CONTENTS

Page

Abstract o.oo eee e nent teen eee eee eee 1
Introduction ...... 2
Research problem 2
Method «2.2.2.0... cece ete eee nent t teens 3
Analysis ... 4
Discussion 7

ILLUSTRATIONS

1. Evaluation form used in teaching and assessing 3+3 donning method ..............000000000 ee 5
2. Donning proficiency for individuals trained and evaluated on different units .. . 6

3. Data for critical donning task times and total performance times for subjects trained and evaluated on
different units ©... 0.2.1.2 cece tee eee eens 6


Evaluation for

Date

Serial Number Mine

Trial #

Tape (Y or N)

Type of Unit

1. Connect the dots in the diagram below to show the steps the trainee took in donning the SCSR.
If a step was started but not finished, dip the line toward the step. Do not touch the dot if the

step was not completed or was done incorrectly.

Total Time (Secs)

Oxygen
e
Start
Hat On
ci)
Loop
Swaps °
°
Goggles

° Mouthpiece

° Noseclips

Part Time (Secs)

2. After the task is completed, please list any errors that need to be corrected and then review these

errors with the trainee.

Figure 1.—Evaluation form used in teaching and assessing 3+3 donning method.

wv



INTRODUCTION

Because of interest shown by the Mine Safety and
Health Administration and much of the coal industry, the
USS. Bureau of Mines, in 1986, awarded a research con-
tract to CSE Corp. to develop a prototype Person-
Wearable Self-Contained Self-Rescuer (PWSCSR). This
apparatus, unlike the larger SCSR’s that have been
deployed since 1981, is intended to be worn on the miner’s
belt while he or she performs normal duties. Since the
device complies with 30 CFR 11 approval and certification
standards, and has been designated a 60-minute-duration
SCSR, it can be deployed without any modification of
existing regulations.

The PWSCSR is most likely to be phased in gradually,
replacing first-generation apparatus as they are taken out
of service, or substituting for the filter self-rescuer (FSR)
on the worker’s belt while SCSR’s remain cached under
the mine’s storage plan. The new device will perhaps be
issued initially to occupational categories such as mine
examiners, roving mechanics, and others who must travel
about the mine, but it will eventually be deployed at the
face. Under almost any scenario, there will soon be a mix
of SCSR’s at many mine sites, and they will probably not
be strictly segregated. The problem then becomes one of
how to achieve and maintain donning proficiency when the
worker may have access to either of two different types of
apparatus.

Prior research has established that the Bureau’s "3+3"
method is as effective for the PWSCSR as it has been for
other types of apparatus.‘ This finding is not surprising
considering the following two facts: First, the procedure
offers a logical ordering of subtasks that places priority on
assuming a workable position and getting one’s lungs

isolated. Second, the 3+3 method is generic and has
already been validated on very different SCSR’s. The
present hypothesis, however, is that individuals who have
used the 3+3 to master one device might still experience
trouble when confronted with another type of device. This
hypothesis was based on existing research that indicates
"..the amount of transfer seems to be quite small and
positive unless the tasks are practically identical..." in which
case, and under the right conditions, *...negative transfer
can be produced..."

There is evidence, then, that once a person has learned
to do a task, he or she will be able to transfer a small
degree of this learning to similar tasks. Under certain
circumstances, however, subtle differences in procedure
can create cognitive confusion.’ There are some inter-
esting implications in both of these observations as they
apply to SCSR training. First, to achieve proficiency in
SCSR donning, there must be a substantial front-end
investment of both time and effort on the part of trainers
and trainees alike. When the necessity of training people
on two apparatus is factored in, this time cost increases
significantly, especially if there is little or no task transfer.
Second, if there is actually negative transfer, with practice
on one device tending to create confusion when the
individual is confronted with another type of apparatus,
ways must be found to ensure proficiency on both SCSR’s.
In a mine fire or explosion, a trainer undoubtedly wants no
confused workers, and many people who are competent in
donning and using the device.

