 (0.0%) 1 (0.2%)

If or when to fight a fire 30 1 (0.4%) 1 (0.2%)

If or when to fight a fire 40 3 (1.1%) 4 (0.7%)

If or when to fight a fire 50 6 (2.1%) 22 (3.8%)

If or when to fight a fire 60 4 (1.4%) 15 (2.6%)
145

On a scale from 0% to 100%, how confident are 

you that you could properly demonstrate or 

explain the following to a brand-new miner?

Response

(% 

confident)

Self-escape 

leadership

Frequency 

(%)

Rank-and-file

Frequency 

(%)

If or when to fight a fire 70 12 (4.2%) 34 (5.8%)

If or when to fight a fire 80 35 (12.3%) 82 (14.0%)

If or when to fight a fire 90 46 (16.2%) 119 (20.3%)

If or when to fight a fire 100 176 (62.0%) 304 (52.0%)

If or when to fight a fire No response 0 4

How to fight a fire 0 1 (0.4%) 2 (0.3%)

How to fight a fire 10 0 (0.0%) 1 (0.2%)

How to fight a fire 20 1 (0.4%) 3 (0.5%)

How to fight a fire 30 1 (0.4%) 2 (0.3%)

How to fight a fire 40 1 (0.4%) 2 (0.3%)

How to fight a fire 50 4 (1.4%) 17 (2.9%)

How to fight a fire 60 4 (1.4%) 5 (0.9%)

How to fight a fire 70 12 (4.3%) 35 (6.0%)

How to fight a fire 80 31 (11.0%) 86 (14.8%)

How to fight a fire 90 45 (16.0%) 109 (18.8%)

How to fight a fire 100 182 (64.5%) 318 (54.8%)

How to fight a fire No response 2 9

How to identify an explosive atmosphere with a gas meter 0 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%)

How to identify an explosive atmosphere with a gas meter 10 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%)

How to identify an explosive atmosphere with a gas meter 20 1 (0.4%) 0 (0.0%)

How to identify an explosive atmosphere with a gas meter 30 0 (0.0%) 5 (0.9%)

How to identify an explosive atmosphere with a gas meter 40 1 (0.4%) 0 (0.0%)

How to identify an explosive atmosphere with a gas meter 50 2 (0.7%) 14 (2.4%)

How to identify an explosive atmosphere with a gas meter 60 0 (0.0%) 9 (1.5%)

How to identify an explosive atmosphere with a gas meter 70 7 (2.5%) 20 (3.4%)

How to identify an explosive atmosphere with a gas meter 80 16 (5.7%) 39 (6.7%)

How to identify an explosive atmosphere with a gas meter 90 32 (11.3%) 80 (13.7%)

How to identify an explosive atmosphere with a gas meter 100 223 (79.1%) 417 (71.4%)

How to identify an explosive atmosphere with a gas meter No response 2 5

Your own role in your mine’s ERP 0 3 (1.1%) 5 (0.9%)

Your own role in your mine’s ERP 10 2 (0.7%) 0 (0.0%)
146

On a scale from 0% to 100%, how confident are 

you that you could properly demonstrate or 

explain the following to a brand-new miner?

Response

(% 

confident)

Self-escape 

leadership

Frequency 

(%)

Rank-and-file

Frequency 

(%)

Your own role in your mine’s ERP 20 0 (0.0%) 6 (1.0%)

Your own role in your mine’s ERP 30 3 (1.1%) 1 (0.2%)

Your own role in your mine’s ERP 40 1 (0.4%) 7 (1.2%)

Your own role in your mine’s ERP 50 15 (5.4%) 37 (6.4%)

Your own role in your mine’s ERP 60 4 (1.4%) 21 (3.6%)

Your own role in your mine’s ERP 70 15 (5.4%) 49 (8.4%)

Your own role in your mine’s ERP 80 33 (11.8%) 94 (16.2%)

Your own role in your mine’s ERP 90 41 (14.6%) 98 (16.9%)

Your own role in your mine’s ERP 100 163 (58.2%) 263 (45.3%)

Your own role in your mine’s ERP No response 4 8

When to don an SCSR 0 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%)

When to don an SCSR 10 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%)

When to don an SCSR 20 0 (0.0%) 1 (0.2%)

When to don an SCSR 30 0 (0.0%) 2 (0.3%)

When to don an SCSR 40 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%)

When to don an SCSR 50 2 (0.7%) 8 (1.4%)

When to don an SCSR 60 1 (0.4%) 8 (1.4%)

When to don an SCSR 70 7 (2.5%) 12 (2.0%)

When to don an SCSR 80 11 (3.9%) 36 (6.1%)

When to don an SCSR 90 27 (9.5%) 88 (15.0%)

When to don an SCSR 100 236 (83.1%) 431 (73.5%)

When to don an SCSR No response 0 3

Where your mine’s SCSR caches are located 0 1 (0.4%) 1 (0.2%)

Where your mine’s SCSR caches are located 10 0 (0.0%) 1 (0.2%)

Where your mine’s SCSR caches are located 20 1 (0.4%) 0 (0.0%)

Where your mine’s SCSR caches are located 30 0 (0.0%) 2 (0.3%)

Where your mine’s SCSR caches are located 40 1 (0.4%) 5 (0.9%)

Where your mine’s SCSR caches are located 50 4 (1.4%) 17 (2.9%)

Where your mine’s SCSR caches are located 60 3 (1.1%) 11 (1.9%)

Where your mine’s SCSR caches are located 70 7 (2.5%) 42 (7.2%)

Where your mine’s SCSR caches are located 80 21 (7.5%) 70 (11.9%)
147

On a scale from 0% to 100%, how confident are 

you that you could properly demonstrate or 

explain the following to a brand-new miner?

Response

(% 

confident)

Self-escape 

leadership

Frequency 

(%)

Rank-and-file

Frequency 

(%)

Where your mine’s SCSR caches are located 90 36 (12.8%) 103 (17.6%)

Where your mine’s SCSR caches are located 100 207 (73.7%) 334 (57.0%)

Where your mine’s SCSR caches are located No response 3 3

How to properly don an SCSR 0 1 (0.4%) 0 (0.0%)

How to properly don an SCSR 10 0 (0.0%) 1 (0.2%)

How to properly don an SCSR 20 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%)

How to properly don an SCSR 30 1 (0.4%) 2 (0.2%)

How to properly don an SCSR 40 0 (0.0%) 1 (0.2%)

How to properly don an SCSR 50 1 (0.4%) 7 (1.2%)

How to properly don an SCSR 60 1 (0.4%) 3 (0.5%)

How to properly don an SCSR 70 4 (1.4%) 15 (2.6%)

How to properly don an SCSR 80 8 (2.8%) 31 (5.3%)

How to properly don an SCSR 90 25 (8.8%) 76 (13.0%)

How to properly don an SCSR 100 242 (85.5%) 450 (76.9%)

How to properly don an SCSR No response 1 4

What to expect when using an SCSR 0 1 (0.4%) 1 (0.2%)

What to expect when using an SCSR 10 0 (0.0%) 1 (0.2%)

What to expect when using an SCSR 20 0 (0.0%) 4 (0.7%)

What to expect when using an SCSR 30 1 (0.4%) 1 (0.2%)

What to expect when using an SCSR 40 0 (0.0%) 1 (0.2%)

What to expect when using an SCSR 50 4 (1.4%) 20 (3.4%)

What to expect when using an SCSR 60 3 (1.1%) 15 (2.6%)

What to expect when using an SCSR 70 7 (2.5%) 33 (5.7%)

What to expect when using an SCSR 80 20 (7.1%) 64 (11.0%)

What to expect when using an SCSR 90 41 (14.5%) 97 (16.6%)

What to expect when using an SCSR 100 206 (72.8%) 347 (59.4%)

What to expect when using an SCSR No response 1 5

What alarms/alerts mean 0 2 (0.7%) 4 (0.7%)

What alarms/alerts mean 10 1 (0.4%) 2 (0.3%)

What alarms/alerts mean 20 0 (0.0%) 3 (0.5%)

What alarms/alerts mean 30 1 (0.4%) 4 (0.7%)
148

On a scale from 0% to 100%, how confident are 

you that you could properly demonstrate or 

explain the following to a brand-new miner?

Response

(% 

confident)

Self-escape 

leadership

Frequency 

(%)

Rank-and-file

Frequency 

(%)

What alarms/alerts mean 40 0 (0.0%) 4 (0.7%)

What alarms/alerts mean 50 7 (2.5%) 43 (7.4%)

What alarms/alerts mean 60 5 (1.8%) 17 (2.9%)

What alarms/alerts mean 70 12 (4.2%) 49 (8.4%)

What alarms/alerts mean 80 33 (11.6%) 93 (16.0%)

What alarms/alerts mean 90 51 (18.0%) 109 (18.8%)

What alarms/alerts mean 100 172 (60.6%) 252 (43.4%)

What alarms/alerts mean No response 0 9

How to test roof conditions 0 1 (0.4%) 1 (0.2%)

How to test roof conditions 10 1 (0.4%) 1 (0.2%)

How to test roof conditions 20 0 (0.0%) 2 (0.3%)

How to test roof conditions 30 0 (0.0%) 2 (0.3%)

How to test roof conditions 40 1 (0.4%) 3 (0.5%)

How to test roof conditions 50 3 (1.1%) 10 (1.7%)

How to test roof conditions 60 4 (1.4%) 9 (1.5%)

How to test roof conditions 70 12 (4.2%) 22 (3.8%)

How to test roof conditions 80 24 (8.5%) 55 (9.4%)

How to test roof conditions 90 41 (14.4%) 108 (18.5%)

How to test roof conditions 100 197 (69.4%) 372 (63.6%)

How to test roof conditions No response 0 4

Ventilation/smoke leakage 0 2 (0.7%) 3 (0.5%)

Ventilation/smoke leakage 10 1 (0.4%) 1 (0.2%)

Ventilation/smoke leakage 20 0 (0.0%) 2 (0.3%)

Ventilation/smoke leakage 30 0 (0.0%) 7 (1.2%)

Ventilation/smoke leakage 40 1 (0.4%) 0 (0.0%)

Ventilation/smoke leakage 50 13 (4.6%) 32 (5.5%)

Ventilation/smoke leakage 60 7 (2.5%) 21 (3.6%)

Ventilation/smoke leakage 70 11 (3.9%) 48 (8.3%)

Ventilation/smoke leakage 80 33 (11.7%) 96 (16.6%)

Ventilation/smoke leakage 90 45 (16.0%) 124 (21.4%)

Ventilation/smoke leakage 100 169 (59.9%) 246 (42.4%)
149

On a scale from 0% to 100%, how confident are 

you that you could properly demonstrate or 

explain the following to a brand-new miner?

