Expectations vs. Experience: 


Training Lessons Based Upon Miners' Difficulties 


When Using Emergency Breathing Apparatus 


Charles Vaught, Launa Mallett, Michael Brnich, Jr., and Robert Peters 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Pittsburgh Research Laboratory 


P.O. Box 18070, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15236, USA 


Email: cav9@cdc.gov 


ABSTRACT 

I

nterviews of 48 miners who escaped underground coal mine fires revealed that none of them had ever, 

before that incident, worn their self-contained self-rescuer (SCSR) either in training or in a real 

emergency. Consequently, they were ill-prepared to use this emergency breathing apparatus. One 

persistent problem stemmed from the fact that miners had no notion of breathing resistance, nor of the 

fact that it would get more difficult to breathe the longer they wore their device. As a result, many of those 

who were interviewed had simply removed their mouthpieces and breathed ambient air. This is obviously 

behavior that should be trained out of the workforce. Unfortunately, because of high costs and difficult 

logistics, miner training is unlikely to ever include donning and wearing an apparatus on a regular basis. 

In order to give workers a better idea of what to expect from their devices, therefore, the National 

Institute for Occupational Safety and Health researchers developed a tabletop (paper and pencil) 

simulation based upon actual predicaments evacuees had reported encountering. The simulation is 

designed to emphasize important points related to donning and wearing a self-contained self-rescuer in a 

mine fire escape, and, by doing so, to bring miners' expectations more in line with what their actual 

experiences would be. The simulation was field tested in six training classes at three different mining 

operations. In all, 99 individuals were involved in completing the exercise and rating its properties. In 

their ratings 88% of the respondents indicated they thought the scenario could definitely happen in real 

life, and over 80% agreed they had learned something new. From the field test data it was concluded 

that the simulation had authenticity and potential value as a teaching tool. The simulation was therefore 

used in a pre-testlpost-test control group experiment to determine whether it led to improvements in 

miners' scores on a true-false test of their SCSR's functional capabilities and proper usage. Eighty-three 

miners were included in this part of the study. As expected, miners who had participated in the training 

exercise scored significantly higher on their post-test than miners who had not. 

INTRODUCTION 

When a coal mine fire occurs in the United States, the self-rescue protocol for miners requires them to 

evacuate the workings, if possible. Only as a last resort are the workers to try to barricade. Given 

that a miner would have to travel through an atmosphere that could quickly become toxic or oxygen 

deficient, escape might be impossible unless the individual was able to isolate his or her lungs from 

ambient conditions. 
Federal regulations require that every person who enters an underground coal mine in the US be 

supplied with a self-contained self-rescuer (SCSR; a closed circuit emergency breathing apparatus) 

capable of delivering a one-hour supply of oxygen to the wearer. A training regimen mandated by these 

regulations requires (no more than once annually) performance of "complete donning procedures in which 

each person assumes a donning position, opens the device, activates the device, inserts the mouthpiece 

or simulates this task while explaining proper insertion of the mouthpiece (emphasis added), and 

puts on the nose clip (30 CFR 48.8)." Motor task training research conducted by the US Bureau of Mines 

in the late 1980's has shown that instruction which does not go well above this minimum mandated by law 

is inadequate (Vaught et aI., 1991; Vaught et aI., 1993). 

There are two reasons that cursory training is inappropriate for an oxygen rebreather such as the 

self-contained self-rescuer. First, donning and activating the apparatus requires mastery of a fairly 

complicated motor task. It is the nature of motor tasks that they must be practiced repeatedly in order to 

be learned and remembered (Schmidt, 1988). 30 CFR Part 48 requires neither repeated nor distributed 

practice. Second, effective use of an oxygen rebreather entails a certain familiarity with how the device is 

supposed to work. 

A study of worker response to realistic evacuation training was conducted using nontoxic 

theatrical smoke and training models of an oxygen generating SCSR (Kowalski et al.,1997). In this 

exercise small groups of miners were required to don their SCSRs, enter a smoke filled area, and travel 

approximately 885 feet (270 meters) to an exit door which led to fresh air. After leaving the smoke area 

and removing their SCSRs, trainees completed a one page questionnaire regarding their perceptions of 

the smoke evacuation experience including physical and emotional symptoms they experienced. The 

study suggested some level of previous familiarity with an SCSR resulted in miners experiencing fewer 

physical and emotional symptoms. 