This work was conducted in support of a Bureau
research project for teaching and measuring self-rescue
and escape skills.

RESEARCH PROBLEM

Based on findings from a task analysis of the PWSCSR,
an instructor’s manual and evaluation form were prepared
for field testing. This package presents a generic pro-
cedure for the PWSCSR that is exactly like the 3+3
method developed for the four types of SCSR in common
use (manufactured by CSE Corp.; Draegerwerk AG
(Draeger); Mine Safety Appliances Co., Inc. (MSA); and
Ocenco, Inc.).’ The procedure offers the following: (1) a
donning position (kneeling) that is easy and efficient, (2) a

‘Vaught, C., and M. J. Brnich, Jr, Memory Aid Enhances Person-
Wearable SCSR Donning Proficiency. BuMines Technol. News 374,
1991, 2 pp.

donning sequence that moves critical steps (those tasks
necessary to isolate one’s lungs) ahead of the others, and
(3) a set of “chunked" procedural rules that facilitate easy
retention. The present study focuses upon the extent to
which the 3+3 task, once learned, will transfer between
one first-generation apparatus (the Draeger OXY-SR60B)
and the CSE SR-100 PWSCSR.

‘Schmidt, R. Motor Control and Learning. Human Kinetics Publ.,
1988, p. 407.

Work cited in footnote 5.

* The instructional package for first-generation SCSR’s is available
through the National Mine Health and Safety Academy.


TRANSFER OF SELF-CONTAINED SELF-RESCUER DONNING SKILLS
UNDER SIMILAR CONDITIONS OF PRACTICE: THE DRAEGER
OXY-SR60B AND THE CSE SR-100

By M. J. Brnich,’ C. Vaught,? and W. J. Wiehagen®

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this U.S. Bureau of Mines study was to assess the ability of trainees to don an
unfamiliar self-contained self-rescuer (SCSR) after having become familiar with how to put on a dif-
ferent type of apparatus. Prepractice instruction was the same for all individuals learning to put on
a device: a step-by-step, hands-on talk-through using the "3+3" method. Subjects were assigned to
groups that had their initial donning instruction delivered on either the Draeger OXY-SR60B or the
CSE SR-100. Trainees’ performances were then evaluated using the other model. Donning trials were
analyzed using a number of measures. It was found that SCSR design had a moderate influence upon
how well the donning task transferred.

\Mining engineer.

2Research sociologist.

3Supervisory industrial engineer.

Pittsburgh Research Center, U.S. Bureau of Mines, Pittsburgh, PA.


than 90% in hundreds of trials, is intended to show
sequencing errors and actions that are done incorrectly
(fig. 1). A helper recorded times for both the critical
actions and the secondary actions. At the end of the trial,
if an error had been made, the instructor pointed it out
and explained how to do that particular step correctly.
There were two means of evaluating the performance
trials that are used here. Taken together, they provide a
good assessment of the effectiveness of each person’s

donning attempts. First, it was possible to record both the
number and types of errors committed. This includes
sequencing errors, omissions, and incorrect execution of
particular steps. Second, there were two measures of
time: the number of seconds a subject required to isolate
his or her lungs, and the amount of time he or she took to
complete the entire procedural task. Results are discussed
below.

ANALYSIS

In order to begin an exploration of the results, subjects’
performances on the trials following instruction were
divided into two categories: (1) not proficient—those who
did not get their lungs isolated from the ambient atmos-
phere, or those who succeeded in getting their lungs iso-
lated but did not secure the apparatus well enough to
allow them to escape, or those who isolated their lungs
but secured the apparatus in such a fashion that it would
have allowed escape only under favorable conditions—and
(2) proficient—those whose performance, although not
perfect, made them escape ready, or those who had a
perfect 3+3 sequence on the first trial. Figure 2 contains
pie charts that present the observed performances for
those evaluated on an apparatus different than the one
they had just been trained on (Draeger or PWSCSR).
These charts may be compared with that of the control
group, who were not recently trained but evaluated with
the device they had last attempted to don a year before.