Response

(% 

confident)

Self-escape 

leadership

Frequency 

(%)

Rank-and-file

Frequency 

(%)

Ventilation/smoke leakage No response 2 9

How to reestablish ventilation 0 1 (0.4%) 3 (0.5%)

How to reestablish ventilation 10 0 (0.0%) 2 (0.3%)

How to reestablish ventilation 20 0 (0.0%) 7 (1.2%)

How to reestablish ventilation 30 2 (0.7%) 4 (0.7%)

How to reestablish ventilation 40 3 (1.1%) 5 (0.9%)

How to reestablish ventilation 50 14 (4.9%) 29 (5.0%)

How to reestablish ventilation 60 9 (3.2%) 27 (4.7%)

How to reestablish ventilation 70 16 (5.6%) 48 (8.3%)

How to reestablish ventilation 80 35 (12.3%) 82 (14.2%)

How to reestablish ventilation 90 43 (15.1%) 119 (20.6%)

How to reestablish ventilation 100 161 (56.7%) 252 (43.6%)

How to reestablish ventilation No response 0 11

Where your mine’s RA(s) is/are located 0 1 (0.4%) 4 (0.7%)

Where your mine’s RA(s) is/are located 10 0 (0.0%) 1 (0.2%)

Where your mine’s RA(s) is/are located 20 0 (0.0%) 4 (0.7%)

Where your mine’s RA(s) is/are located 30 0 (0.0%) 3 (0.5%)

Where your mine’s RA(s) is/are located 40 0 (0.0%) 5 (0.9%)

Where your mine’s RA(s) is/are located 50 7 (2.5%) 18 (3.1%)

Where your mine’s RA(s) is/are located 60 3 (1.1%) 7 (1.2%)

Where your mine’s RA(s) is/are located 70 8 (2.8%) 21 (3.6%)

Where your mine’s RA(s) is/are located 80 21 (7.5%) 68 (11.7%)

Where your mine’s RA(s) is/are located 90 36 (12.8%) 105 (18.1%)

Where your mine’s RA(s) is/are located 100 205 (73.0%) 344 (59.3%)

Where your mine’s RA(s) is/are located No response 3 9

When to enter your mine’s refuge alternative (RA) 0 4 (1.4%) 4 (0.7%)

When to enter your mine’s RA 10 0 (0.0%) 2 (0.3%)

When to enter your mine’s RA 20 0 (0.0%) 2 (0.3%)

When to enter your mine’s RA 30 1 (0.4%) 3 (0.5%)

When to enter your mine’s RA 40 1 (0.4%) 2 (0.3%)

When to enter your mine’s RA 50 5 (1.8%) 24 (4.1%)
150

On a scale from 0% to 100%, how confident are 

you that you could properly demonstrate or 

explain the following to a brand-new miner?

Response

(% 

confident)

Self-escape 

leadership

Frequency 

(%)

Rank-and-file

Frequency 

(%)

When to enter your mine’s RA 60 4 (1.4%) 9 (1.5%)

When to enter your mine’s RA 70 8 (2.8%) 22 (3.8%)

When to enter your mine’s RA 80 25 (8.8%) 59 (10.1%)

When to enter your mine’s RA 90 33 (11.6%) 98 (16.8%)

When to enter your mine’s RA 100 203 (71.5%) 359 (61.5%)

When to enter your mine’s RA No response 0 5

How to operate your mine’s refuge alternative (RA) 0 0 (0.0%) 5 (0.9%)

How to operate your mine’s RA 10 1 (0.4%) 2 (0.3%)

How to operate your mine’s RA 20 1 (0.4%) 3 (0.5%)

How to operate your mine’s RA 30 1 (0.4%) 1 (0.2%)

How to operate your mine’s RA 40 2 (0.7%) 5 (0.9%)

How to operate your mine’s RA 50 4 (1.4%) 25 (4.3%)

How to operate your mine’s RA 60 5 (1.8%) 13 (2.2%)

How to operate your mine’s RA 70 8 (2.8%) 36 (6.2%)

How to operate your mine’s RA 80 24 (8.5%) 83 (14.2%)

How to operate your mine’s RA 90 49 (17.3%) 116 (19.8%)

How to operate your mine’s RA 100 188 (66.4%) 296 (50.6%)

How to operate your mine’s RA No response 1 4

When to construct a barricade 0 1 (0.4%) 3 (0.5%)

When to construct a barricade 10 0 (0.0%) 3 (0.5%)

When to construct a barricade 20 1 (0.4%) 4 (0.7%)

When to construct a barricade 30 2 (0.7%) 3 (0.5%)

When to construct a barricade 40 2 (0.7%) 10 (1.7%)

When to construct a barricade 50 12 (4.2%) 29 (5.0%)

When to construct a barricade 60 8 (2.8%) 24 (4.1%)

When to construct a barricade 70 22 (7.8%) 39 (6.7%)

When to construct a barricade 80 24 (8.5%) 87 (15.0%)

When to construct a barricade 90 40 (14.1%) 101 (17.4%)

When to construct a barricade 100 171 (60.4%) 277 (47.8%)

When to construct a barricade No response 1 9

How to construct a barricade 0 2 (0.7%) 4 (0.7%)
151

On a scale from 0% to 100%, how confident are 

you that you could properly demonstrate or 

explain the following to a brand-new miner?

Response

(% 

confident)

Self-escape 

leadership

Frequency 

(%)

Rank-and-file

Frequency 

(%)

How to construct a barricade 10 0 (0.0%) 3 (0.5%)

How to construct a barricade 20 2 (0.7%) 6 (1.0%)

How to construct a barricade 30 3 (1.1%) 8 (1.4%)

How to construct a barricade 40 1 (0.4%) 10 (1.7%)

How to construct a barricade 50 15 (5.3%) 28 (4.8%)

How to construct a barricade 60 11 (3.9%) 28 (4.8%)

How to construct a barricade 70 23 (8.1%) 52 (9.0%)

How to construct a barricade 80 25 (8.8%) 89 (15.4%)

How to construct a barricade 90 43 (15.2%) 114 (19.7%)

How to construct a barricade 100 158 (55.8%) 236 (40.8%)

How to construct a barricade No response 1 11

Your mine’s communication and tracking system 0 1 (0.4%) 6 (1.0%)

Your mine’s communication and tracking system 10 1 (0.4%) 2 (0.3%)

Your mine’s communication and tracking system 20 1 (0.4%) 2 (0.3%)

Your mine’s communication and tracking system 30 0 (0.0%) 8 (1.4%)

Your mine’s communication and tracking system 40 3 (1.1%) 4 (0.7%)

Your mine’s communication and tracking system 50 8 (2.9%) 26 (4.5%)

Your mine’s communication and tracking system 60 3 (1.1%) 29 (5.0%)

Your mine’s communication and tracking system 70 17 (6.1%) 46 (8.0%)

Your mine’s communication and tracking system 80 27 (9.7%) 75 (13.0%)

Your mine’s communication and tracking system 90 43 (15.4%) 104 (18.0%)

Your mine’s communication and tracking system 100 175 (62.7%) 275 (47.7%)

Your mine’s communication and tracking system No response 5 12

How to use nonverbal communication 0 1 (0.4%) 0 (0.0%)

How to use nonverbal communication 10 1 (0.4%) 1 (0.2%)

How to use nonverbal communication 20 1 (0.4%) 0 (0.0%)

How to use nonverbal communication 30 1 (0.4%) 4 (0.7%)

How to use nonverbal communication 40 1 (0.4%) 1 (0.2%)

How to use nonverbal communication 50 3 (1.1%) 16 (2.7%)

How to use nonverbal communication 60 3 (1.1%) 13 (2.2%)

How to use nonverbal communication 70 9 (3.2%) 26 (4.5%)
152

On a scale from 0% to 100%, how confident are 

you that you could properly demonstrate or 

explain the following to a brand-new miner?

Response

(% 

confident)

Self-escape 

leadership

Frequency 

(%)

Rank-and-file

Frequency 

(%)

How to use nonverbal communication 80 20 (7.1%) 39 (6.7%)

How to use nonverbal communication 90 33 (11.7%) 74 (12.7%)

How to use nonverbal communication 100 208 (74.0%) 410 (70.2%)

How to use nonverbal communication No response 3 5

Where your mine’s tetherlines are located 0 2 (0.7%) 2 (0.3%)

Where your mine’s tetherlines are located 10 0 (0.0%) 1 (0.2%)

Where your mine’s tetherlines are located 20 0 (0.0%) 4 (0.7%)

Where your mine’s tetherlines are located 30 1 (0.4%) 0 (0.0%)

Where your mine’s tetherlines are located 40 3 (1.1%) 6 (1.0%)

Where your mine’s tetherlines are located 50 9 (3.2%) 19 (3.3%)

Where your mine’s tetherlines are located 60 4 (1.4%) 15 (2.6%)

Where your mine’s tetherlines are located 70 8 (2.9%) 22 (3.8%)

Where your mine’s tetherlines are located 80 24 (8.6%) 77 (13.2%)

Where your mine’s tetherlines are located 90 35 (12.5%) 88 (15.1%)

Where your mine’s tetherlines are located 100 194 (69.3%) 349 (59.9%)

Where your mine’s tetherlines are located No response 4 6

How to use tetherlines 0 2 (0.7%) 2 (0.3%)

How to use tetherlines 10 0 (0.0%) 2 (0.3%)

How to use tetherlines 20 0 (0.0%) 3 (0.5%)

How to use tetherlines 30 1 (0.4%) 1 (0.2%)

How to use tetherlines 40 0 (0.0%) 5 (0.9%)

How to use tetherlines 50 4 (1.4%) 9 (1.6%)

How to use tetherlines 60 6 (2.2%) 10 (1.7%)

How to use tetherlines 70 6 (2.2%) 23 (4.0%)

How to use tetherlines 80 19 (6.8%) 43 (7.4%)

How to use tetherlines 90 28 (10.0%) 85 (14.7%)

How to use tetherlines 100 213 (76.3%) 395 (68.3%)

- How to use tetherlines No response 5 11
153

Appendix J: Abbreviated Training Strategy Matrix Developed by 

gOE/Aptima for Preparing Mineworkers to Perform Critical Cognitive

Tasks during Dynamic and Emergent Situations

Cognitive 

Requirement

ISD Considerations Media/Method

Sensemaking/ 

Situation Assessment 

(SA)

Collecting, 

corroborating, and 

assembling information 

and assessing how the 

information maps onto 

potential explanations, 

decisions, and events; 

includes integrating new 

information from the 

environment with 

existing knowledge to 

generate new potential 

hypotheses or revisit 

previously discarded 

hypotheses to form and 

reform a coherent 

picture of the situation.

