MINE EMERGENCY RESPONSE COMMAND CENTER TRAINING 

USING COMPUTER SIMULATION 

Michael J. Brnich, Jr., CMSP, Launa G. Mallett, Ph.D., 

Dana Reinke, and Charles Vaught, Ph.D., CMSP 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health 

Pittsburgh Research Laboratory 

Pittsburgh, PA 

ABSTRACT 

 As mines become safer and major disasters 

fewer, the number of experienced emergency 

responders is decreasing. This decrease will 

create a gap in response expertise which could 

have serious ramifications during future mine 

disasters. While working toward safety goals 

which may make emergency response obsolete, 

it would be reckless not to acknowledge that the 

potential for disaster still exists and that the 

protection of miners in such circumstances must 

remain a priority. The Mine Emergency 

Response Interactive Training Simulation 

(MERITS) is a computerized mine emergency 

simulation that meets a variety of needs. It 

allows personnel in leadership positions to test 

their knowledge and skill. Groups of individuals 

composed of representatives from mining 

companies, labor, and government agencies can 

practice working together during the simulated 

mine emergency much in the same way an actual 

emergency would require. An individual could 

also run the program to enhance his or her 

response skills. With this training tool, 

responders will be able to learn from their 

mistakes before facing situations with potentially 

catastrophic consequences. This paper discusses 

MERITS and its use in providing command 

center training. 

INTRODUCTION 

 When the World Trade Center Towers were 

destroyed on September 11, 2001, the need for 

emergency response readiness was tragically 

brought to everyone’s attention. Less than two 

weeks later, on September 23, the mining 

industry was dealt a blow when thirteen miners 

died in an explosion at an underground coal mine 

in Alabama. These experiences show that while 

working toward prevention of catastrophic 

events is important, we must also prepare to 

respond when the unthinkable happens. 

 Major mine emergencies have become 

relatively rare events in the United States and 

there has been a corresponding decrease in the 

number of people who have hands-on response 

experience. This gap in expertise could have 

serious consequences during future responses. 

Managers who are responsible for day-to-day 

operations may suddenly be called upon to act as 

command center leaders with little or no 

previous experience in that role. Their lack of 

knowledge and skills could put in danger the 
workers who were present when the emergency 

occurred and also those called upon to respond. 

The goal of MERITS is to better prepare 

managers and government and labor 

representatives for mine emergency response 

leadership roles. This paper: 1) presents the 

rationale for development of MERITS, 2) 

discusses how the simulation differs from other 

computer-based training, 3) illustrates basic 

components of the interface, and 4) presents 

results from field tests of the exercise. 

BACKGROUND 

 In the early 1990's, researchers from the 

former Bureau of Mines conducted extensive 

interviews with 30 individuals who were 

nationally recognized experts in the area of 

emergency response. These experts were asked 

how they would train future mine emergency 

responders (Brnich, Mallett, and Vaught 1997a, 

1997b). While responses provided by 

interviewees varied, nine of them believed that 

some form of interactive simulated response 

training would be the best way to train 

responders. Three methods of simulation were 

discussed: mock disasters, MERD exercises, and 

tabletop exercises. Nine veterans also suggested 

that future responders be trained in mine 

emergency response planning. 

 Ten veterans talked about the need to 

adequately train mine or corporate management 

personnel in emergency response procedures. As 

one interviewee indicated, managers will be the 

ones who will be playing major roles in the 

decision making process at the command center. 

In addition to training management, five veteran 

responders said that enforcement personnel 

should be thoroughly trained in emergency 

response. As mentioned by one interviewee, 

more and improved training for these individuals 

will enhance their ability to respond to a mine 

emergency when it occurs. 

 Why is the issue of training future mine 

emergency responders so important? The 

answer to this question can be found in one 

veteran’s comment: 

... a lot of people’s come and gone since 

1969. And we’re having less problems. 

So, in the next 10 to 15 years, there’s 

just going to be a hand-full of people 

that’s had any experience. ∃Cause, we 

don’t send people to go to the [mine 

emergencies] that we have. There’s no 

way to get that on-hand experience 

other than to be there. 

 In short, mine emergency response veterans 

clearly indicated that training response personnel 

is paramount, if mines intend to be prepared to 

handle a major emergency should it occur. 