It is instructive to examine the areas in the charts.
Essentially, there was a greater proportion of proficient
sequences for those trained on the PWSCSR but evaluated
on the Draeger than was found among the control group.
Conversely, there was a smaller proportion of proficient
sequences for those trained on the Draeger but evaluated
on the PWSCSR than had been exhibited by the control
group. The chi-square (X”) value is given below the pie
charts.

A second measure of performance immediately follow-
ing treatment is the amount of time it takes individuals to
get the apparatus on. The most important, or “critical,”
steps are those that are necessary to isolate one’s lungs
from the ambient atmosphere. The lower graphics in fig-
ure 3 provide information about how quickly these critical
steps were performed by those who were able to do them
on the first trial, As can be seen, those trained on the
Draeger required approximately 9 seconds (s) longer (on
average) to get their lungs isolated with the PWSCSR than

did those trained on the PWSCSR and evaluated with the
Draeger.

The upper graphics in figure 3 present information
about total times (the number of seconds trainees required
to finish the donning procedure, regardless of whether they
completed all the steps). It is interesting to note that for
total times, the mean for those trained on the PWSCSR
but evaluated on the Draeger is slightly greater than the
mean for those trained on the Draeger but evaluated on
the PWSCSR (77 s versus 71 s). Another interesting part
of this graphic can be seen when the standard deviations
about the two total means (depicted by the shaded
rectangular areas) are compared. A likely explanation for
these observations is that most of those trained on the
PWSCSR were actually able to don the Draeger, although
some confused the sequence and consequently wasted
time. Individuals trained on the Draeger, however, were
simply not able to put on the PWSCSR and subsequently
stopped short of completing the task.

A third measure of performance is errors. Figure 4
provides an accounting of errors made on each task by
apparatus used. An examination of the figure shows that
the areas where people seemed to have the most trouble
were in activating the oxygen, inserting the mouthpiece,
donning the goggles, and adjusting the straps. These omis-
sions are relatively serious, and would impair a person’s
ability to escape. In each category, there were more
errors committed by people who had been trained on the
Draeger but who were donning the PWSCSR than by
other groups. As a matter of fact, at least some of those
trained on the Draeger who then attempted to don the
PWSCSR had problems with each step in the donning
task, except remembering to replace their hard hats.
Achieving adequate strap adjustment was problematic for
both groups, but especially for those trained on the
Draeger and evaluated on the PWSCSR. Actually, this
subtask did not tend to transfer well in either direction.


RI] 9435 REPORT OF INVESTIGATIONS /1992

Transfer of Self-Contained Self-Rescuer
Donning Skills Under Similar Conditions
of Practice: The Draeger OXY-SR60B
and the CSE SR-100

By M. J. Brnich, C. Vaught, and W. J. Wiehagen

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

BUREAU OF MINES


DISCUSSION

This report has addressed an important problem related
to the anticipated deployment of new PWSCSR’s—even
when the training method is the same for all apparatus.
This issue involves task transfer, or what happens when
individuals taught to don one device attempt to put on
another type of apparatus. If, as common sense would
indicate, there are differences in the degree of difficulty
each SCSR confronts the individual with, then it might be
expected that the task of putting on an apparatus would

transfer better in one direction than in the other. Par-
ticular attention should be paid to achieving and main-
taining proficiency on the device people have the most
trouble learning. While this does not obviate the need to
give thorough hands-on training with each type of SCSR,
it presents a cautionary note to instructors who are in the
process of introducing new apparatus. This introduction
must not be done casually.