• Provide miners with information and 

knowledge about key SA concepts: the 

significance of situational cues (e.g., hazard 

indicators), patterns of cues, and cue 

strategies relevant to emergency self-escape 

scenarios, actions required for maintaining

SA, clues SA is lost, and obstacles to SA 

such as competing physical and cognitive 

requirements; provide an understanding of 

the environmental factors they should attend 

to, and why (e.g., mine conditions and 

equipment, crew member status, mine 

features, own location, and the evolving 

nature, extent, and severity of the disaster).

• Demonstrate processes and behaviors used 

to gather and integrate information into an 

existing situation; could show techniques 

used to gather and track information from 

multiple sources and over time as well as 

how new information can be used to update 

the understanding of the situation.

• Provide opportunities for miners to develop 

and practice hazard recognition and pattern 

recognition skills; provide practice gathering 

information from multiple sources and 

integrating new information into an existing 

picture; the practice scenarios can start out 

simple and build in complexity and fidelity.

• Practice should develop team SA as well as 

individual SA; effective team SA is 

contingent on team members’ ability to 

develop accurate expectations regarding 

team member roles and responsibilities; 

during training, develop shared mental 

models about roles and capabilities (and 

how these might be hindered during a selfescape situation) so crew members can 

anticipate and predict the needs of others.

• Identify ways to provide feedback 

throughout and after the practice simulation 

or scenario.

• Use classroom lectures, 

computer-based training (CBT), 

or web-based training (WBT) to 

present important SA concepts; 

build in class discussions to 

emphasize key points and ensure 

understanding; consider using 

instructional scaffolding to first 

teach individual cues and then 

develop awareness of sequences or 

patterns of cues.

• Show videos that demonstrate and 

model effective sense making/SA 

behaviors; during drills or other 

training scenarios, encourage 

experienced miners to explain how 

they integrate various sources of 

information to draw conclusions.

• Use low-cost classroom 

simulations, during which trainees 

work through fictitious self-escape 

scenarios, which require 

integrating and making sense of a 

variety of information.

• For more interactive and highfidelity practice, use scenariobased training, drills, mock 

disasters or exercises (e.g., mine

emergency evacuation drills) 

where miners work scripted 

realistic self-escape scenarios; 

these methods can be particularly 

useful for practicing losing and 

regaining SA.

• Methods ideal for training of 

hazard recognition and pattern 

recognition skills include CBT and 

WBT, simulations, and embedded 

training.

• Incorporate feedback (e.g., via 

debriefs/after action reviews 

during and after all active training 

activities).
154

Cognitive 

Requirement

ISD Considerations Media/Method

Coordinating

Managing activities 

and interdependencies 

across multiple 

individuals acting in 

roles that have 

common, overlapping, 

or interacting goals

• Provide information about coordination of 

tasks, procedures, and protocols so that 

people develop a shared understanding of 

what and how to coordinate; also, provide 

information about crew member roles and 

responsibilities in self-escape scenarios 

and in executing tasks so that crew 

members can better predict one another’s 

needs, intentions, and actions

• Provide demonstrations of good/bad 

coordination behaviors (e.g., verbal and 

nonverbal communication, backup 

behaviors)

• Allow opportunities for trainees to 

practice executing coordination tasks and 

procedures, including communications 

and interactions using equipment (e.g., 

radios)

• Give meaningful diagnostic feedback to 

develop declarative knowledge of roles, 

procedures, and communications 

equipment capabilities and limitations.

Feedback should be timely and specific to 

the coordination behavior observed.

• Use group activities with crew members 

in various roles and using appropriate 

technologies to simulate realistic 

exchange of information and coordination 

needs between individuals.

• Use classroom lectures and 

discussions to develop 

knowledge of important 

communications procedures and 

coordination techniques; CBT 

and WBT can also be used to 

deliver basic knowledge.

• Use part-task trainers to train 

radio and phone procedures and 

skills to automaticity [Kirlik et al.

1998].

• Provide low-cost practice with 

classroom exercises or scenariobased training [Cannon-Bowers 

and Bowers 2011] incorporating 

realistic environmental 

constraints (e.g., static, lost 

communications, broken 

equipment); for greater fidelity, 

have students use real 

communications equipment.

• Provide practice communicating 

in full self-escape gear (e.g., 

SCSRs); provide cap lamp signal 

training if needed.

• Use exercises or drills that 

require coordinating the actions 

and information shared between 

multiple people; facilitate a 

debrief/AAR (After Action 

Report) after the drill so that 

trainees can identify what went 

well in terms of coordination and 

opportunities for improvement.
155

Cognitive 

Requirement

ISD Considerations Media/Method

Managing 

Uncertainty/Risk

Coping with unknowns 

and ambiguous 

situations by reflecting 

and iteratively 

comparing the 

characteristics of the 

current situation with 

previous experiences; 

often involves mentally 

simulating an intended 

course of action.

• Teach miners to understand risk as a 

combination of probability of event and 

severity of consequence.

• For tasks where safety is particularly at 

risk, provide interactive training (e.g., 

simulation, hands-on); research indicates 

such training is more effective in these 

cases due to its greater ability to motivate 

learning and transfer.

• Demonstrations (e.g., behavioral 

modeling) can be effective for situations 

rarely encountered on the job (this 

includes most of the self-escape tasks); 

for example, the need to handle panic in 

others is likely to be rare; modeling how 

to manage it can act to create proper 

expectations and behavioral repertoire.

• Uncertainty in self-escape can relate to 

lack of needed information; trainees 

should be taught to ask questions or seek 

additional information; similar to “see 

something, say something,” stress 

miners’ responsibility to speak up, point 

out perceived risks, and ask clarifying 

questions.

• Where possible, train all self-escape tasks 

to automaticity so that, for tasks 

involving uncertainty and risk, miners 

maintain cognitive capacity for controlled 

processing.

• To help set expectations and build 

confidence, train miners to mentally 

simulate their roles in self-escape.

• Use discussions and lectures to 

teach the nature of risk.

• “Empower” miners to speak up 

and ask questions during selfescape by explicitly telling them 

(in the classroom) that they have 

permission to do so and that it is 

their responsibility; they can be 

reminded of this by their foreman 

during drills.

• Use simulation and drills for 

self-escape rehearsal; a variety of 

scenarios and trigger events

should be used to build a flexible 

suite of miner responses.

• Demonstrations and behavioral 

modeling can happen in the 

classroom or in the mine during 

a drill; miners should be allowed 

to practice demonstrated 

behaviors, with feedback.

• A verbal classroom “walkthrough” of an escape situation 

can help miners mentally 

simulate their roles in selfescape; for instance, they could 

be asked what they should be 

doing at each of several points 

during an evacuation, with 

feedback incorporated 

throughout.

• Ensure that safety training (e.g., 

SCSR maintenance and use) is 

stressed and maintained and that 

miners are trained to 

automaticity with repeated 

practice, rehearsal, and feedback; 

this will allow miners to retain 

maximum working memory to 

manage uncertainty.
156

Cognitive 

Requirement

ISD Considerations Media/Method

Detecting Problems 

Noticing anomalies, a 

reduced margin of 

error, or that events 

may be taking an 

unexpected (positive or 

negative) direction that 

requires explanation 

and/or monitoring may 

signal a need or 

opportunity to reframe 

how a situation is 

conceptualized and/or 

revise ongoing plans in 

progress; includes 

specific problemdetecting skills, hazard 

recognition, pattern 

recognition, template 

matching/mental 

simulation, and 

reasoning.

• In developing training, consider each of 

the first four steps in Kowalski-Trakofler 

and Barrett’s [2003] proposed human 

processing and visual search skill model 

of hazard recognition: miner must (1) 

detect the presence of potentially relevant 

sensory cues in the environment, (2) 

selectively attend to a subset of those 

cues (on an automatic level), (3) correctly 

recognize the pattern or combination of 

cues that make it hazardous, (4) search 

for and confirm or disconfirm evidence 

that it is a hazard, and (5) consider and 

select an appropriate response; note that 

pattern and discrepancy recognition are 

central to this model.

• Trainees should be taught root cause 

identification rather than simply 

identifying a surface issue (e.g., false 

alarms).

• Train miners to understand and recognize 

various cues associated with potential 

problems; cues to the existence of 

problems may be subtle—cues are an 

interaction between the external world 

and the knowledge and expectancies of a 

trainee.

• Both knowledge of general and sitespecific potential problems should be 

addressed.

• During training, include information on 

temporary states of miners that are 

related to problem detection (e.g., time 

pressure, fatigue, lack of vigilance); 

provide trainees with an awareness of the 

impact these states can have on their 

ability to recognize problems; give 

guidance on how these can be handled; 

that is, how trainees can develop the 

“meta-skill” of managing their temporary 

states.

• Research indicates training on perception 

of risks and dangers is more effective if 

the trainees trust their organization and 

trainer [Siegrist and Cvetkovich 2000].

• High tech and high fidelity 

training tools, such as 

simulators/virtual training,

provide excellent opportunities 

for teaching and practice;

following Kowalski-Trakofler 

and Barrett [2003], provide 

trainees with degraded, subtle 

stimuli of problems (e.g., alarms, 

changed conditions); these can be 

“gamified” in that trainees could 

compete for problem detection, or 

exercises could be scored and 

timed, with feedback provided.

• Include group exercises or 

discussions about the factors that 

result in distraction, time 

pressure, or lack of vigilance; 

more experienced miners may be 

able to provide tips and guidance; 

consider brainstorming the 

development of a list of factors 

and ideas for handling them.

• Demonstrations that show 

positive or negative examples of 

problem detection; training could 

use live examples or videos of 

desired skills, procedures, and 

techniques.

• Develop and teach mnemonics to 

provide structure to 

characteristics of potential 

problems; mnemonics have been 

shown to be useful in training 

detection of potential problems. 

Albert et al. [2014] provide a list 

of 10 sources of danger based on 

energy source (e.g., mechanical, 

gravity, pressure).

• Use group settings to employ the 

What If? method of training, 

which uses a set of pre-prepared 

What if? questions on facility 

“deviations”; for example, the 

question: “What if you perceive 

substantial water today at the 
157

Cognitive 

Requirement

ISD Considerations Media/Method

face where there was none 

yesterday?” can generate a 

discussion on whether a problem 

might exist.

• Develop lessons learned from 

training efforts and disseminate

them (e.g., newsletter, briefing).

• Build trust between miners and 

the organization at the beginning 

of and throughout training; this 

could be done through allowing 

any issues to be raised and 

discussed; of course, building 

trust should be a long-term, 

sustained, general effort.
158

Cognitive 

Requirement

ISD Considerations Media/Method

Shared Cognition 

Building shared team 

knowledge of what to 

do under different 

escape conditions and 

circumstances; 

understanding how 

team member actions 

affect one another.

• Because a group of miners will 

likely form an ad hoc team in a 

self-escape scenario, it would be 

helpful to develop shared 

cognitions among mineworkers.

• Team Adaptation and Coordination 

Training (TACT) would be helpful, 

although not necessarily sufficient, 

to build shared mental models of 

self-escape; TACT has been shown 

to be effective even after a short 

training period.

• Team Model Training (TMT) can 

be used to build interpositional 

knowledge, an aspect of shared 

cognition; TMT has been used to 

improve team communications.

• Crew Resource Management 

(CRM) builds aspects of shared 

cognition such as adaptability, 

assertiveness, and decision-making.

• Cross-training builds shared 

cognition such as interpositional 

awareness because trainees perform 

tasks that others typically do; crosstraining would allow miners to 

more easily step into the role of 

escape group leader (EGL) if 

needed, for example.

• Debriefing guided team selfcorrection can assist in building 

shared understanding in expert 

models of teamwork that are most 

effective in increasing 

performance.

• Evaluating shared cognition among 

crew members can be beneficial 

since such shared cognition 

predicts performance.

• Building shared group expectations 

for rare events via targeted 

expectations training can be 

helpful.

• A general consideration is that building 

shared mental models involves a group; 

while training as a group is not necessarily 

needed (see TMT below), it often will be 

useful (see CRM below).

• TACT incorporates videos showing 

examples of good and bad behaviors; for 

relevant self-escape tasks, short videos could 

be created portraying useful and not-useful 

behaviors.

• TMT has been carried out using computerbased training, such as providing incoming 

and outgoing communications; a simple 

self-escape simulation could be built 

providing communications between RP, 

EGL, and escape group members.

• CRM can use role plays to teach CRM skills 

(and a shared awareness of these) such as 

assertiveness, cross-checking, and conflict 

management; quarterly self-escape drills 

could be designed with a role play 

component, such as helping others don 

SCSRs.

• Cross-training is performance-based in that 

trainees actually perform the roles of others; 

self-escape drills or classroom role-playing 

could incorporate this by having other 

miners play the role of EGL (e.g., making 

decision to self-escape, conducting

headcount).

• Debriefing after a self-escape exercise or 

drill would be most effective in improving 

shared cognition if some kind of structured 

approach is used; for example, a debrief 

could be led by an experienced facilitator, or 

a computer-based debriefing system could 

be used.

• NIOSH recommends expectations training 

for SCSR training; this concept could be 

expanded to other areas of self-escape where 

shared cognition is important (e.g., establish 

realistic group expectations of speed of 

escape travel by practicing group movement 

following a lifeline in the dark while on a 

tagline).
159

• Some approaches to the assessment of 

shared cognition can be complex (e.g., card 

sorting, pairwise comparisons) and not 

appropriate to the real-world characteristics 

of mining; however, the presence or absence 

of shared cognition can be accessed via 

observation. Trained observers can answer 

questions such as:

o Did team members have a common 

understanding of the task (e.g., 

deploying the rescue chamber), 

team roles, and available resources 

(e.g., deployment instructions)?

o Did team members coordinate

effectively?

o Did team members recognize 

mistakes made by others? Were 

corrective actions agreed upon?
160

Cognitive 

Requirement

ISD Considerations Media/Method

Managing Attention 

Simultaneous tracking, 

processing, 

considering, and 

storing information; 

includes prioritizing 

and attending to 

essential pieces of 

information, while 

ignoring non-essential 

information; 

particularly relevant in 

complex emergency 

situations, attention 

puts a heavy burden on 

working memory, 

particularly for tasks or 

actions requiring 

deliberation, critical 

thinking, diagnosis, 

problem solving, 

conflict resolution, and 

decision-making.

• To reduce the load placed on 

cognitive resources and potentially 

free a miner’s working memory 

during a self-escape scenario, 

provide training that develops deep 

knowledge of important self-escape 

concepts, procedures, and plans; for 

example, develop knowledge of 

emergency plans, locations of 

emergency equipment and maps, 

and procedures for 

evacuation/escape, communications, 

terminology, and navigation 

[Radomsky et al. 2009].

• Explain to miners how attention can 

be impacted by fatigue and stress 

and how best to manage.

• Practice tasks and procedures to the 

point where they can be performed 

with automaticity so that individuals 

are resilient to stress [Kirlik et al. 

1998; Price et al. 2007]; this is 

particularly useful for tasks that deal 

with equipment (e.g., SCSRs) and 

self-escape procedures and plans.

• Provide practice using protocols and 

checklists; practicing a complex task 

to the point where it is overlearned 

can result in better performance and 

greater resilience to stress [Squire 

and Schacter 2003].

• Provide exposure to practice with 

tasks that require simultaneous 

processing and storage of data, 

controlled attention, maintaining 

information despite distractions, 

attention to competing goals, 

attending to relevant information 

while ignoring irrelevant 

information, resolving conflicting 

actions to prevent error [Engle et al. 

1999].

• Provide frequent and deliberate practice to 

develop automaticity of cognitive selfescape tasks [Reber and Kotovsky 1997; 

NRC 2013]; provide repeated or “mass” 

practice in realistic conditions; for 

example, practice donning activation and 

use of SCSRs during an emergency selfescape drill or exercise. Consider using 

simulations and VR technology to 

introduce environmental pressures such as 

noise, smoke, or heat.

• Distribute repeated practice or rehearsals 

over time [Jarvis 2006] or intersperse skill 

practice with practice of other skills/tasks 

[Proctor and Dutta 1995; Schmidt and Lee 

2011] to increase motivation and stress 

resilience.

• Use part-task trainers to train tasks such as 

SCSR donning and activation to 

automaticity [Vaught et al. 1991].

• Provide miners with useful heuristics (e.g., 

ventilation direction/rate, effects of gases 

on physiology) to reduce the cognitive 

demands placed on evaluating multiple 

solutions and sources of information.

• Consider training miners to use other 

techniques found to improve working 

memory capacity and efficiency, such as 

mnemonics [Cook 1989] and elaboration 

[Squire and Schacter 2003].
161

Cognitive 

Requirement

ISD Considerations Media/Method

Automaticity

Executing a task or 

process without 

consciously thinking 

about the details and 

actions required and 

with little dependence 

on controlled 

processing, allowing it 

to become an automatic 

response pattern or 

habit.

• Automaticity is often the result 

of overlearning (i.e., training 

even after acceptable 

performance has been reached), 

repetition, and practice; some 

self-escape tasks require 

automatized reaction to 

complete; examples include 

using radio and telephones to 

communicate and donning 

SCSRs

• The goals of training to 

automaticity are at least twofold: 

(1) enabling performance that is 

resistant to degradation by stress, 

and (2) freeing working 

memory—the cognitive system 

with a limited capacity that 

temporarily holds information 

available for processing, which 

supports decision-making and 

behavior.

• Training should develop 

declarative knowledge of ERPs, 

escapeways, equipment, etc., 

which reduces cognitive load 

during self-escape.

• Expectations training as currently 

recommended by NIOSH 

reduces distractions due to 

unexpected responses of 

equipment (e.g., SCSRs) and so 

allows automatic performance to 

remain uninterrupted.

• Provide important declarative knowledge via 

presentations, lecture, and discussion.

• Establish a training regimen of frequent and 

deliberate practice for tasks that can reasonably 

be automatized (e.g., donning SCSRs, 

cardiopulmonary resuscitation, reading and 

interpreting mine maps, fighting fire).

• Practice can first be in a classroom, but later 

should take place under realistic conditions 

(e.g., during drills, in simulators).

• Practice should be distributed over sessions 

rather than massed into a single session.

• Intersperse practice on a given skill with other 

training. Multitask training has been shown to 

be effective.

• Part-task training (e.g., on SCSRs only) can 

assist in training to automaticity; different tasks, 

once automatized, can then be compiled in a 

larger scenario.

• Overtrain important skills.

• Ensure SCSR expectations training is continued.

• Assess skills to ensure automatization.

• Refresh skills via later training to avoid skill 

decay.
162

Cognitive 

Requirement

ISD Considerations Media/Method

Declarative 

Knowledge

Memorized 

information that can be 

recalled quickly

• Repetition of information is

crucial to building declarative

knowledge; information and

facts are learned best when

presented in a distributed (at

different points in time) rather

than a massed (all at once)

fashion, even when the total

amount of time required is

equal.

• Knowledge acquisition,

including in safety training, is

superior in settings that are

learner-centered, engaging, and

with dialogue; the more miners

are engaged in learning, the

better they will learn;

information context is also

important—in the case of selfescape, context is easily

provided.

• Adaptive training has been

shown to be effective; it

provides information at a rate

that matches an individual

learner’s learning rate. It does

this by frequent assessments of

knowledge gain and adjusting

training as appropriate.

• The testing of declarative

knowledge is itself a teaching

method, particularly when

trainee results are provided.

• Lecture, often using pictures and/or physical

displays (e.g., of equipment), is a common and

still useful technique for communicating

information to trainees; to the extent possible,

encourage interactivity, dialog, and discussion

during such training—the more engaged trainees

are, the better for their learning.

• Cycle back to the most important facts

repeatedly, ideally in sessions distributed over

time rather than only in a single session.

• Develop content in an instructional scaffold—

starting with the trainee’s initial knowledge,

build detail using examples, analogies, etc.

• WBT or CBT may be offered to trainees either

at the job site or at their homes; intelligent

tutoring systems (ITS) are CBT systems that can

provide adaptive learning; one limitation of ITS

is that they provide only individual-level

instruction.

• Encourage questions during training sessions;

answering questions can help avoid confusion

and also reinforce learning points; one way to

obtain interaction is to direct questions to

various trainees at different times.

• Use quizzes and tests; these need not be

intimidating if done correctly; quizzes are a

natural adjunct to lecture, and if using webbased training or CBT, built-in and

automatically scored quizzes are a useful way to

ensure that trainees are paying attention to

content and to reinforce the learning content.
163

Cognitive 

Requirement

ISD Considerations Media/Method

Decision-making

Committing to one or 

more options that may 

constrain the ability to 

reverse a course of 

action. A continuous 

process conducted 

under time pressure 

that involves reexamining embedded 

default decisions in 

ongoing plan 

trajectories for the 

predicted impact on 

meeting objectives, 

including whether to 

sacrifice decisions to 

which agents were 

previously committed 

based on considering 

tradeoffs; may involve 

a single decision maker 

or require consensus 

across distributed 

actors with different 

stances toward 

decisions.

• Decision-making training strategies must 

consider important decision-making

skills as well as constraints of the 

environment.

• Naturalistic decision-making (NDM) 

research suggests that training the 

cognitive skills that underlie decisionmaking can accelerate decision-making

proficiency [Cannon-Bowers and Bell 

1997]; these skills include: situation 

assessment, hazard recognition, pattern 

recognition, risk perception, template 

matching and mental simulation, 

metacognition, reasoning skills, and both 

general and domain-specific problem 

solving skills.

• As with the other cognitive requirements, 

follow an instruct/provide information, 

demonstrate, practice, feedback sequence 

approach when training decision-making

tasks and skills.

• Training for self-escape should:

o Provide information necessary for 

mastering requisite knowledge

o Demonstrate correct behaviors

o Provide opportunities to practice

o Incorporate feedback with practice

o Accelerate individual expertise

o Enhance team effectiveness

o Free working memory

o Keep skills fresh

o Prevent cognitive bias

o Normalize stress response

o Develop coping mechanisms

• NDM researchers suggest training 

should simulate decision-making under 

stress [Cannon-Bowers and Bell 1997]; 

however, research shows that 

psychological fidelity may be better than 

“physical” fidelity for training decisionmaking for crisis situations [Maitlis and 

Sonenshein 2010]; find opportunities to 

use lower-fidelity options when possible 

and appropriate.

• When training decision-making, 

implement a simple-to-complex, lowto-high fidelity approach to training, 

gradually adjusting task difficulty, and 

employ a variety of training media and 

modes to target different learning 

styles.

• Methods that can be used to develop 

decision-making knowledge and skills 

include classroom lectures, discussion, 

instructional scaffolding, CBT, WBT, 

distance learning, and part-task 

trainers.

• To demonstrate decision-making

behaviors, consider skill 

demonstrations, on the job 

coaching/mentoring, cognitive 

apprenticeships (for highly cognitive 

decision-making tasks), and verbal 

protocol analysis.

• Some low-cost, high-impact methods 

for providing practice for decisionmaking skills include group problemsolving exercises, classroom 

simulations, scenario-based training, 

and case studies.

• High-fidelity methods for training 

decision-making include embedded 

training; emergency drills, mock 

disasters, and exercises; virtual reality, 

part and full-task trainers; situationbased simulations; game-based 

learning (GBL); and stress exposure 

training (SET).

• Strategies for enhancing decisionmaking practice with feedback include 

AARs (After Action Reports),

reflective practice, and guided practice.
164

Appendix K: Semi-structured Interview Used for Cognitive Task 

Analysis

THE GROUP FOR ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS, INC. AND APTIMA, INC. 

COGNITIVE TASK ANALYSIS INTERVIEW PROTOCOL 

NIOSH IRB Protocol

This analysis will focus on tasks, identified in the initial task analysis, that are both critical and 

have an important cognitive and/or decision-making component. The list below represents the 

complete list of probes that may be used during knowledge elicitation. A subset of these probes 

will be during each interview, depending on the goals of the interview, the nature of the 

experience of the interviewee, and the extent of information gathered in prior interviews and 

focus groups.

• Participant’s role during emergency escape (company description).

• Participant’s role during emergency escape (study categories).

o Crewman (working face)

o Outby worker

o Escape group leader

o Responsible person

• Review amount of time available for the interview.

• Review scenarios. (Provide printed scenario handout.)

o Scenario 1: Fire in belt drive (hydraulic oil and small coal accumulations).

o Scenario 2: Explosion (open man door along the main beltline; methane

accumulation).

o Scenario 3: Impoundment failure/liquid/gas inundation: Strike into old gas well;

methane gas and water).

o Scenario 4: Rockburst/coal burst/roof fall (roof failed due to a coal burst of a

pillar).

• Explain the information we are seeking. (Provide this text in a printed question handout.)

o What stimuli in the mine environment differentiate an emergency situation from

both (a) normal and (b) abnormal but not emergency conditions?

o How would miners first recognize and conclude that an emergency scenario

exists?

o Given the emergency scenario, how does the miner decide to escape?

o What information would miners immediately provide within and across groups of

coworkers in the mine and the responsible person?

o How do miners know when to ignore cues that might otherwise indicate an

emergency?

o How would miners make decisions about whether to attempt to correct an

emergency situation as opposed to escaping from the mine?

o How do miners determine the need to initially don self-contained self-rescuer

(SCSR)?
165

o How do miners determine that pre-planned escape routes are feasible for use to 

escape the danger?

o What decisions do miners make to evacuate the danger area?

o What issues do miners anticipate during escape in using multiple types of 

equipment (such as how to communicate to other miners by speaking, telephone, 

or radio while using an SCSR)?

o How do miners plan to deal with injured coworkers during escape?

o How would miners determine an escape route is not usable, and what decisions do 

miners make to resolve the situation?

o What decisions do miners make concerning whether or how to use a refuge 

alternative?

o How do miners determine the presence of hazardous gases or lack of adequate 

breathable air?

o How would miners make decisions about whether a changing situation had made 

self-escape more or less difficult?

o How should miners receive updated information about the emergency, and what 

information would they expect and want?

o How do miners provide information about their own and others’ conditions (both 

normal and emergency methods)?

o What decisions must miners make concerning egress from mining equipment or 

avoiding becoming entrapped by parts of equipment or controls?

o Do miners shut off equipment during an emergency, and depending on what 

equipment is or is not available, how does this impact escape?

o What decisions must miners make concerning obtaining stocks of food or water to 

survive extended entrapment?

o What decisions do miners make about emergency sources of light to enable 

escape?

o What decisions must miners make concerning abnormal temperature (heat or 

cold) conditions?

o If escape does not appear to be immediately possible, what decisions do miners 

make about barricading to create a refuge (such as how, when, what materials to 

use, whether to use what is in immediate area or retrieve materials from farther 

away)?

o What job aids or other sources of information are available for making decisions, 

signaling, or determining courses of action?

o What job aids may be critical to self-escape, but of reduced value due to loss of 

power, lack of visibility, or damage to mine systems (such as not being able to 

read printed instructions due to darkness)?

o What decisions and knowledge do miners use to find their way along escape 

routes, particularly in conditions of reduced visibility due to darkness or presence 

of dust or smoke?

o What understanding of the mine’s physical layout do miners use to locate their 

way to safety (refuge or escape) during emergencies?

o What support do miners expect, need, or prefer from the responsible person?
166

o What skills would miners apply within groups of miners to organize escape or 

survival efforts?

o What information should miners share, to whom, and through what 

communications method?

o How would miners determine whether to walk out of the mine or attempt to use 

the normal motorized transports?

o Other than the emergency itself, what abnormal risks from equipment or the mine 

itself must miners be able to detect and act on to avoid injury (such as a damaged 

power cable that could cause electrocution)?

o How do miners verify that they are making progress in escaping from the 

emergency (for example, have not gotten lost and doubled back)?

o What sources of stress and uncertainty are miners likely to encounter during an 

emergency situation?

o What might be potential sources or situations that could lead to cognitive overload 

during an emergency (simply too much information to process, unable to make 

decisions or select a course of action)?

o What information would miners particularly seek to obtain to adjust and 

coordinate their escape actions?

o What are the most likely and critical communication and coordination challenges?

o What workarounds are anticipated when multiple pieces of equipment cannot 

operate or be used together or if equipment fails?

o Please tell us a story about a particularly challenging self-escape experience, 

either in practice or real life.

• Select one of the scenarios to begin discussion.

• Review time budget for first scenario.

• Review the scenario’s initial conditions.

• Make a first pass through the first scenario.

o What does a miner need to know or be able to do?

o What decisions does a miner have to make?

o What information does a miner need to make decisions?

o What tools or technology would a miner want to have available?

o What strategies or techniques would miners use for making decisions?

o What information would miners monitor or seek during the situation?

o What will be demanding, if anything, in terms of thinking or making decisions?

o What will be demanding, if anything, in terms of using self-escape technology?

• Recap from discussion about first scenario.

o Interviewer recaps the major points heard based on notes. “Let me see if I 

understand the gist of what you said...So, you...” and misunderstandings are 

corrected.
167

• Review timeline for the first scenario, based on discussion. “What did you do first? What 

was challenging about this? What did you do after that?”

• Continue reviewing through all the events for the first scenario. Review notes about the 

scenario: The intent is to query the miner for details about: 

o What does a miner need to know or be able to do?

o What decisions does a miner have to make?

o What information does a miner need to make decisions?

o What tools or technology would a miner want to have available?

o What strategies or techniques would miners use for making decisions?

o What information would miners monitor or seek during the situation?

o What will be demanding, if anything, in terms of thinking or making decisions?

o What will be demanding, if anything, in terms of using self-escape technology?

• Repeat for second scenario, focusing on what is different, missing from responses and 

actions to earlier scenarios.

• Repeat for third scenario, focusing on what is different, missing from responses, and 

actions to earlier scenarios.

• Repeat for final scenario, focusing on what is different, missing from responses, and 

actions to earlier scenarios.

• Training “what ifs.”

o If you could have used any training or training asset to prepare you better for 

incidents such as the one you described, what would it be?

o What exactly would you practice and why?

Thank You

Thank you very much for your time. This was very helpful.

Do you have any questions for us before we wrap up?
168

Appendix L: Draft Rank-and-file Competency Checklist with SME 

Consensus Results and Notes

This appendix includes the draft rank-and-file competency checklist that was developed by 

NIOSH based on the results of the formal task analysis by gOE/Aptima researchers. The 

framework is structured to include the NIOSH-revised major self-escape activities, associated 

gOE/Aptima-identified competency areas (or “task clusters”), and performance criteria (critical 

KSAs). Also included are the SME consensus ratings for the expected proficiency levels (EPLs) 

for rank-and-file miners by KSA, using the following scale:

0 – “Not critical for rank-and-file miners to practice”

1 – “Good to know, but not necessarily critical” (supplemental competency)

2 – “Need to know” (core competency)

X – “Remove item” (problematic)

These ratings were used to guide NOSH researchers in developing the final self-escape core 

competency profile framework for rank-and-file miners in the sister publication to this report, the 

NIOSH IC “Self-escape Core Competency Profile: Guidance for Improving Underground Coal 

Miners’ Self-escape Competency” [NIOSH 2023].

Any changes to the performance criteria criticality or phrasing based on SME feedback are noted 

in the following table. Unless otherwise indicated, the changes were noted during the SME focus 

group consensus building exercise described in Chapter 5

Major Activity A: Communicating

Minimum levels of proficiency must be met for the KSAs required to communicate critical 

information about an emerging or developing situation to establish situational awareness and 

assist in the diagnosis and description of the event using verbal and nonverbal communication 

techniques and communication technology.

Competency Area A1: Establishing Situational Awareness

Performance Criteria (KSAs) EPL SME Notes

Pay attention to landmarks, signage, and direction 

and temperature of airflow on ride in to work 

location.

2

Added “temperature” and changed 

“section” to “work location.” 

Airflow particularly important 

along beltlines.

Know whether transportation is staying or going; take 

one-hour unit if going.

2 Added by focus group SMEs.

Understand one’s own role in emergency response 

plan and that of the RP and EGL.

1

Good to have a general idea, but not 

every responsibility of leadership 

roles.

Know the general layout of the mine. 2 -
169

Performance Criteria (KSAs) EPL SME Notes

Know how entries are numbered and the numbering 

of crosscuts on section.

2

Entries usually left to right.

“...numbering of crosscuts on 

section” added based on external 

SME review of draft documents,

Know locations of mine phones and other 

communication technology.

2 -

Establish awareness of one’s own location within the 

mine relative to the event(s).

2 -

Have a general escape plan in mind with crew every 

shift.

1 -

Recognize one’s own position within the mine 

relative to the locations of all emergency features and 

apparatus, such as:

✓ Mine phones and other communication 

technologies

✓ Meeting place

✓ SCSR caches

✓ Lifelines

✓ Primary and secondary escapeways

✓ Refuge alternatives

✓ Barricading supplies

✓ Taglines/tetherlines

✓ Mine maps20

✓ Firefighting equipment

✓ Medical supplies

-

2

Added mine phones “and other 

communication technologies.”

Need to know mine map symbols. 

Legends should also be included on 

maps.

Emphasis placed on importance of 

knowing the location of the 

secondary escapeway added based 

on external SME review of draft 

documents.

Barricading supplies added based 

on external SME review.

Know the identity and approximate or likely location 

of the designated RP on each shift.

2

Removed “(and RP backup)” and

added “approximate or likely.” 

Miners should know whom to call 

to report an emergency.

Have knowledge of personnel on crew and assigned 

locations.

1 -

Know the identity and location of inexperienced 

miners (e.g., “red hats,” “white hats”), if assigned.

1 Added “if assigned.”

Ensure the safety of inexperienced miners, if 

assigned.

2 Added “if assigned.”

20 Mines are increasingly using handheld electronic devices which may contain preloaded maps. If applicable, all 

underground miners should have familiarity with this technology.
170

Performance Criteria (KSAs) EPL SME Notes

Understand the basics of mine ventilation and 

expected air flow/ventilation in the mine.

2

Changed from “good to know” to 

“need to know” based on external 

SME review

Understand significance of smoke presence 

(including from fans or in exhaust shafts).

2 -

Recognize the presence of unexpected water. 0

Fire boss and other leaders should 

be able to recognize signs of water 

inundation. 

Know how to navigate through or around water (lift 

SCSRs above water, if necessary).

2 Added by focus group SMEs.

Understand the potential impact of different 

emergencies (e.g. fire, explosion, water or gas 

inundation) on mine structure, ventilation, 

equipment, and power.

1 -

Understand that even a small, localized methane 

explosion can destroy ventilation control devices.

2 -

Recognize the need to self-escape. 2 -

Decide to escape or wait to receive order to escape. X

Never wait for order to escape 

during an emergency; add item 

below instead.

Decide to travel to meeting location or escape. 2 Added by focus group SMEs.

Stay current on changes to the mine related to the 

locations of entrances, shafts, and slopes.

2

Item added based on external SME 

review of the draft documents.
171

Competency Area A2: Assisting in Diagnosis

Performance Criteria (KSAs) EPL SME Notes

Know what mine gases may be present in the mine, 

how they interact, and potential consequences.

1

Need to know danger levels, how to 

read detectors, and when to don 

SCSRs.

Know what mine gases may be present in the mine, 

how they interact, and potential consequences. 2

External SME reviewer deemed this 

critical; above focus group SME 

notes retained.

Know relative risk propensity for specific mine (i.e.,

which are most likely to occur—gas or water 

inundation, fire, explosion.

2

For example, a “gassy mine” or 

other characteristics.

Know desired min/max gas levels (methane, CO, 

oxygen CH4, H2) and how to respond if out of 

acceptable limits.

2

Focus group and external review 

SMEs added “and how to respond if 

out of acceptable limits”.

Read and interpret CO systems (monitors, graphs, 

charts) to assess air quality.

0 -

Recognize the meaning and significance of audio 

and/or visual alarm sensor alerts.

2 -

Understand why false (nuisance) alarms can occur 

(e.g., diesel exhaust).

0 -

Recognize the occurrence of and potential 

significance of a power outage or other interruption 

to operation of fans.

2

Added “or other interruption to 

operation of fans.” Call to ask if fans 

are running.

Judge severity of fire (e.g., based on size, spread, 

and location).

2 -

Know what information is critical and how to 

communicate it to others within the mine or on the 

surface (See Competency A3, below).

2 -

Know to verify and never ignore alarms and alerts. 2

Added based on external SME 

review of draft documents.

Know the chain of command for reporting a mine 

emergency.

2

Item added based on external SME 

review of the draft documents. It 

was also noted this knowledge is 

particularly important for outby 

workers because it is not always 

clear to whom they should report—

and the shift foreman and other 

“bosses” may not be in the direct 

vicinity of the workers.
172

Competency Area A3: Verbal and Nonverbal Communication

Performance Criteria (KSAs) EPL SME Notes

Know what information to gather and prioritize. 2 -

When possible, leaves handwritten notes or uses 

other communications to relay plans for escape.

2

Added based on SME external 

review of draft documents.

Does not remove SCSR mouthpiece to communicate 

unless in fresh air (e.g., from RA) 2

Added based on SME external 

review of draft documents.

Know to call out to confirm whether or not fans are 

running.

2

Added based on SME external 

review of draft documents.

Speak loudly and clearly. 2 -

Communicate plans and next steps. 2 -

Relay and receive updated information to and from 

others within the mine or on the surface, as able.

2

Important to know verbal and 

nonverbal communication 

techniques below.

Repeat information received to confirm reception and 

understanding.

2 -

Confirm information shared has been received and 

understood.

2 -

Know limitations of verbal communications while 

using SCSRs.

2 -

Know not to remove SCSR mouthpiece to speak. 2 -

Use nonverbal communications (e.g. hand, cap lamp 

signals, tapping codes, blinking lights, writing) with 

others in mine.

2

Add tapping codes to nonverbal 

communication description. 

Use nonverbal signals (e.g. mine-specific standard 

tapping codes) from within the mine to communicate 

with others above ground.

2

Combined with nonverbal 

communication above.

Use chalk boards stored with first-aid equipment and 

caches, if available 1

Covered under “Carry or use cached 

writing instruments.”

Carry paper and pen on person. 1

Covered under “Carry or use cached 

writing instruments.”

Use “pulls” on taglines/tetherlines to communicate 

(stop, advance, retreat, help) using standard mine 

rescue lifeline pull sequence.

0

i.e., 1 pull=stop, 2 pulls=advance, 3 

pulls=retreat, 4 pulls=help (SARH).

SME focus group rates this 0. SME 

external reviews of the draft 

documents concur this is not 

applicable to self-escape.
173

Competency Area A4: Using Communication Technology

Performance Criteria (KSAs) EPL SME Notes

Operate all mine phones, radios, texting devices, and 

backup systems.

2 -

Know emergency radio channels. 0 -

Know backup and work-around communication 

options (e.g., direct line of sight option with handheld

radios).

0 -

Understand potential effects of the emergency on 

communications equipment.

1 -

Major Activity B: Wayfinding

Minimum levels of proficiency must be met for the critical KSAs required to maintain situational 

awareness and effective verbal and nonverbal communication to navigate to a location of relative 

safety by knowing how and when to use mine emergency features and apparatus.

Competency Area B1: Maintaining Situational Awareness

Performance Criteria (KSAs) EPL SME Notes

Maintain awareness of own location within the mine 

relative to the event(s).

2 -

Maintain awareness of own position within the mine 

relative to all exits and fresh air.

2 -

Have general knowledge of relative mine elevation 

(e.g., where higher and lower elevation spots are 

located).

1 -

Know general locations of man doors (e.g., every 5th

crosscut).

2

Know mine map symbols! Added 

“general” and made critical based 

on external SME review.

Understand how rate of escape in emergency 

conditions can be reduced below normal walking 

speed and know to pace yourself.

2

Added “and know to pace 

yourself.”

Use handheld multigas detectors to continuously 

assess air quality as position changes.

2 -

Understand impact of gases, fire and smoke on air quality. 2 -

Know roof support plan. 1

0 for self-escape specifically, but 

“good to know” basic knowledge.
174

Performance Criteria (KSAs) EPL SME Notes

Have a basic knowledge of the roof control plan and 

how it might change due to fires, explosions, etc. 2

External SME reviewer of draft 

documents rephrased and rated 

this as critical.

Know if, when, and how to test roof conditions

(if possible) and know where to set roof supports.

1

“Sound” the roof and know what 

the sound means. Added “know 

where to set roof supports.”

Know mine’s ventilation plan and how changing 

conditions can impact airflow and air quality.

1

Combined with other impacts of 

changing conditions; “basics of 

mine ventilation” already 

included.

Know that gas or water inundation can impact 

airflow and air quality. 2

Added based on external SME 

review of draft documents,

Know who carries an anemometer to measure 

velocity and direction of airflow (e.g., foreman, fire 

boss).

1

Added by NIOSH from other 

sources; confirmed as “good to 

know” by SMEs.

Stay current on changes to the mine related to the 

locations of entrances, shafts, and slopes.

2

Added based on external SME 

review of draft documents.

Competency Area B2: Maintaining Verbal and Nonverbal Communication

Performance Criteria (KSAs) EPL SME Notes

Communicate plans and next steps to others within 

escape group and others within the mine.

2

Call out progress, if able (do not 

remove SCSR mouthpiece).

Provide updates on situation, plan, progress, next 

steps, and needs to RP/EGL and/or surface personnel.

2

Use communication technologies 

and techniques, as able.

Receive, acknowledge, and act upon 

RP/EGL/dispatcher guidance, as appropriate.

2 Maintain communication.

Provide updates on own physical condition and that 

of others in the mine.

2 Report injuries.

Communicate changing environmental conditions of 

the mine to RP/EGL and/or surface personnel.

2 -

Know what questions to ask to gather specific details 

about changing conditions within the mine.

2 -

Convince others to use tetherline/tagline. 2 -

Carry or use cached writing instruments. 1 -
175

Competency Area B3: Navigating

Performance Criteria (KSAs) EPL SME Notes

Move as a group; do not split group whenever possible. 2 -

Move to high elevation points during water 

inundation.

1

Should be instinctive, but also 

good to have general idea of 

mine’s higher and lower elevations 

(already included under 

Competency Area B1 above).

Know how to check man doors for heat or 

contamination 2

Added based on external SME 

review

“Go low” in smoke/explosion and debris/difficult 

walking conditions.

2

Especially to don/switch/swap

SCSR.

Travel by foot through mine where roof height is 

low (e.g. duck walking, crawling).

0 Instinctive ability.

If no lifeline, use other tactile wayfinding techniques 

(e.g., rib line, power cables, belt, waterlines, cane or 

stick).

2

Added “belt, waterlines; cane or 

stick”

If no tagline, place hand on shoulder of person 

directly ahead.

2 -

Travel through man doors or regulators, returning 

doors to the position you found them.

2 -

Cross over or under belt at designated crossings. 2 -

Reduce speed or work rate if difficult to breath. 2 -

Locate and use:

✓ SCSRs (Competency C)

✓ Taglines (e.g., everyone on same side)

✓ Escapeways (markers and colors)

✓ Lifelines (tactile symbols)

✓ Firefighting equipment (Competency D1)

✓ Escapeway maps (symbols and how to read)

✓ Refuge alternative

2 -

Know most experienced should lead tethered group 

with the slowest person in the middle of the group.

2 -

Remove/reattach tagline when boarding or 

dismounting vehicles.

X Remove item, add item below.

Whenever possible, remain attached to the 

tagline/tetherline when in smoke or dust. 2

Added by SMEs. Real world 

example of why not to detach, if at 

all possible.
176

Performance Criteria (KSAs) EPL SME Notes

Reestablish proper ventilation using check curtains 

and other available materials.

0

Should be left to those with 

complete knowledge of the 

situation.

Know when all options for escape have been 

exhausted and it is necessary to take refuge as a last 

resort.

2 -

Deploy, configure, and maintain RA following 

manufacturer’s instructions and: 2

Remove “maintain RA” for rankand-file miners.

✓ Know steps to enter RA. 2 -

✓ Know to take extra SCSRs into RA. 2 -

✓ Know backup filtering solutions. 0 -

✓ Know how to check air inside/outside of RA. 2 -

✓ Maintain communication with 

RP/Dispatcher, as possible.

2 -

✓ Conserve resources (e.g., air, food, water, 

light).

2 -

Barricade if RA is not accessible. 2 -

Major Activity C: Using Self-contained Self-rescuers (SCSRs)

Minimum levels of proficiency must be met for the critical KSAs required to effectively use 

SCSRs to maintain access to breathable air. All underground personnel must know when and 

how to don or switch/swap SCSRs as well as how to maintain the units. In order to increase the 

likelihood of proper use of SCSRs during an emergency situation, it is also critical that 

mineworkers know what to expect while using SCSRs.

Competency Area C1: Deciding When to Don or Switch/Swap SCSR

Performance Criteria (KSAs) EPL SME Notes

Know to don SCSR: 2 -

✓ At the first sign of smoke or evidence of fire

or explosion

2

Added “evidence.” External SME 

reviewer added “or explosion”

✓ When multigas detector alarms 2 -

✓ When instructed to do so 2 -

Know the duration of personal SCSR and where 

nearest one-hour units are available.

2 -

Know when to switch/swap SCSRs. 2 -
177

Performance Criteria (KSAs) EPL SME Notes

Know rated duration of all SCSRs in use at the mine. 2 -

Monitor increased breathing resistance or check 

oxygen gauge (if available).

0 Remove. Add item below instead.

Know breathing resistance will occur and it may feel 

as if the unit is not working properly even if it is.

2 Added by focus group SMEs.

Track time passage since SCSR was donned, if possible. 2 -

Competency Area C2: Knowing How to Don or Switch/Swap SCSR

Performance Criteria (KSAs) EPL SME Notes

Perform steps for opening, assembling, and donning 

all SCSR models in use by mine.

2

Added “all SCSR models in use by 

mine” based on SME external 

review of the draft documents.

Know to wear the goggles from SCSR unit to 

protect against absorption of carbon monoxide 

through the tear ducts.

2

Added based on SME external 

review of the draft documents.

Insert mouthpiece and don the noseclips to isolate 

the lungsfirst and then adjust straps to secure the 

unit close to the body.

2 -

Use the manual start-up procedure, if necessary, that 

is applicable to the model.

2 -

Adjust straps so there is no tension or kinking in the 

breathing tube.

2 -

Help others to don SCSRs. 2 -

Know short-term SCSR will last about 10 minutes 

and move to nearest one-hour SCSR.

2 -

Know locations of all SCSR caches. 2 -

Understand that SCSR caches are relocated during 

section equipment moves.

2 -

Help others to switch/swap SCSRs. 2 -

Pick up and carry as many SCSRs as feasible. 2 -

Move outby toward next accessible cache to 

switch/swap SCSRs.

2 -

Know when to switch/swap between SCSRs (based 

on gauge (if available) time, levels of exertion and 

breathing resistance).

2

More detail added by external 

SME review of draft documents.
178

Competency Area C3: Maintaining SCSRs

Performance Criteria (KSAs) EPL SME Notes

Ensure a serviceable21 SCSR is on one’s person or 

within 25 ft of current location at all times. 2

Added “serviceable” footnote and 

added “within 25 feet of current 

location based on external SME 

review of the draft documents.

Inspect unit before each shift, checking case, seals, 

clips, and moisture indicator.

2

Check factory service date. 0

Dates vary based on whether 

SCSR is carried or stored.

Know not to use SCSR for anything it was not 

designed for (e.g., blunt force tool, seat).

2

Know NIOSH approval and do not 

use SCSR for non-approved tasks 

(e.g., blunt force tool, seat).12

Know when to retire SCSR from service. 2

Know when to remove the SCSR 

from service.12

Know SCSR use procedures (e.g., do not take 

mouthpiece out to talk).

2

Some miners are able to talk with 

mouthpiece fully inserted. Could 

be practiced during smoke 

training, etc. Sometimes called 

“grunt lingo” based on SME 

external review of the draft 

documents.

Nonverbally communicate status of own and others’ 

SCSRs to other escape group members.

0

Remove as specific nonverbal

KSA.

Competency Area C4: Knowing What to Expect While Using SCSRs

Performance Criteria (KSAs) EPL SME Notes

Know that mine-ready SCSRs will be more difficult 

to open than those used during training.

2 -

Know that breathing resistance will occur, and it 

may feel as if the unit is not working properly even 

when it is.

2 -

Know that unit can become hot to the touch and 

breathing resistance will increase toward the end of 

rated duration of the SCSR.

2 -

21

“Serviceable” is defined by the manufacturer and may be different for different SCSR models.
179

Performance Criteria (KSAs) EPL SME Notes

Understand how rate of escape can be reduced 

below normal walking speed, due to limited airflow

and to pace yourself.

2 -

Know that verbal communication will be difficult or 

impossible while using SCSRs.

2 -

Understand breathing resistance is greater toward 

the end of the units’ duration/capacity.

-

Know to keep the lungs isolated by never removing 

the nose clips or mouthpiece, even if it is 

uncomfortable or difficult to communicate.

2

Added by external SME review of 

draft documents.

Know that oxygen depletion rates can vary. 2

Added by external SME review of 

draft documents.

Major Activity D: Carrying, Wearing, and Maintaining Other Personal 

Tools and Equipment

Minimum levels of proficiency must be met for the critical KSAs required to carry, wear, and 

properly use essential personal equipment and tools necessary for diagnosis, wayfinding, 

situational awareness, breathable air, communication and tracking.

Competency Area D1: Personal Equipment

Performance Criteria (KSAs) EPL SME Notes

If appropriate, carry or wear the following:

✓ Essential medications

✓ EMS sticker and card with known conditions

✓ Reading glasses

✓ Wristwatch

✓ Lunch and water

✓ Paper and pen*

✓ Extra permissible light*

✓ ...and know how to use: Multigas detector

✓ Handheld radios

✓ Required personal protective equipment

✓ Proximity sensor targets*

2*

Added proximity sensor targets

Added “EMS sticker with card and 

known conditions” by NIOSH 

from other sources; confirmed by 

SMEs.

*All critical except “paper and 

pen” and “extra permissible light”

are “good to have”.

Conduct checks on all personal equipment to assure 

they are working.

2 -
180

Major Activity E: Assisting in Emergency Response

Minimum levels of proficiency in basic emergency response KSAs for rank-and-file miners 

without specialized firefighting or emergency medical training may be required to effectively 

assist with firefighting and/or treating injured miners.

Competency Area E1: Assisting with Firefighting

Performance Criteria (KSAs) EPL SME Notes

Know the location of firefighting equipment at all 

times. 2 -

Assist in monitoring the working condition of 

firefighting equipment and ensures all hoses, 

fittings, and nozzles are the same size and thread.

2

Added based on external SME 

review of draft documents.

Share responsibility with mine management to 

regularly test water supply (i.e. 50 gallons per 

minute and 50 pounds per square inch) throughout 

the mine.

1

Added based on external SME 

review of draft documents.

Visually inspect fire to judge its severity (e.g., based 

on size, spread, and location).

2 -

Know underground coal mine fires can double in 

size every 5 – 10 minutes. 2

Added by NIOSH, confirmed by 

SMEs. 

Knows to seek advice from the EGL, RP, or other 

personnel if unsure whether to stay or fight the fire 2

Added based on external SME 

review of draft documents.

Know firefighting plan. 1 -

Know role in fighting a fire. 1 -

Do not attempt to fight fire while using SCSR. 1 -

Use fire extinguisher. 2 -

Assemble and use fire hoses (e.g., “right to fight”). 2 SMEs added “right to fight.”

Use fog spray at nozzle to push smoke. 2 Critical to know IF fighting fire.

Confirm water source before assembling fire hoses. 2 Critical to know IF fighting fire.

Keep hose between self and rib to reduce tripping 

hazard.

2 Critical to know IF fighting fire.

Understand impact of fire and smoke on air. 1 -

Know when to abandon firefighting efforts and 

begin/resume escape.

2 Critical to know IF fighting fire.
181

Performance Criteria (KSAs) EPL SME Notes

Know where to move based on current location 

relative to fire.

2 -

Know when, where, and how to shut off power. 2 -

Keep mine exit at your back when fighting fire, 

whenever possible.

2

Critical to know IF fighting fire. 

Added “whenever possible.”

Use self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA) with 

full facepiece, if properly trained and available.

2

“If available” is key. Very few 

mines currently have these 

stationed underground, but critical 

for those that do.

Competency Area E2: Assisting with Treating an Injured Miner

Performance Criteria (KSAs) EPL SME Notes

Recognize need to seek medical assistance for self 

or others.

2 -

Locate first-aid equipment (e.g., backboard, 

oxygen).

2 -

Use first-aid equipment. 2 -

Administer basic first aid. 2 -

Check airway, breathing, and circulation (ABCs) 

and administer CPR to injured miner, if needed. 2 -

Know which crew members are emergency medical 

technicians (EMTs) or paramedics.

2 -

Coordinate and communicate with EMT(s) or 

paramedics.

0

This is self-escape leadership 

responsibility.

Know procedures for immobilizing, transferring, 

and moving an injured miner.

1 -

Communicate critical information about own 

physical condition and that of fellow miners to 

others within the mine and on the surface.

2 -

Understand that both asphyxiation and poisoning 

can occur due to poor (noxious versus toxic) air 

quality.

2 -

Consider transferring injured miner to nearest refuge 

alternative for treatment or to wait for additional 

help to arrive. 

2

Added as critical consideration by 

external SME review of the draft 

documents.
182

Major Activity F: Leading, Directing, and Managing

Although there are formal roles for leading, directing, and managing an emergency response, all 

personnel should know how to manage panic, show appropriate deference to those in leadership 

positions, and be as prepared as possible to assume a leadership role in situations where a group 

is without a clear leader.

Competency Area F1: Managing Panic

Performance Criteria (KSAs) EPL SME Notes

Trust your training and rely on procedures you’ve 

learned and the equipment you have.

2 -

Recognize signs of panic in self and others. 1 Breathe deeply, it works.

Speak clearly and confidently when communicating 

with others who are distressed. 2 -

Competency Area F2: Showing Appropriate Deference

Performance Criteria (KSAs) EPL SME Notes

Understand the roles of the EGL and RP and defer 

to them, if appropriate.

2 Remove “understand the roles.” 

Know the strengths, capabilities, and experience of 

fellow crew members (mine rescue team members, 

EMTs, etc.).

0

Necessary for self-escape 

leadership. Too much for rankand-file; added item below.

Know which crewmembers, if any, have specialized 

emergency response training or experience (e.g., 

mine rescue, emergency medical, fire brigade).

1 Added by focus group SMEs.

Know own limitations and capabilities and those of 

others on the team.

2 -

Recognize the need for you or someone else to 

assume leadership role.

2 -
183

Competency Area F3: Assuming or Changing Self-escape Leadership

Performance Criteria (KSAs) EPL SME Notes

Take control of group, if appropriate. 1

Not required, but some 

supplemental leadership training 

for all miners could be useful.

Communicate clearly and confidently. 2 -

Participate in decision-making to defer to emerging 

leader.

2 -

Competency Area F4: Accounting for Personnel

Performance Criteria (KSAs) EPL SME Notes

Have knowledge of all personnel working within or 

near own section or area during shift. 1 -

Know the location and movement of inexperienced 

miners (e.g., “red hats”, “white hats”), if assigned.

2 -

Attempt to gather other individual miners as 

encountered and move as a group.

2 -

If separated from crew and unable to rejoin, attempt 

communication with EGL/Dispatcher/RP or other 

miners.

2

Combine with criticality of staying 

together as a group.

Participate in identification and headcount of miners 

present.

2 -
184

Major Activity G: Post-exit Activities

To effectively engage in emergency response management, it is critical to, upon reaching safety 

outside of the mine, remain calm, gather together, and contribute to critical incident debrief. It is 

critical for mine management to arrange a critical incident stress debrief and important for 

miners to follow up with physical and mental health professionals, as necessary. KSAs added by 

NIOSH researchers for discussions with SMEs are noted.

Competency Area G1: Debriefing

Performance Criteria (KSAs) EPL SME Notes

Communicate critical information about the miners 

still underground (location, headcount, names, 

physical condition, needs).

2 -

Communicate critical information about the 

situation (severity, conditions of mine, affected 

areas, route traveled, conditions of equipment, and 

needs).

2 -

Describes difficulties, barriers, deficiencies in 

information or other resources 2

Added by external SME review of 

draft documents

Competency Area G2: Engaging in Self-care*

Performance Criteria (KSAs) EPL SME Notes

Participate in group critical incident stress debrief. N/A -

Know that not everyone reacts to stress the same 

way.

N/A -

Maintain a healthy diet and get adequate sleep and 

exercise.

N/A -

Share experiences with trusted coworkers, family, 

and friends.

N/A -

Recognize signs of traumatic stress in self and 

others.

N/A -

Know when to seek additional help and support for 

self and others.

N/A -

*Added by NIOSH researchers for discussion with SMEs. Deemed critical for leadership to encourage and/or 

facilitate, and for individual mineworkers to participate in post-escape self-care activities, as needed. Not a critical 

task for inclusion in rank-and-file miner self-escape training.
185

Appendix M: NIOSH Self-escape Training Resources

Nonverbal Communication for Mine Emergencies

A training program that teaches miners a series of nonverbal hand 

signals to use in the event of an emergency. These hand signals can 

be used by miners if they are unable to communicate verbally.

Published 11/2011

https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/mining/works/coversheet461.html

Lifeline Tactile Signal Flashcards

Flashcards for practicing lifeline tactile signals with miners.

Published 08/2011

https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/mining/works/coversheet1826.html

Radio 101: Operating Two-Way Radios Every Day and in Emergencies

A program to train miners in the use of two-way radio communication in 

mines.

Published 08/2011

https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/mining/works/coversheet522.html

When Do You Take Refuge? Decision Making During Mine

Emergency Escape

Training that exposes trainees to the types of decisions that they may 

need to make during a mine emergency escape and stimulate group 

discussion about when and why to use a refuge alternative.

Published 08/2011

https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/mining/works/coversheet1556.html

Man Mountain’s Refuge: Refuge Chamber Training Instructor’s 

Guide and Trainee’s Problem Book

An instructor’s guide for training mine employees on how and when to

use a mine refuge chamber; aids the instructor in reinforcing the critical 

decisions that have to be made during a mining emergency.

Published 07/2011

https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/mining/works/coversheet1679.html

Underground Coal Mine Map Reading Training

Training that includes three components for teaching 

and testing mine map reading skills.

Published 11/2010

https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/mining/works/coversheet1825.html
186

How to Operate a Refuge Chamber: A Quick Start Guide

A template for mine instructors to modify based on the refuge

chambers used at their mine.

Published 10/2010

https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/mining/works/coversheet1695.html

Emergency Escape and Refuge Alternatives

Guidelines to teach miners about emergency 

escape and using refuge alternatives. 

Includes a PowerPoint presentation.

Published 10/2010

https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/mining/works/coversheet366.html

Refuge Chamber Expectations Training

Training to inform miners of what to expect 

psychologically and physically if it becomes 

necessary to use a refuge chamber in a mine 

emergency.

Published 10/2009

https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/mining/works/coversheet455.html

Guidelines for Instructional Materials on Refuge Chamber 

Setup, Use, and Maintenance

Suggestions for developing manuals and educational materials

related to refuge chambers for miners.

Published 07/2009

https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/mining/works/coversheet498.html
187

Escape from Farmington No. 9: An Oral History

A video-based training module to educate both 

inexperienced and veteran miners on important

issues related to self-rescue and escape procedures.

Published 05/2009

https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/mining/works/coversheet1628.html

Harry’s Hard Choices: Mine Refuge Chamber Training

A paper-and-pencil simulation to teach miners about issues 

related to self-rescue and escape, including information 

gathering, knowing one’s escapeways, use of SCSRs, the 

value of multigas detectors, and when to enter a refuge chamber.

Published 03/2009

https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/mining/works/coversheet1838.html
Promoting productive workplaces through safety and health research 

DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 2023-134 (revised 06/2023)

DOI: https://doi.org/10.26616/NIOSHPUB2023134revised062023