Because training simulators are expensive and difficult to maintain in a hygienic state, however, 

and because an actual $500 SCSR must be refurbished each time it is used, there is little opportunity for 

a miner to acquire this experience first-hand. Nor is there a proven program to deliver at least some of 

the knowledge vicariously. 

The present study is concerned with the second issue mentioned above - a basic lack of 

familiarity with the apparatus, and what might be done about it. The question is not about how best to 

train, since that is known though not practiced, but whether there is some approach between ideal 

training and none at all that could be used to give workers a better idea of what to expect from their 

devices. In order to address this question, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health 

(NIOSH) researchers concentrated upon actual predicaments evacuees have reported encountering over 

the years since SCSRs were introduced. Their purpose was to find a way to bring miners' expectations 

more in line with what their actual experiences would be by emphasizing important points related to 

donning and wearing an SCSR during a mine fire escape. 

THE MINE ESCAPE SETTING 

The workings of underground coal mines are vast, consisting of parallel tunnels called "entries" 

intersected at right angles every hundred feet by tunnels called "crosscuts." In plan view, this 

arrangement assumes a grid pattern for each section of the mine, whose total area may be as extensive 

as that of a large city. The various sections in this city-sized layout connect in such a way as to allow the 

use of mine-wide "systems" which include electrical, haulage, and most important, ventilation. There are 

only a few points of access to the surface, one of which may be dedicated to the routine movement of 

personnel, another used for supplies, and two or three employed for the intake and exhaust of air. 

Mine ventilation is a complex undertaking, because air currents naturally take the path of least 

resistance. In order to get air to flow where it is needed, an operation will use a system of aboveground 

exhausting fans (to create a partial vacuum inside the mine), and a maze of "stoppings" (concrete block 

partitions) that seal crosscuts in order to route air through the entries to a mine's working sections. At 

every section, air is directed across each working face by means of plastic curtains, called "brattices." 
The air current sweeps smoke, dust, and liberated gasses away from the faces and into the mine's 

"return" air courses for its journey to the return air shaft, at which point it is exhausted into the outside 

atmosphere. 

Ventilation, the same system that makes mining possible in the first place, can render an escape 

virtually impossible during a fire. Not only is the ventilation arrangement likely to bring a continuous flow 

of oxygen to the fire site, feeding the fire, it may, if it becomes compromised, carry heavy concentrations 

of toxic smoke and gases into the working sections and into miners' escapeways. Workers are taught 

that escapeways aren't supposed to be contaminated, because the US Code of Federal Regulations 

requires underground operations to maintain separate and distinct passages, ventilated by fresh intake 

air, extending from each working section to the outside. In truth, either direct human action such as a 

worker's failure to close an access door, or environmental factors such as the deterioration of a stopping 

due to heat or pressure, can turn an escapeway into a horizontal chimney. The confusion caused by 

such an unanticipated occurrence then becomes a compounding factor in an already problematic event. 

In order to escape through mine entries that may be smoke-filled, oxygen deficient, and 

contaminated by carbon monoxide, miners have to be able to do two things: First, they must don their 

emergency breathing apparatus correctly in order to isolate their lungs from the ambient atmosphere. 

Second, they must wear and use their device for an extended period of time as they attempt to find their 

way out of the mine. It seems apparent that the greater one's understanding of the situation, and the 

better grasp he or she has of those factors that may arise as predicaments, the better equipped he or she 

will be to deal with the emergency. Since real world events are rare and full scale mock drills are very 

expensive - and hence also rare - expectations have to be forged in a different way. Several 

organizations that must maintain a high level of preparedness for non routine occurrences have used 

simulations in their training programs (Halff, et aI., 1986; Lacefield and Cole, 1986). 

USING A SIMULATION FOR EXPECTATIONS TRAINING 

The authors have long been involved in the construction and field testing of paper-and-pencil 

("tabletop") exercises based upon case studies of actual mine fire escapes. Unlike the case studies 

they are based on, however, these simulations do not present the reader with a seamless narrative about 

the emergency and lessons learned from its resolution. Rather, they require active information seeking 

and problem solving with no foreknowledge about how a particular course of action might turn out (until it 

is chosen). This uncertainty, along with the predicaments engendered by having to make critical choices 

based on incomplete information, have proven effective in the use of simulations to transfer some of the 

cognitive skills miners would need in order to cope with an actual emergency (Cole et aI., 1998). 

To date, exercises developed by the authors have focused on the two large domains of 

emergency decision making and first aid skills. Because of workers' reported problems using their 

SCSRs (Vaught et aI., 2000), however, it was decided to design a simulation entitled "I Can't Get Enough 

Air." This simulation is centered much more upon the mechanics of SCSR usage than upon escape 

behavior itself. The following subsections describe the exercise origin and structure. 

Exercise background: As part of their investigations regarding worker responses to mine fires, 

NIOSH researchers interviewed 48 miners about their escape experiences. Accounts given by these 

workers have been analyzed regarding how SCSRs were used during their escapes. 

In general, workers reported several problems that indicate they weren't adept at donning their 

devices. The problems included difficulty locating the oxygen lever on compressed oxygen SCSRs and 

leaving the mouthpiece plug in place when inserting the mouthpiece. Slightly more than 40% of the 

miners who donned compressed oxygen apparatus said that they blew into the SCSR (to inflate the 

breathing bag) on the first breath. This is not only an incorrect action, but also potentially dangerous. 

Many workers reported difficulty adjusting the neck and waist straps. In sum, more than 40% of all the 

interviewees recounted having trouble of one sort or another when they donned their SCSR. Of these, 

about one half indicated that they needed help from a buddy to get the apparatus on. 
Many miners said they did not immediately don their SCSRs, but "saved" them instead, because: 

1) they had been taught the devices were designed to provide only 60 minutes worth of oxygen; and 2) 

they often did not know where the fire was located and how far they would have to travel to get past it. As 

a result, two-thirds of the workers reported that they traveled barefaced through smoke for 10 minutes on 

average before donning their SCSR, and consequently donned it in smoke. It is interesting to note that 

none of the workers who escaped any of the fires had a CO monitor available. The interviews revealed 

that some did not really understand the dangers that CO can pose. 

Based on their comments, it also appeared that a majority of the workers were unaware there is 

breathing resistance when SCSRs are used and that this resistance increases with the length of time the 

unit is worn and with increased levels of physical exertion. This was because none of them had ever 

worn an SCSR before the fire, either in a training class or in an actual emergency. When breathing 

resistance was encountered, therefore, they tended to think their apparatus was not working properly. In 

some instances, miners' oxygen demands were greater than the SCSR could provide, in which case the 

miner "out breathed" the device. Of the workers interviewed, almost two-thirds reported that, for one 

reason or another, they had trouble breathing from the device. Subsequently, over half of the miners 

indicated that they either took the mouthpiece out to breathe or "breathed around" the mouthpiece while 

in smoke. 

Exercise scenario: The research team wrote a set of performance objectives based on the 

accounts related above: 1) recall and apply basic information about toxic gases and oxygen deficiency; 2) 

recall and apply the sequence of steps for proper SCSR donning; 3) recall and comprehend factual 

knowledge about SCSR operation, as well as its capabilities and limitations; 4) recognize and 

comprehend breathing resistance when it occurs, and its cause; 5) anticipate and predict the point at 

which a device will be used up and a second apparatus must be donned; and 6) order priorities and 

decisions in the face of insufficient oxygen to effect an escape using only one SCSR. These objectives 

were then used in the design of "I Can't Get Enough Air" (Brnich, Vaught, and Calhoun, 1999). The 

scenario is summarized below: 

The trainee is given the role of section foreman on the 17 Left longwall development 

section at the Paula Ann No.3 mine. The section has been driven about 4,000 feet from 

4 West Mains. One of the shuttle car operators has taken a call from the fire boss saying 

that there is smoke from an unknown source coming into the section. The section 

foreman attempts to contact someone to find out where the smoke is coming from but 

gets no response. He assembles the crew and starts riding out of the section on the 

mantrip, when heavy smoke is encountered. At this point, the section foreman decides to 

take his crew and travel on foot in the belt entry that is on a neutral split of air. After 

traveling about six crosscuts in the belt entry, the crew encounters heavy smoke, at 

which time the section foreman and crew don their person-wearable SCSRs (PWSCSR). 

After donning the apparatus, the section foreman and crew continue traveling outby in the 

belt entry. Near the mouth of the section, one miner in the group starts to have trouble 

breathing from his SCSR. Because breathing resistance is increasing with the length of 

time the apparatus is worn, the miner is "out-breathing" the device since his oxygen 

requirements are greater than the PWSCSR can supply. Although the section foreman 

slows down the pace of the crews escape, soon more miners, including the section 

foreman himself, are having trouble breathing. The section foreman must decide when to 

switch to another PWSCSR that was obtained from a cache along the escape route. At 

one point, a miner's PWSCSR is completely used up and the group must then stop and 

change devices. 

As with most tabletop simulations, the story sketched above actually unfolds as a chronological sequence 

of events with choice pOints at which the trainee must decide upon an action(s) from among available 

decision alternatives. 

Mechanically, the simulation has two components. A problem booklet presents background 

information, a statement of the problem, a map of the affected section, and the story with its nine major 

decision points (Question A through Question I) one to a page. At each decision point the trainee is 

presented with a list of five or six plausible actions (some correct, some incorrect) from which to choose. 
The responses are marked (using a developing pen) on a corresponding answer sheet that has been 

printed in invisible ink. As each chosen response is marked, a message appears that contains two types 

of information. First, the trainee is informed whether or not the choice is "correct." Then, whether the 

choice is correct or incorrect, further information is given related to his or her decision. The first problem 

frame is shown in Figure 1. 

Question A 

You and your crew go through the mandoor at #31 crosscut into the belt entry. The air 

is clear and you travel about six crosscuts, at which point you find light smoke. What 

should you do now? (Select as MANY as you think are correct.) 

1. Watch the smoke for a while to see if it subsides. 

2. 	 Tell everyone to don their SCSR now. 

3. 	 Tell everyone to open their SCSR and loop it around their neck, but not to activate 

the apparatus. 

4. 	 Take your crew, lead them back to the section, and go out the return escapeway. 

5. 	 Check the time. 

When you have made your selection(s) do the next question. 

Figure 1. The first frame of the "I Can't Get Enough Air" simulation. 

The trainee, after studying the question and its five alternatives, will turn to 

the answer sheet (Figure 2) and highlight the space between the numbered brackets of his or her choice. 

Question A (Select as MANY as you think are correct.) 

1. 	 [This can be dangerous. You need to act now. 

2. 	 [Correct! You need to get your SCSR on now. 

3. 	 [Although you find light smoke in the belt entry, you don't know what toxic gasses are 

[in the air. You need to use your SCSR now. 

4. 	 [You have already come 15 crosscuts outby the faces. Going back to the section to 

[get into the return escapeway will waste time. 

5. 	 [Correct! Since you will be in smoke, you will need to have some time reference 

Figure 2. Responses for the first frame of the "I Can't Get Enough Air" simulation. 

The response(s) being highlighted will then appear, while the rest remain invisible. As Figure 2 suggests, 

the consequence of selecting any alternative (or the consequence of not selecting a particular alternative) 

becomes known only after the decision has been made. In this manner, miners being trained will work 

through a series of predicaments, making wise or unwise choices at each juncture of the problem, until 

there is a final resolution. 
Whether the resolution is a good one or not depends on the quality of miners' choices as they 

contend, on paper, with heavy smoke, dry throats, mouthpieces that trigger the gag reflex, sweat 

collecting under their goggles, inability to get as much air as they think they need, and general confusion 

about the best way to proceed. It is their decisions vis a vis these conditions that may be evaluated in 

terms of proficiency. 

Evaluating the responses: Each frame of the problem poses a question (decision point) with a 

mix of both correct and incorrect decision alternatives. The trainee's score on a particular question 

reflects either full or partial credit, which is arrived at by combining the number of correct decision 

alternatives selected with the number of incorrect decision alternatives avoided in that frame. The nine 

decision points are equal in weight so that, added together, they can total from zero to 100. The total 

score for a miner may therefore be interpreted as a percent mastery of the content of this exercise. As a 

general rule, skills that are meant to prevent death and injury must not only be learned, but mastered. A 

rule of thumb in setting the level for mastery under such circumstances is that 90% of the trained 

population should exhibit a 90% profiCient performance (Cole, et aI., 1984). 

It is also possible to calculate item scores and mastery levels for each trainee so that one may 

compare individual performances at each choice point. The item scores are very useful for determining 

how individuals with differing levels of training or experience respond to different predicaments - how a 

mine rescue team member might react to increased breathing resistance versus how a rank-and-file 

miner might react, for instance. 

The simUlation was field tested in six training classes at three different mining operations. In all, 

99 individuals were involved in completing the exercise and rating its properties. The miners' average 

age was 43.3 years with a standard deviation of 7.54. They averaged 19.3 years of experience, with a 

standard deviation of 8.49. AII-in-all, the scores are moderately high for the simulation, indicating that this 

highly experienced sample was familiar with emergency breathing devices and how they should be used 

in an escape. Thus, the responses are not distributed normally. However, only 41 % of the trainees 

scored 90% or better. Therefore, in terms of mastery, the scores are skewed but not skewed enough to 

show 90% mastery by 90% of the workers. 

There were too few inexperienced miners to do comparisons by years of experience. There are, 

however, three primary job categories that underground coal miners may be placed into for purposes of 

comparison: 1) miner laborers, who are hourly employees engaged in the mining process; 2) 

maintenance/ technical workers, who perform such jobs as the equipment repair and electrical 

installations that keep the mine operating; and 3) supervisors/managers, who engage in planning 

functions and direct the workforce. In these categories, the sample is not representative of the overall 

population. A representative sample would contain about 50% miner/laborers and about 25% each of 

maintenance/technical workers and supervisors (Cole, 1988). Miner/laborers made up only 21.3% of 

those who field tested the present exercise. By far the largest category consisted of 

maintenance/technical workers (61.8%), while 14.7% were supervisors. 

The significance of such a sample makeup, besides the aforementioned skewing, is that with 

most simulations requiring technical knowledge, those in the maintenance and supervisory categories 

tend to exhibit greater expertise and therefore score higher. Thus, if the sort of technical skills acquired in 

electrical training or engineering courses could be transferred to SCSR usage, the proportion achieving 

mastery scores might be higher for these groups than for rank-and-file workers. To determine if the 

exercise did discriminate among levels of technical expertise, a chi-square test was run on mastery 

scores by job category. Figure 3 suggests little or no difference was found in performance among these 

technical levels. This is borne out by the results shown in Table I. So, traditional technical knowledge 

and skill do not appear to offer any benefit in attempts to master SCSR usage. 
35 

30 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

D No Mastery 

1\1 Mastery 

labor Technical Manager 

Figure 3. level of mastery by job category. 

Table I. Chi-Square Results for level of Mastery by Job Category and Mine Rescue Training 

Job Category Mine Rescue Training 

Statistic Asymptotic 

Significance 

level 

(2-sided) 

Degree 

of 

Freedom 

Asymptotic 

Significance 

level 

(2-sided) 

Degree 

of 

Freedom 

Value Value 

Pearson Chi-Square 0.614 2 0.736 4.787 1 0.029 

Likelihood Ratio 0.610 2 0.737 4.861 0.027 

Linear-by-Linear 

Association 0.228 1 0.633 4.733 0.030 

N of Valid Cases 86 89 

It was when the sample was broken out by whether or not the respondents had ever had mine 

rescue training or experience that clear differences emerged in terms of performance on the simulation 

(see Figure 4). Here, even though the apparatuses are different and the protocols are very dissimilar, 

expertise in the mine rescue domain seems to have helped trainees in dealing with some of the 

predicaments from the self-rescue problem. The chi-square results for this breakdown (Table I) indicate a 

significant (.029) difference between the two categories. 
30 

25 

20 

15 o No Mastery 

~Mastery 

10 

5 

0-1""""---­

No Training Training 


Figure 4. Level of mastery by mine rescue training. 

Given that table top simulations are paper and pencil teaching tools, and self-contained selfrescuers are hardware, how can table top simulations be used to give a trainee a better idea of what to 

expect from his or her apparatus in an emergency? Such tools can be useful because individuals 

working the simulation receive feedback about what impact their chosen alternative may have upon the 

situation; whether to don the SCSR immediately or "save" it for instance. Thus, the exercise teaches by 

reinforcing good decisions, concepts, and strategies, while providing a basis for the remediation of 

incorrect thinking. There are also accompanying study notes which, upon review and discussion 

following problem administration, further elaborate the strategies and information that are exercise 

objectives. The notes help to situate this information in the specific experience of those individuals who 

work the simulation. In this sense, instructional simulations have an interesting advantage over 

participation even in actual emergencies. They can provide a trainee with an overall perspective on the 

interactions among personnel, equipment, and physical factors, while revealing both the predictable and 

unpredictable events that are always part of an emergency. This type of overall comprehension of the 

"problem space" is thought to result in greater wisdom on the part of the participant. In aviation circles, 

table top simulations are used to teach what is often referred to as "air wise ness" with good results 

(Flathers, et aI., 1982; Giffin and Rockwell, 1984). The "I Can't Get Enough Air" simulation was intended 

to teach "SCSR wiseness." 

The fact trainees felt they had gained some "SCSR wiseness" is shown by their responses to 

questions regarding the exercise validity and quality (Table II). Each person who completed the 

simulation filled out an instrument with 10 items that had them rate the exercise in terms of its authenticity 

and value as a teaching tool. Given the experience level of this sample, it is not too surprising that 88% 

of them thought the scenario could definitely happen in real life. It is highly gratifying, therefore, that 65% 

of them definitely agreed the exercise would help them remember important things, and 47% definitely 

agreed they had learned something new. As Table II shows, there were almost no negative responses, 

either to the exercise's authenticity or its functionality as reflected in the final seven items. 

1 
Table II. Miners' Rating of Exercise Validity and Quality (Frequency %) 

Statistic 

Likert Rating Scale 

Mean

(n=93) Definitely SD

yes 

4 3 2 

Definitely 

no 

1 

Exercise is realistic and 

authentic 88.2 9.7 2.2 0.0 3.86 0.41 

Helped me remember 

important things 64.5 34.4 1.1 0.0 3.63 0.51 

Learned something new 46.7 37.0 16.3 0.0 3.30 0.74 

Exercise too long 1.1 4.3 14.0 80.6 1.26 0.59 

Liked working exercise 68.8 29.0 2.2 0.0 3.67 0.52 

Instructor's directions clear 88.2 11.8 0.0 0.0 3.88 0.33 

Written directions clear 74.2 23.7 2.2 0.0 3.72 0.50 

Graphics easy to understand 68.8 26.9 4.3 0.0 3.65 0.56 

Scoring easy to understand 67.7 23.7 6.5 2.2 3.57 0.71 

Exercise easy to read 83.9 16.1 0.0 0.0 3.84 0.37 

Does participation in the training exercise increase miners' knowledge of SCSRs? 

Two versions of a 25 item true-false test were developed to assess trainees' knowledge of their SCSR's 

functional capabilities and proper procedures for use. Although the 25 questions were exactly the same in 

the two versions of the true-false tests, the order in which the questions were presented was different. 

The "I Can't Get Enough Air" training exercise was administered to two groups of experienced coal 

miners as part of their annual mine safety and health training class. One group served as the 

experimental group. They were given the first version of the true-false test, then they participated in the "I 

Can't Get Enough Air" training exercise, then they completed the second version of the true-false test. 

The second group of miners served as the control group. They were given version 1 of the true-false test, 

then after a two minute break, they took version 2 of the true-false test. Finally, they participated in the "I 

Can't Get Enough Air" training exercise. 

The hypotheses are as follows: 1) The mean of the experimental group's version 2 (post-training) 

scores will be significantly higher than the mean of their version 1 (pre-training) scores; and 2) the mean 

gain in the experimental group's scores will be significantly higher than the mean gain in the control 

group's scores. 

Table III shows the means and standard deviations for the experimental and control groups' 

scores on versions 1 and 2 of the test. Using a paired one-tailed t test, it was found that the mean of the 

experimental group's post-training scores was significantly higher than the mean of their pre-training 

scores (t =4.626, P < .001). This strongly supports the first hypothesis. 
In order to test hypothesis 2, a difference score for each participant was computed by subtracting 

the pre-training score from his or her post-training score. An independent samples one-tailed t test was 

performed to determine whether the mean of the difference scores for the experimental group was higher 

than the mean of the difference scores for the control group. The computed statistics are reported in 

Table III. 

Table III. Summary of Test Scores on Versions 1 and 2 of the True-False Test by Test Group 

Test Group Number of 

Miners 

Version 1 Test 

Scores 

Mean (SO) 

Version 2 Test 

Scores 

Mean (SO) 

19.68 (1.84) 

Increase in 

Test Score 

Mean (SO) 

1.52(2.18) 

t-value 

Experimental 44 18.16 (2.20) 3.65* 

Control 39 18.26 (2.07) 18.10 (2.20) -0.15(1.98) 

* P < 0.001 

As expected, the mean gain in number of questions correctly answered by the experimental 

group (1.523) was significantly greater than the corresponding mean value for the control group (-0.154). 

This difference was highly significant (t =3.65, P < 0.001). These results strongly suggest that the "I Can't 

Get Enough Air" training exercise helps to increase miners' knowledge of their SCSR breathing 

apparatus. 

CONCLUSIONS 

The "I Can't Get Enough Air" simulation was designed to let miners experience vicariously the problems 

that can arise from not knowing when and how to don their SCSR, what to do when breathing 

resistance increases, and how to know when the device is completely exhausted. It was thought 

embedding these issues in a problem-solving simulation would have a greater impact on workers than the 

rule-bound instruction they are usually given in training class along with their donning practice. That is 

because rule-bound instruction is passive and largely context free. On the other hand, simulations 

require a person to actively seek information and make judgments about what he or she has discovered. 

Therefore, "[t]o the extent that such simulations accurately reflect the dilemmas and decisions 

encountered in actual fires [and the "I Can't Get Enough Air" scenario is derived directly from real 

incidents], they provide better training for these non routine events than does the more traditional method 

of teaching facts, escape algorithms, and post-hoc analysis of case studies (Cole et aI., 1998:161)." And, 

while there is no substitute for actual practice with an actual device, the vast majority of subjects thought 

the exercise scenario was realistic and over 80% reported learning something new. Finally, miners' 

perceptions that learning had taken place were supported by the results of the pre-testJpost-test control 

group experiment. 
REFERENCES 


Brnich MJ, Vaught C, & Calhoun R. (1999) I can't get enough air! Proper self-contained self-rescuer 

usage. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 

Cole H, Vaught C, Wiehagen WJ, Haley JV, & Brnich MJ, Jr. (1998) Decision making during a simulated 

mine fire escape. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 45(2), 153-162. 

Cole HP, Moss J, Gohs FX, Lacefield WE, Barfield BJ, & Blythe DK. (1984) Measuring learning in 

continuing education for engineers and scientists. Phoenix: Oryx Press. 

Flathers GW, Jr., Giffin WC, & Rockwell TH. (1982) A study of decision making behavior of pilots 

deviating from a planned flight. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine, 53(10), 958-963. 

Fotta B, Bockosh G, (2000) The aging workforce: An emerging issue in the mining industry. In 

Proceedings of the 31 st Annual Mining Safety, Health and Research Conference. Virginia Tech, 

August. Blacksburg, VA. 

Giffin WC, & Rockwell TH. (1984) Computer-aided testing of pilot response to critical in-flight events. 

Human Factors, 26(5), 579-581. 

Halff HM, Holland JD, & Hutchins EL. (1986) Cognitive science and military training. American 

Psychologist, 41(10),1131-1139. 

Kowalski KM, Vaught C, Mallett L, & Brnich MJ. (1997) Worker responses to realistic evacuation training. 

In: Proceedings of The International Emergency Management and Engineering Society Conference 

(TIEMES (97), June 10-13, 1997, pp. 52-56. 

Lacefield WE, & Cole HP. (1986) Principles and techniques for evaluating continuing education programs. 

The Military Engineer, 78(511), 594-600. 

Schmidt RA. (1988) Motor control and learning: A behavioral emphasis. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics 

Publishers, Inc. 

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

(2000) Behavioral and organizational dimensions of underground mine fires. Washington, D.C.: U.S. 

Department of Health and Human Services, NIOSH IC 9450. 

Vaught C, Brnich MJ Jr., Wiehagen WJ, Cole H.P, & Kellner HJ. (1993) An overview of research on selfcontained self-rescuer training. Washington, D.C.: United States Department of the Interior, Bureau 

of Mines Bulletin 695. 

Vaught C, Wiehagen WJ, & Brnich MJ Jr. (1991) Self-contained self-rescuer donning proficiency at eight 

eastern underground coal mines. Washington, D.C.: United States Department of the Interior, 

Bureau of Mines Report of Investigation 9383.