INT.BU.OF MINES,PGH.,PA 29645

*USGPO: 1992—709-008/60080


Trained on Oraeger,
evoluated on PWSCSR

Trained on PWSCSR,
evaluated on Draeger

KEY

Proficient

Contro! group Not proficient

Figure 2.—Donning proficiency for Individuals trained and
evaluated on different units. Pearson chi-square = 5.42;

P = 0.067.

TRAINEES, pct

100

80

(2)
°

+
°

N
°

KEY

YZ Total pertormonce time
[=~] Critical task donning time

100 ~ 1
80 yy 4
“ 4
= 60 4
a 4
40 4
er aoe] 4
_ BS, ES
evaluated on PWSEER COMO! GTOUP Trelneted an Droeger
TREATMENT

Figure 3.—Data for critical donning task times and total per-
formance times for subjects trained and evaluated on different
units.

KEY

Trained on Draeger, evaluated on PWSCSR

Control group

Trained on PWSCSR, evaluated on Draeger

wy

Mouthpiece

Noseclips Goggles Straps Hot

TASK

jure 4.—Percent of trainees performing donning steps correctly.


METHOD

Three random samples, totaling 41 workers, were in-
volved in this study. All these individuals had, since 1986,
been trained annually on the Draeger. Their last retrain-
ing had been conducted approximately 1 year before the
present experiment. Fifteen workers were chosen to con-
stitute a control group. The others were cither retrained
to don the Draeger or taught to don the PWSCSR.

The actual training scheme involved having cach subject
put on the device as if he or she were trying to escape a
fire or explosion. There are several discrete steps in this
activity, and as might be inferred, it comprises a number
of possible procedural sequences with an extensive motor
component. Although there are necessary conditions for
beginning certain steps, each step in any possible sequence
is relatively simple from the standpoint that it does not
have to mesh with other steps in order to be completed.
The task itself is potentially confusing, however, because
there are several sequences in which the complete proce-
dure could be done. Nevertheless, as was stated earlier,
there is a sequence that is most logical. For the present
research the task was made exacting by the fact it had to
be performed without prompting, in the sequence that
prior analysis had determined to be most efficient, and
within a reasonable timeframe.

The 3+3 donning method taught to the trainees con-
tains a chunked sequence of actions that imposes a uni-
form structure upon the variable discrete steps that, when
combined, make up a particular action (depending upon
the SCSR model being donned). For example, to fully
“activate oxygen" on the Draeger, one is required to (1) lift
the opening lever, (2) remove the metal closing clamp,
(3) grasp the lid and pull until the split pin is out of the
chlorate starter, (4) insert the mouthpiece, and (5) exhale
into the breathing bag to activate the bed of potassium
superoxide. To fully “activate oxygen" on the PWSCSR,
a person would (1) flip up the latching mechanism,
(2) release the latching bands, (3) open the case by
removing the top and bottom lids, (4) activate the oxygen
cylinder by pulling a lanyard down and out to the front
away from his or her body, and (5) breath normally into
the breathing bag in order to start the bed of potassium
superoxide. The structure that the generic method
imposes upon the donning task not only presents the
chunked actions in a logical sequence, but also constrains
the discrete tasks to be performed in a consistent order.

The core of information delivered to trainees learning
the 3+3 method provides a two-stage approach to the
donning task. First, it presents an efficient position and
orientation of the apparatus designed to make the chunked
sequence possible. Directions for the first stage are as
follows: (1) Kneel. Place the SCSR on the floor in front
of you; lay your miner’s cap on the floor and shine the

lamp on the SCSR; work with both hands. (2) Loop.
Quickly loop the neckstrap over your head in order to
position it and the case; leave the strap loose so you will
have room to work; now you are ready to begin the 3+3
donning procedure. Directions for the second stage divide
the chunked sequence into the three critical actions neces-
sary to isolate one’s lungs, and the three secondary actions
needed to prepare an individual to escape: (1) activate
the oxygen, (2) insert the mouthpiece, (3) put on the
noseclips, then (4) put on the goggles, (5) adjust straps,
and (6) replace miner’s cap. The mode for transmitting
this message, as well as the content, remained constant
throughout the course of this study.