COMMAND CENTER TRAINING 

 Emergency response is sometimes given a 

low priority in training planning because 

catastrophic events occur infrequently. While 

there are extensive training requirements for 

mine rescue team members, there is no mandated 

training for command center leaders. Many 

managers have little or no experience in dealing 

with large-scale mine emergencies. Since no one 

wants to believe a disaster will happen, day-today job pressures make taking time for 

emergency response training seem like a luxury 

for another day. Unfortunately, that day may not 

come before the emergency happens. 

 Command center training is available 

through the Mine Safety and Health 

Administration (MSHA) and other sources. 

Frequently training is the form of a full-scale 

simulation and presents the complexity of a 

major response to the trainees. It gives trainees 

the needed view of the overall response, but is 

resource-intensive to conduct. MSHA’s Mine 

Emergency Response Development (MERD) 

training allows participants to act out various 

response roles. This type of hands-on experience 

is excellent command center training for those 

chosen to fulfill those roles, but is less effective, 
in terms of command center preparation, for 

those playing other roles. 

 Another form of enhanced command center 

training is in the form of a mock mine disaster. 

Like MERDs, mock disasters are role play 

exercises designed to present a realistic mine 

emergency scenario. However, unlike MERDs, 

they use actual mine facilities and involve mine 

personnel in their assigned roles at the operation. 

However, staging these events requires 

significant time and the devotion of considerable 

resources from the mine and other organizations. 

For personnel at small, remotely located 

operations, full-scale mock drills and even 

MERDs may seem out of reach. 

 MERITS augments existing command 

center preparation with a training simulation that 

can be delivered at any location with basic 

computer equipment and an Internet connection. 

Many, if not most, mine sites have such 

equipment. If nothing else, most mine sites are 

within a reasonable distance of a public or 

private facility such as vocational technical 

school or community college with the required 

tools. Even the most remote mining sites can be 

equipped with a lap top computer and a 

telephone connection. Aside from the computer 

equipment, MERITS requires few other 

resources. While a group of three to five 

participants is recommended, a successful 

training session can be run even for one 

individual. 

 During the session, all trainees are part of 

the simulated command center and receive the 

same experience. MERITS can be used to give 

select individuals a basic understanding of 

command center functions before they are placed 

in leadership roles during a MERD or mock drill. 

It could also be used to allow participants of 

other types of training, who were not in 

command center roles, an opportunity to have 

that experience. MERITS has also proven to be 

an effective way to give mine rescue team 

members the “big picture” of large-scale 

response activities. Knowledgeable trainers can 

tailor MERITS for the novice and for the veteran 

responder. In all cases, a trainer competent in 

the subject matter should be available to trainees. 

 

HOW MERITS DIFFERS FROM OTHER 

COMPUTER-BASED TRAINING 

 Computer instruction is the process in which 

a computer is used to present information to the 

trainee. Computer-based training, or CBT, is 

generally used to describe the application of 

computer instruction to various training settings, 

including training in the workplace. CBT offers 

several advantages over other types of 

instructional methods: 1) it offers learning in the 

classroom but has the potential for learning in 

remote locations; 2) it can be standardized, 

customized, or changed as necessary to meet 

changing needs; 3) it is cost-effective in that 

large groups of trainees are not required to make 

up a class; and 4) it is convenient since trainees 

can attend training at their own workplace and 

work at their own pace (Anonymous, 1998; 

Charles, Black, and Murphy, 1992; Dennis, 

1994; Drape, 1994; Guilar, 1994; Shaw, 1992). 

Computer-based training also generates positive 

attitudes and enjoyable experiences among 

trainees (Kulik & Kulik, 1991; Shaw, 1992). 

 The training objectives of MERITS are 

meant to enhance the decision-making 

performance of command center personnel 

during mine emergencies. This goal is achieved 

through the use of computer-based simulation 

problems. Potential users will ask how well an 

electronic emergency response will prepare them 

for the real thing. This is really a question of 

validity, and must be answered by beginning 

with the use of computers as teaching and 

assessment instruments. 

 If one draws a Venn diagram of computers, 

simulations, and instruction, the result might take 

the form of Figure 1 (Leonard, 2002). That is 

because computers are used for much more than 

simulation, even when they are employed for 

instructional purposes, and also because 

computer simulations are not always used to 

teach. Thus, actual instruction is only a small 
part of the potential uses for either computers or 

simulations. A brief discussion of some salient 

issues relating to each overlapping segment will 

put the diagram into better perspective. 

Figure 1 – Integrated relationships of 

computers, simulations, and instruction. 

 CS - Computer simulations do not 

necessarily instruct, any more than life 

experiences necessarily teach us anything. 

Instead, they allow one to observe the playing 

out of certain hypothetical events, such as a 

drought on the farm, and may, in the case of 

expert systems, advise us on how to cope with 

the situation. While these types of tools are of 

value, they are not much use as stand-alone 

teaching devices. Not until an instruction plan 

has been incorporated into the simulation does 

structured learning and evaluation take place. 

CI - In many instances, where computing 

and instructional methods overlap, computers are 

used not to simulate events, rather, they serve to 

deliver instructional material for individualized 

learning. Often they are electronic page turners, 

carefully metering stimulus and response, 

measuring out facts and figures in acceptable 

doses. While there is nothing wrong with this 

type of instruction and evaluation (or this use of 

computers), it is better suited to some purposes, 

e.g., teaching maintenance SOPs, than others, 

such as emergency response activities. 

IS - Instructional simulations take many 

forms and all can provide powerful vicarious 

learning experiences that may better prepare 

workers to deal with actual events. Training of 

mine rescue teams, military personnel, and fire 

fighters routinely makes use of both full-scale 

field simulations and so-called paper and pencil 

(or "tabletop") exercises. Unlike case study 

reviews, instructional simulations do not present 

the outcome of an emergency as a means for 

evaluating individual decisions made during the 

course of the event. Rather, the simulation 

problem unfolds and requires decisions among 

alternatives to be made with incomplete 

information similar to the process involved in an 

actual emergency. Instructional simulations 

have an interesting advantage over participation 

in actual emergencies: They can provide the 

learner with an overall perspective on key 

relationships and interactions among the human 

players, physical factors, and equipment, as well 

as revealing both the predictable and capricious 

events that are always part of any 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, instructional simulations are 

used to teach what is often referred to as "air 

wiseness" with promising results [Flathers, et al., 

1982; Giffin and Rockwell, 1984]. 

CIS - MERITS is in the smallest subset of 

the diagram’s intersection, because it is a 

computer simulation that is intended to deliver 

quality instruction. Quality begins with content. 

As Gibbons and Fairweather [1998] note, “In 

order to be used for instruction, a simulation has 

to be integrated into a larger instructional plan, 

and in many cases it has to be complemented 

with additional instructional features which are 

not part of the simulated model itself.” 

Additionally, however, the package must do the 

following: 1) allow trainees to construct 

knowledge for themselves from the elements of 

the simulation; 2) require trainees to engage 

heavily in forward planning and problem 

solving; and 3) encourage trainee initiative. In 

other words, the simulation must be grounded in 

lived experience and have specific performance 

objectives that are explicitly stated. 

 
DESCRIPTION OF MERITS 

 Modeled after training simulations 

developed for other industries (e.g. to address 

nuclear accidents, chemical spills, evacuations), 

MERITS simulates underground and surface 

events related to the disaster. It exposes the user 

to events that typically occur during a mine 

emergency such as lack of information and 

miscommunication. It also presents trainees 

with issues that must be addressed such as 

making provisions for briefing news media and 

victims’ families, ordering needed supplies, 

interfacing with enforcement agencies, and 

housing mine rescue teams. The outcome of the 

scenario will be determined by the users’ 

decisions and their emergency response plans. 

 MERITS presents an underground mine 

emergency scenario that develops over time, 

with a continual unfolding of points at which the 

emergency managers must either initiate decision 

alternatives or do nothing. The decisions will of 

necessity be like those that individuals or groups 

have employed (or failed to employ) in actual 

emergency situations. Some will be good 

alternatives and some, while possible, may not 

be effective (or may even be harmful). 

Completion of this exercise will result in a hardcopy record of the individual or group's decision 

choices. A performance score is based upon the 

pattern of responses, and can be registered in 

terms of percent correct performance (mastery). 

 While individuals are working the 

simulation problem, they also receive feedback 

about what impact the chosen alternative has had 

upon the situation. Thus, the exercise teaches by 

reinforcing good decisions, concepts, and 

strategy, while providing a basis for remediating 

incorrect thinking. Accompanying study notes, 

reviewed and discussed following problem 

administration, further elaborate the information 

and strategies that are exercise objectives, and 

help to situate this information in the specific 

experience of those individuals who work the 

simulation. 

Characteristics of the Simulated Mine 

 The MERITS simulation is set at a small 

underground coal mine called Bottleneck No. 1. 

A small mine site was chosen for the first 

MERITS scenario because it is appropriate for a 

wide range of trainees. Many people work at 

fairly small operations, and those who do not 

might be called to assist in a response at one. 

Bottleneck No. 1 mine employs 56 workers and 

has two daily production shifts. Maintenance is 

conducted on the midnight shift. Coal is mined 

using continuous mining practice in two working 

sections. One section is on development and one 

is on retreat. A spare, idle section is also 

available for production. Equipment on all three 

sections includes one continuous miner, one 

twin-boom roof bolter, two shuttle cars, and a 

battery scoop tractor. Coal is transported from 

working sections on 36- and 42-inch conveyor 

belt from sections to the outside and dumped on 

the raw coal pile near the portal. The coal is then 

trucked to the preparation plant at a sister mine 

located four miles away. The corporate offices 

are also at the sister mine. 

 Trainees are given information about the 

mine’s current status. A mine map includes 

details such as air direction and the locations of 

power centers, belt, track, mine phones, and 

SCSR caches. Mine documents such as pre-shift 

and on-shift reports and roof and ventilation 

plans are available for trainees to review. A 

personnel list provides the name, job title, 

certifications, and the usual shift of each 

employee. A tag board can be checked to 

determine who is underground at any given time. 

 Bottleneck No. 1 Mine has an extensive 

emergency response plan (ERP). This plan was 

developed with the assistance of personnel from 

the Pennsylvania Bureau of Deep Mine Safety. 

These safety professionals have assisted many 

small mines in development of site specific 

plans. The plan for Bottleneck No. 1 was 

developed in the same way as those created for 

mines across the state. The first part of the plan 

includes items such as a call-out roster and 

emergency duty assignments. Trainees may or 
may not choose to follow these guidelines as the 

situation evolves. The second part of the plan is 

an extensive list of providers of services and 

supplies. The simulation recognizes the phone 

numbers that are given in the plan so trainees can 

contact the simulated individuals and businesses 

for assistance during the MERITS session. 

 

 The trainees serve in the role as 

superintendent of Bottleneck No. 1 Mine. The 

stage is set for the simulation to begin with the 

following information about the day of the event. 

As you drove to work on Route 350 this morning, 

you noticed the recent heavy rains had caused a 

slide that covered part of the right-hand lane. A 

DOT crew was there getting ready to set up 

warning barrels. You went around, and within a 

mile came to the mine access road. 

Around 7:30 a.m. you pulled into the small 

parking lot in front of your office and entered the 

building. Since then you've been doing routine 

paperwork.

 It is around 9:30 a.m. As the simulation 

starts, routine conversations are heard over the 

mine pager phone. The trainee can look at 

various mine records including pre-shift and onshift reports, fan and barometric pressure reports, 

and other information. The mine clerk comes in 

and gives the latest time sheets and vacation 

requests for review and returns to her office. 

From that point on, what happens or does not 

happen is related to the actions or inaction of the 

trainee. Figure 2 shows trainees and a trainers 

engaged in a MERITS session. 

 

Figure 2 – Trainers and trainees during a 

MERITS session. 

Interacting with the Computer Program 

 The computer interface is organized to serve 

as an interactive work space where trainees 

engage with the simulation. It consists of a 

number of web pages and methods for 

navigating them. A picture of a typical MERITS 

screen is shown in Figure 3. 

Figure 3 – Typical MERITS screen. 

 Most of the screen 

is the data area where information or tools 

selected by the trainee are provided. A toolbar is 

found across the top of the screen and the 

reference bars are located down the left side of 

the screen. The bars contain icons that can be 

selected to move among the available references, 

logs and tools. Trainees select icons on the left 

toolbar to display reference material and logs 

that are needed to analyze and resolve the 

emergency situation. The currently-selected 

reference or log appears in the data area of the 

screen. Tools that can be used to take actions 

(such as issuing orders to resolve the emergency 

situation) are provided in the top toolbar. When 

a tool is selected, a dialog box for that tool “pops 

up” over the data area of the screen requesting 

further information. Figure 4 shows the
command box that “pops up” after the runner 

tool is selected. 

Figure 4 – Screen for issuing a command to a runner. 

 After the simulation has started there are a 

number of tools, reports and communication 

devices that a trainee can access. These provide 

information or support interaction with the 

simulation. The following information can be 

referenced at any point during the simulation. 

• General Mine and Community 

 Information 

• Roof Control Plan 

• Ventilation System, Methane and Dust 

 Control Plan 

• Bulletin Board Postings 

• Personnel List 

• Emergency Response Plan 

• Shift Reports 

• Underground Tag Board 

• Supply List 

The interface includes tools that help trainees 

progress through the simulation. These tools 

can be accessed at any point during the 

simulation and include: 

• Mine pager phone 

• Telephone 

• Runner(s) to do tasks and carry 

 messages 

• Mine map 

• Clock showing simulation time 

• Repeat last audio and visual 

 communication 

• A notebook to record trainee notes and 

 reports from simulated miners 

• Log that can be assigned to the runner 

 to keep 

• A log used to construct briefing/reports 

Trainees can refer to help files for questions 

regarding the use of any communication devices 

or tools. These help files are accessible at any 

time during the MERITS simulation. 

HOW MERITS IS EVALUATED 

 As with any training intervention, 

evaluation is critical to ensure its success. 

People typically think evaluation in terms of 

standardized norm referenced tests. The 

developers of these types of instruments attempt 

to construct exams that are restricted (not 

circulated) because they wish to measure 

performance with the same instrument in the 

future. Efforts are made to prevent feedback 

and learning during administration in order to 
avoid confounding an estimate of a person's 

ability with what he or she may have learned 

from taking the test. Such instruments are 

designed to rank persons by ability levels, but 

obviously not to maximize the learning 

experience. 

 MERITS does not evaluate trainees from a 

norm-referenced perspective. Instead, MERITS 

is criterion-referenced. Performance on this 

type of test is not defined by rank ordering a 

person's score according to the distribution of 

scores in some normative group, but is instead 

described by mastery of knowledge, skills, and 

strategies included in the exercise (Cole, 1994). 

If well constructed, such instruments are known 

to provide valid evaluations of what test takers 

know how to perform well or not so well. 

When individuals' scores fall below mastery 

levels, the performance data from these 

exercises are used to target areas that need 

further instruction. Criterion-referenced tests 

are also known to teach persons who complete 

them, and this is viewed as a proper outcome. 

In fact, criterion-referenced exercises is the 

method of choice for teaching and assessing 

critical skills and are widely used for this 

purpose. That is precisely the goal of MERITS. 

 The MERITS simulation focuses on 

specific performances in well-defined domains. 

Proper field-testing provides psychometric data 

on mental measurement properties of the 

exercise. At the same time, information is 

obtained to reveal skill areas in which the 

participants performed well and in which they 

performed poorly. Overall mastery levels can 

also be computed. This type of information can 

be used immediately to ensure that performance 

errors exhibited while working the simulation 

can be remediated by further instruction. Such 

corrective measures can help prevent these 

errors from occurring in actual emergencies. 

Aggregated data can also be used to compare 

the skill levels of groups who may have been 

trained: 1) by different persons; 2) using 

different methods; and/or 3) in different 

organizations (Cole, et al., 1988). 

 In summary, the MERITS simulation is 

clearly a training tool and was designed to be 

such. It is also a valuable evaluation tool that 

can reveal much about what different groups of 

participants know and do not know, as well as 

strengths and weakness in their logical decisions 

when they are faced with the predicaments 

involved in dealing with a mine emergency. 

This performance data can be used to improve 

training and policy. The military routinely uses 

similar simulation tasks to teach and evaluate 

the proficiency of individuals in specific areas, 

and to make changes in their training objectives 

and activities based on aggregated performance 

data. The same can be done in the mining 

industry. 

VALIDITY OF MERITS 

 No matter how well designed a training 

simulation may seem, a critical question that 

must be answered is: "How well does the 

simulation prepare someone to cope in a realworld situation?" There is no group, including 

the military, that routinely conducts real-world 

validity studies of similar critical skills. Other 

groups who engage in good criterion-referenced 

skill training and evaluations do what has done 

with MERITS, that is, they go to great lengths 

to ensure that the simulation is grounded in 

significant real-world problems. Additionally, 

these groups enlist the assistance of experts in 

making judgments about the exercise's face 

validity. They then administer the simulation to 

experienced workers who have familiarity with 

the skills and performances involved. These 

persons are asked to rate the authenticity and 

value of the exercise, and their performance 

scores are recorded and analyzed. 

 It is important to ask participants if they: 1) 

could follow directions and comprehend the 

interface; 2) judge the simulation to be 

authentic; and 3) deem the exercise to be 

valuable in respect to its goal of improving their 

knowledge and learning. If a group rated these 

elements low, it should be clear that no matter 

what else was known about its properties, the 
simulation would be invalid because it would 

not be accepted or judged worthwhile by the 

very audience it was designed for. Such 

information is critical, and certainly an 

appropriate part of the face and content validity 

estimates for such exercises. 

 We may never know the "ultimate" validity 

of MERITS. Based on field test results, we can 

be fairly sure, however, that it provides useful 

information and an opportunity to practice those 

critical cognitive skills that are needed for 

effective performance during emergency 

management. We can also be sure that little 

current training in this area addresses similar 

types of "soft" skills. It is almost certainly 

better to have faced these decision-making tasks 

initially in the context of a simulation than 

during an actual event. This is especially true if 

one's earlier learning is mainly a set of rigid 

protocols about how things should be done, with 

little awareness of how unforeseen predicaments 

and dilemmas cause those protocols to break 

down. 

Field Test Experience Initial field testing of 

MERITS was conducted with 27 individuals 

during eight full-day training sessions at four 

different locations in Colorado, Pennsylvania 

and West Virginia. These field tests benefited 

from the knowledge and experience of 

Pennsylvania mine inspection officials, 

representatives of the United Mine Workers of 

America, and private mine management, who all 

served as trainees for the MERITS training 

sessions. 

Trainees self-reported an average of 20 

years work experience in the mining industry. 

All trainees had participated in MERD training 

exercises and many had been involved in actual 

mine emergencies. Trainee evaluation of the 

MERITS program was based on responses to a 

series of statements regarding the simulation. 

Responses to each statement on the Likert Scale 

questionnaire could range from Very True, Very 

Useful, or Very Helpful to Not True, Not 

Useful, or Not Helpful. Table 1 presents 

trainees' responses to selected statements.

Table 1: Field test results. 

Statement Number responding pct.

The simulation helped me know how to prepare for 26 “Very True or True” 96.4 

a real emergency. 

The storyline for the simulation was realistic. 25 “Very True or True” 92.6

The simulation helped me learn how to better 27 “Very True or True” 100.0 

handle a real emergency. 

I was not bored during the simulation. 27 “Very True or True” 100.0 

 Subsequent to the initial field tests, 

MERITS was refined and retested during 

training sessions for individuals from state 

agencies, the UMWA, and private industry. 

Mining personnel from underground coal and 

underground stone mines participated and 

responded positively to the learning experience. 

Continued Training and Evaluation MERITS 

researchers and industry and enforcement 

representatives have continued to work together 

to organize additional training sessions. At the 

request of the Pennsylvania Bureau of Deep 

Mine Safety, a series of training sessions was 

held at the agency's Ebensburg, PA mine rescue 

station for members of the state's mine rescue 

teams. A total of 21 individuals participated in 

MERITS training held in early 2001. As with 

the initial field tests, trainees evaluated 

MERITS by completing a Likert Scale 

questionnaire following the training session. 

The group of trainees reported 15.9 years of 

mining experience and all 21 had received mine 

rescue training. 

Trainees' responses to selected statements are 

summarized in Table 2. 
Table 2: Results from additional field tests. 

Statement Number responding pct.

The simulation helped me know how to prepare 21 “Very True or True” 100.0 

for a real emergency. 

The storyline for the simulation was realistic. 20 “Very True or True” 95.2 

The simulation help me learn how to better handle 21 “Very True or True” 100.0 

a real emergency. 

I was not bored during the simulation. 21 “Very True or True” 100.0 

CONCLUSION 

Since research and development of MERITS 

began in 1996, the simulation has been 

constructed, field-tested, and authenticated. 

Field test results indicate the simulation has 

strong face validity and is a useful tool for 

teaching important decision making skills to 

command center personnel. Through calendar 

year 2002, MERITS will continue to be 

introduced to the mining industry through 

several venues, including technology transfer 

seminars, conference presentations, and trainthe-trainer sessions. A four-volume NIOSH 

Information Circular, documenting MERITS 

and its use in emergency response training will 

be completed in 2002. This multi-document set 

will include: 1) a general overview volume; 2) 

a trainer’s manual on conducting a training 

session; 3) a software user’s guide; and 4) a 

software documentation guide. 

Based on field test and training session results, 

MERITS is a robust training tool for teaching 

critical mine emergency response decision 

making skills for command center personnel. 

Although the simulation is based on an 

emergency incident at an underground coal 

mine, MERITS could be adapted for other types 

of mining operations, including underground 

metal/nonmetal and surface mines, as well as a 

variety of different types of emergency 

scenarios. While MERITS is no longer a 

funded research initiative under NIOSH, the 

authors hope other interested parties will build 

upon work already completed to further develop 

MERITS. 

ACKNOWLEDGMENT 

MERITS has benefitted greatly from assistance 

provided by personnel at the Pennsylvania 

Bureau of Deep Mine Safety. The authors 

would like to thank BDMS Director Richard 

Stickler and Division Chief Matthew A. 

Bertovich for their support of the project. The 

authors and project team especially appreciated 

the assistance of BDMS mine rescue instructors 

Donald Eppley and Jeffrey Stanchek who 

provided technical input and without whom high 

fidelity field testing of MERITS would not have 

been possible. 

REFERENCES 

Anonymous (1998). Online Learning: It's Not 

Just Text Anymore. Three Companies Discover 

Online Interactivity. In distance training (a 

special advertising section). Training, 35, DT 

17-DT 21. 

Brnich, M.J., Mallett, L., and Vaught, C. 

(1997a). Training Future Mine Emergency 

Responders Part 1: Who Should Be Trained and 

How. Published in Holmes Safety Association 

Bulletin, October 1997, pp. 3-5. 

Brnich, M.J., Mallett, L., and Vaught, C. 

(1997b). Training Future Mine Emergency 

Responders Part 2: What Topics Should Be 

Included. Published in Holmes Safety 

Association Bulletin, November 1997, pp. 3-5. 
Charles, D., Black, T.R., & Murphy, U. (1992). 

Developing Competence Through the Design of 

CAL. Aspects of Educational and Training 

Technology Series, 25, 165-171. 

Cole, H.P., Berger, P.K., Vaught, C., Haley, 

J.V., Lacefield, W.E., Wasielewski, R.D., & 

Mallett, L.G. (1988). Measuring Critical Mine 

Health and Safety Skills. Interim report Contract 

No. HO348040. Washington, DC: U.S. Bureau 

of Mines. 

Cole, H.P. (1994). Embedded Performance 

Measures as Teaching and Assessment Devices. 

Occupational Medicine: State of the Art 

Reviews, 9, 261-281. 

Dennis, V.E. (1994). How Interactive 

Instruction Saves Time. Journal of Instruction 

Delivery Systems, 8, pp. 25-28. 

Drape, G.W. (1994). System Approach to 

Computer-based Training (NASA Report No. 

3249). Melbourne, FL: ENSCO, Inc., National 

Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), 

(NTIS No. N94-32436-5-XAB). 

Flathers, G.W., Jr., Giffin, W.C., & Rockwell, 

T.H. (1982). A study of decision making 

behavior of pilots deviating from a planned 

flight. Aviation, Space, and Environmental 

Medicine, 53(10), 958-963. 

Gibbons, A.S., and Fairweather, P.G. (1998). 

Computer-based instruction: Design and 

Development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: 

Educational Technology Publishers. 

Giffin, W.C., & Rockwell, T.H. (1984). 

Computer-aided testing of pilot response to 

critical in-flight events. Human Factors, 26(5), 

579-581. 

Guilar, M.B. (1994). Instructional Technology 

versus the Traditional Teacher: An Evaluation. 

Journal of Instructional Delivery Systems, 8, 17-

20. 

Kulik, C.C. & Kulik, J. A. (1991). Effectiveness 

of Computer-based Instruction: An Updated 

Analysis. Computers in Human Behavior, 7, 75-

94. 

Leonard, T.J. (2002). Venn Diagram Home 

Page, www.VennDiagram.com. 

Shaw, D. S. (1992). Computer-aided Instruction 

for Adult Professionals: A Research Report. 

Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 19, 54-

57.