Hands-on prepractice is a treatment that allows the
trainee to have hands-on involvement during the initial
instructions. Typically, subjects are brought one at a time
into the area where the instruction is to be given. After
placing a training apparatus on the floor in front of the
subject, a Bureau trainer guides the individual step by step
through the entire donning procedure. Unlike treatments
that require little active participation on the part of the
trainee, this mode of prepractice instruction requires the
miner to perform each step of the procedure slowly,
methodically, and correctly. In addition, feedback is given
at the conclusion of the instruction, and the correct steps
are reiterated.

Immediately following prepractice instruction, the
subjects were required to practice until they had reached
the criterion goal of being able to perform a perfect
sequence. They were then given a donning trial, using not
the apparatus they had just been trained on, but the other
type of device. There are, therefore, two treatments
included in this assessment. Treatment 1 consisted of
training a sample of subjects on the PWSCSR and, once
they had demonstrated competence on this device, having
them don the Draeger. Treatment 2 had individuals
trained to criterion with the Draeger undergo an evalua-
tion on the PWSCSR. For purposes of the present study,
these performances would permit researchers to assess
certain aspects of both positive and negative task transfer
as individuals changed from one apparatus to another.

Prior to each donning trial the individual was equipped
with a miner’s belt, cap, and cap lamp. An SCSR was
placed on the floor in front of the subject. The trainee
was requested to await a signal from the trainer, and at
this signal to put the SCSR on as if he or she were in an
actual mine emergency. No questions were answered or
information given at this stage of the process. During the
donning trial, which was performed with no prompts, the
trainer evaluated the subject’s proficiency by means of a
specially designed connect-the-dots evaluation form. This
form, which has exhibited inter-rater agreement of more


Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data:

Brnich, Michael J.

Transfer of self-contained self-rescuer donning skills under similar conditions
of practice : the Draeger OXY-SR60B and the CSE SR-100 / by MJ. Brnich,
C. Vaught, and W.J. Wichagen.

p. cm. — (Report of investigations; 9435)

Includes bibliographical references.

Supt. of Does. no.: I 28.23:9435.

1. Self-contained self-rescuer (Mine rescue equipment). 2. Coal miners—Rating

of. 3. Transfer of training. I. Vaught, C. Il. Wiehagen, William J. III. Title.
IV. Series: Report of investigations (United States. Bureau of Mines); 9435.

TN23.U43  [TN297] 622 s—dc20 —[622’.89]  92-24329 CIP



Report of Investigations 9435

Transfer of Self-Contained Self-Rescuer
Donning Skills Under Similar Conditions
of Practice: The Draeger OXY-SR60B
and the CSE SR-100

By M. J. Brnich, C. Vaught, and W. J. Wiehagen

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Manuel Lujan, Jr., Secretary

BUREAU OF MINES
T S Ary, Director


Mission: As the Nation's principal conservation
agency, the Department of the Interior has respon-
sibility for most of our natronally-owned public
lands and natural and cultural resources. This
includes fostering wise use of our land and water
resources, protecting our fish and wildlife, pre-
serving the environmental and cultural values of
our national parks and historical places, and pro-
viding for the enjoyment of life through outdoor
recreation. The Department assesses our energy
and mineral resources and works to assure that
their development is in the best interests of all
our people. The Department also promotes the
goals of the Take Pride in America campaign by
encouraging stewardship and citizen responsibil-
ity for the public lands and promoting citizen par-
ticipation in their care. The Department also has
a major responsibility for American Indian reser-
vation communities and for people who live in
Island Territories under U.S. Administration.


U.S. Department of the Interior
Bureau of Mines

810 7th Street, N.W., MS #9800
Washington, D.C. 20241-0001

OFFICIAL BUSINESS
PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE-$300

AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER