Fall from equipment injuries in U.S. mining: Identification of specific research areas

for future investigation

Susan M. Moore ⁎

⁎ Corresponding author. 626 Cochrans Mill Road, PO Box 18070, Pittsburgh, PA

15236, USA. Tel.: +1 412 386 6613; fax: +1 412 386 6764.

E-mail addresses: SMMoore@cdc.gov (S.M. Moore), WLPorter@cdc.gov

(W.L. Porter), Pdempsey@cdc.gov (P.G. Dempsey).

, William L. Porter, Patrick G. Dempsey

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, USA

Pittsburgh Research Laboratory, USA

Funding: National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.

abstract

Introduction: The objective of this study was to evaluate the circumstances leading to fall from equipment

injuries in the mining industry. Method: The 2006 and 2007 Mine Safety and Health Administration annual

injury databases were utilized for this study whereby the injury narrative, nature of injury, body part injured,

mine type, age at injury, and days lost were evaluated for each injury. Results: The majority of injuries

occurred at surface mining facilities (∼60%) with fractures and sprains/strains being the most common

injuries occurring to the major joints of the body. Nearly 50% of injuries occurred during ingress/egress,

predominately during egress, and approximately 25% of injuries occurred during maintenance tasks. The

majority of injuries occurred in relation to large trucks, wheel loaders, dozers, and conveyors/belts. The

severity of injury was independent of age and the median days lost was seven days; however, there was a

large range in severity. Impact on industry: From the data obtained in this study, several different research

areas have been identified for future work, which include balance and stability control when descending

ladders and equipment design for maintenance tasks.

1. Introduction

Slips, trips, and falls are one of the leading causes of occupational

morbidity and mortality across a variety of administrative data

systems designed to capture such data (Murphy, Sorock, Courtney,

Webster, & Leamon, 1996). In 2007, the Bureau of Labor Statistics

(BLS, 2008) report indicated that over 24% of nonfatal occupational

injuries and illnesses involving days away from work could be

attributed to ‘fall to lower level,’ ‘fall on same level,’ and ‘slip, trip, loss

of balance without fall’ event or exposure classifications. For mining,

the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH,

2008) reported that 25% of nonfatal lost-time injuries from 2002-2006

were attributed to slip or fall of person.

A subset of slip or fall of person injuries is due to falls from equipment, and accounted for 2.7%, or nearly 400, of all mining related

injuries in 2007 (Mine Safety & Health Administration, 2007). Factors

associated with these falls are largely unknown and, therefore, cannot

be completely accounted for in design of equipment, development of

work practices, or in training programs for mine workers. Further

understanding of the etiology and circumstances of these injuries will

allow engineering controls, administrative controls, and perhaps

personal protective equipment to be developed to reduce the incident

and severity of injuries from falls from equipment. Moreover, this

information could be used to generate research questions specifically

addressing fall from equipment type injuries in the mining industry,

and also in other sectors such as construction.

Some falls from equipment occur as mine workers enter and exit

equipment via the ladder or stair systems. Fairly extensive research has

already been conducted regarding ladder and stair climbing (Bjornstig &

Johnsson, 1992; Bloswick, 1999; Bloswick & Chaffin, 1990; Bloswick &

Crookston, 1992; Chang, Chang, &Matz, 2005; Chang, Chang,Matz, & Son,

2004; Dewar, 1977; Fathallah & Cotnam, 1998, 2000; Giguere &

Marchand, 2005; Hakkinen, Pesonen, & Rajamaki, 1988; Hammer &

Schmalz, 1992; Hoozemans et al., 2005; Kowalk, Duncan, & Vaughan,

1996; McIntyre, 1983; Partridge, Virk, & Antosia, 1998; Patenaude,

Marchand, Samperi, & Belanger, 2001; Shepherd, Kahler, & Cross, 2006;

Yang & Ashton-Miller, 2005). Much of this research focused on impact

forces during various descent techniques, friction requirements, or the

effect of physical changes to ladders (e.g., ladder slant, rung separation).

Additionally, a portion of this research is most applicable to situations

where the individuals would be entering and exiting equipment on a

routine basis (e.g., parcel delivery).

Another subset of fall research focuses on individuals utilizing

a ladder for the purpose of completing an occupational task (e.g.,

painting a house). In fact, Partridge and coworkers (Partridge et al.,
1998) conducted a retrospective study of ladder fall injuries and

found that the majority of injuries resulted from excessive reaching or

incorrect ladder placement with 50% of the falls being occupationally

related. Although ladders on equipment are largely fixed in place,

these findings may be relevant if ladders on equipment are used for

maintenance or other tasks besides ingress/egress, even if the intended purpose of the ladder/stair is equipment access. It is currently

unknown what proportion of injuries in mining occur during the

ingress/egress process, and whether these access systems may contribute to fall from equipment injuries resulting from use of the

system for purposes other than equipment ingress/egress.

In addition to falls associated with the ingress/egress systems of

equipment, other falls may result from mine workers performing

procedures outside the cab that are routine or non-routine parts of

their job. Understanding what these tasks are and how miners go

about performing them will be very helpful to develop preventive

measures to minimize risk of fall while performing them.

Other factors such as age may also be associated with falls from

equipment. As individuals age, they have instability of gait and falls

are common (Kane, Ouslander, & Abrass, 1994). Thus, there may be

an association between age and injury frequency or severity (e.g., days

lost).

Understanding contributing factors to falls from equipment injuries in mining will help direct future research areas and develop

recommendations for prevention. Therefore, the objective of this

study was to determine (for a two-year sample of fall from equipment

injuries) the mine type where injury occurred, nature of injury, body

part injured, the activities being performed just prior to the fall from

equipment, the type of equipment involved, and any contributing

factors such as loss of balance or environmental conditions (e.g., icy).

A secondary objective was to determine if age was a factor in the

frequency and/or severity of fall from equipment injuries.

2. Methods

The Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) provides an

annual administrative database that details all reportable injuries,

illnesses, and fatalities sustained in mining. Due to the low number of

fall from equipment injuries suffered each year (<400), two years of

data were evaluated for the purpose of this study. The two most

recent years at the onset of the study were selected for evaluation

(2006 and 2007). Injuries classified as falls from equipment were

extracted from the full year databases for further analysis.

The type of mine where the injuries occurred, nature of injury (e.g.,

contusion, dislocation, fracture), body part injured, age of miner, and

days lost were contained in the data. For all but the age of the miner

and days lost, both years were combined for these analyses since there

were a wide variety of categories for each.

Other data required interpretation of narratives and manual coding,

and both years were evaluated separately for the remaining analyses.

For this coding, the factors below were determined jointly by the

authors. Two reviewers (SMM and WLP), one per database (2006 and

2007, respectively), then read the narratives provided for each injury

and categorized the following factors:

1.) Injury scenario (ingress/egress; maintenance; standard procedures; other; or unknown);

1a.) if the injury occurred while getting on or off equipment,

during which phase of the ingress/egress process did it

occur (ingress, egress, or unknown);

2.) Whether the injured party had an object in their hand (yes, no, or

unknown);

3.) Method of injury (e.g., fell backwards, slipped and fell);

4.) Type of equipment involved (e.g., wheel loader, dozer);

5.) Stated contributing factors (e.g., lost balance, dizziness); and

6.) Environmental factors (e.g., wet, icy, muddy).

Once the first reviewer completed their analysis, the reviewers

switched databases and evaluated factors 1, 1a, and 2. Following

these two independent reviews, all injury narratives with discordant

ratings between reviewers were determined. For each discrepancy, the

two reviewers and an independent third party (PGD) discussed the

narratives and arrived at a uniform decision regarding its classification.

For both the 2006 and 2007 databases, frequencies for the scenario

during which the injury occurred, ingress versus egress, whether or not

an object was clearly in the hand, and the type of equipment were then

calculated. The number of injuries occurring under poor environmental

conditions was also noted and the method of injury was also investigated for any unexpected information. The averages and medians

of mine worker age and the total lost days were calculated.

3. Results

The total number of injuries reported as occurring due to a “fall

from equipment” was 394 and 393 for 2006 and 2007, respectively.

For 2006, the age of the mine worker at the time of injury was omitted

for six entries while four were omitted from the 2007 database. When

evaluating the percentage of falls by mine type, it was observed that

the majority (63%) of the injuries occurred at surface mines where

open pit or strip mining was being conducted. Mill or preparation

plants accounted for 18% of the injuries, and underground mines

accounted for 12%.

Only four types of equipment could be identified that each

accounted for at least 5% of the injuries: dozers, large trucks, wheel

loaders, and conveyors/belts (Fig. 1). The equipment in the “other”

category was extremely diverse and, therefore, could not be grouped

into larger categories for the sake of analysis. Drills, mucking machines,

and crushers are examples of equipment that fell into the “other”

category.

The activity the mine worker was conducting at the time of injury

proved to be quite telling, with injuries during ingress/egress and

maintenance tasks being most common (Fig. 2). For both years,

approximately 75% of the ingress/egress injuries occurred during egress.

The majority of the narratives were too vague to determine whether

or not the individual was holding an object at the time of injury. In fact,

less than 5% of the narratives provided enough information to make this

determination, all of which indicated that an object was in fact in the

hand at the time of injury.

Based on the information provided in the narratives, only 23 injuries

(5.8%) reported in 2006 had contributing environmental factors such as

wet or icy conditions, with 2007 having 37 injuries (9.4%). Noteworthy

contributing factors mentioned in narratives included dizziness, loss

of balance, equipment malfunction (e.g., handrail breaks), cleaning of

windows, and losing control of one's equipment (e.g., runaway haul

truck). The method of injury was rarely reported to be a trip. Rather,

slips and falls accounted for the majority of the injuries. It should also

be noted that a handful of injuries occurred as the operator jumped out

of/off a vehicle. In fact 32 injuries occurred in this manner in 2006 and 25

occurred in 2007. In some cases this was because of fire or it was a

runaway vehicle. In 2006, eight incidents occurred when an operator

jumped from a wheel loader while four incidents occurred when the

operator jumped from a truck. Four incidents also occurred when the

operator jumped from a train or railcar. In 2007, four incidents occurred

with the operator jumping from a wheel loader and seven incidents

occurred with an operator jumping from a truck. Many other types of

equipment had two or fewer incidents. This equipment included, but is

not limited to, excavators, dozers, conveyors/belts, scoop, and continuous miners.

Only six types of injuries accounted for 5% of the injuries or more:

sprains/strains (36%); fractures/chips (28%); contusions/bruises

(12%); unclassified/not determined (9%); multiple injuries (6%); and

cuts/lacerations/punctures (5%). Thus, more than 50% of the injuries

sustained from the falls were fractures/chips or sprains/strains. Just
over 10% were contusions/bruises. With respect to body part, 8%-15%

of the injuries were to each the back, shoulders, knees, and ankles. The

total number of injuries to the back, shoulders, knee, and ankle were

115, 62, 92, and 89, respectively.

In 2006, a return to work date was not provided for three injury

claims and for 2007 a total of eight injury claims did not have a return

to work date. One reason for this might be that statutory days lost

were charged for severe injuries (e.g., amputation). In these cases, the

MSHA database lists the days lost at zero. Therefore, these claims were

removed from the database for the following analysis of days lost.

Additionally, when return to work data are not available at close-out

of the database each year, the one day after the close-out date is

automatically issued as the return to work date. This was the case for

two injuries in the 2007 database. The days lost up to the date when

the database was closed out were included. While the days lost

associated with these closed out cases may not be complete, excluding

these injuries from the analysis may result in biased data since they

may have been the more extreme cases with more days lost than

demonstrated by the other data. Therefore, these two data entries

were included in the following days lost analysis.

Fig. 1. Percentage of “fall from equipment” injuries in 2006 and 2007 that occurred on various types of equipment.

Fig. 2. Percentage of the “fall from equipment” injuries in 2006 and 2007 based upon the mine worker activity at the time of injury.

The median days lost was seven for 2006 and eight for 2007 and

ranged from 0 to 362 for both databases. The 25th percentile days lost

for both 2006 and 2007 was 0 days while the 75th percentile was 65

and 50 days, respectively. The 90th percentile days lost was 154 and

137, respectively. The median age at the time of injury in 2006 and

2007 was 43 and 44, respectively (Fig. 3). The ages ranged from 19 to

82 for 2006 and from 19 to 78 for 2007. Fig. 4 illustrates that severity

of injury, or days lost, does not appear to be associated with age.

4. Discussion

In this study, the factors associated with fall from equipment

injuries in mining were investigated for 2006 and 2007. The majority

of fall from equipment injuries (>60%) occurred at surface mining

facilities. The majority of injuries occurred in relation to large trucks,

wheel loaders, dozers, and conveyors/belts. These pieces of equipment are often seen in surface mining operations, the most common

mine type for the injuries investigated. It was found that nearly 50% of

injuries occurred during the ingress/egress process, with most during

egress. Additionally, injuries frequently occurred during maintenance
tasks. Typically, the mode of injury was a fall, possibly proceeded by a

slip. However, a number of injuries occurred as workers jumped from

runaway equipment. Common injury types included fracture/chip and

sprain/strain. The individual body parts most commonly injured were

the back, shoulders, knees, and ankles. The severity of injury appeared

to be independent of age and the median days lost was seven days;

however, there was a large range in severity, which was nearly a full

year in some cases.

Fig. 3. Percentage of the “fall from equipment” injuries in 2006 and 2007 by age range.

Fig. 4. Scatter plot showing the number of days lost as a function of age.

In a 2001 study by NIOSH, Wiehagen, Mayton, Jaspal, and Turin

(2001) reported a total of 875 serious injuries during ingress/egress of

a dozer from 1988-1997. This averages out to be approximately 88

injuries per year. In the current study, ingress/egress injuries involving a dozer only accounted for approximately 9%, or around 35

injuries per year. Wiehagen et al. (2001) also reported 612 injuries

that were related to maintenance and repair, averaging out to be

about 61 injuries per year. In the current study, approximately 26% or

102 injuries per year occurred due to maintenance tasks. The

differences between the two studies may be attributed to the methods

used. In the 2001 study, the MSHA code titled “mine worker activity”

was used to categorize injuries, while in the current study narratives

from all fall from equipment type injuries were utilized. Other factors

may have also played a role as manufacturers have made many

improvements to dozers during the time between the two studies.

Manufacturers have provided better walkways, handrails, and no-slip

surfaces. Manufacturers have also improved access points for

maintenance tasks that can now often be done at ground level.

Some mines are even starting to put aftermarket stairs on their

equipment. However, problems still exist with access around the cab

(cleaning windows) and to maintenance areas (changing filters).

Previous NIOSH efforts installed aftermarket ingress/egress aids on

older equipment at several mines. Many of these mines viewed these

aids as successful in reducing the risk of injury. A possible outcome

may have been the industry's increased interest in ingress/egress

systems. In fact, Catapillar is now including hydraulic ladders as an

option. A second study by NIOSH (Randolph, 1997) reported that 48%

of surface coal haulage truck accidents were a result of either ingress/
egress or maintenance. This further supports the findings of this study

that these two categories are the primary modes of injury when a fall

from equipment injury occurs.

The results of the current study clearly indicate that research

focusing specifically on egress from large trucks, wheel loaders, and

dozers may be beneficial to the field. Injuries may occur during egress

since individuals are unable to see where their feet are landing when

climbing down. The required coefficient of friction may also be higher

during egress due to the differences between normal and non-normal

forces during ingress versus egress. Additionally, the potential for

slipping has been shown to greatly increase when exiting onto a

slippery surface without using exit aids (Fathallah, Gronqvist, &

Cotnam, 2000). As people age, they have instability of gait and falls are

common (Kane et al., 1994), which may greatly affect their ability to

descend ladders. This is an area in which current research regarding

balance control (Cham & Redfern, 2001; Jacobson et al., 2001; Redfern

& DiPasquale, 1997; Redfern, Jennings, Martin, & Furman, 2001;

Redfern, Moore, & Yarsky, 1997; Redfern, Muller, Jennings, & Furman,

2002; Redfern, Yardley, & Bronstein, 2001; Schlesinger, Redfern, Dahl,

& Jennings, 1998) could be expanded.

Another factor frequently associated with injury was maintenance.

This may likely be due to the fact that equipment is often not designed

well for maintenance tasks, causing mine workers to use various

equipment features in ways they were not intended to be used. This

could lead to individuals using undesirable methods to access the

equipment, which may include make-shift materials or standing

surfaces that are dangerous. Research to determine specifically what

planned and unplanned equipment maintenance tasks are high risk and

why are other possible research directions. This should be followed by

an effort to communicate these findings with manufacturers and by

making recommendations for design changes that could alleviate these

problems.

Another area of interest observed by this study is the clear need to

research the causes of runaway equipment. Nearly 10% of fall from

equipment injuries occurred as mine workers attempted to jump from

equipment. This averages out to be approximately two jumps from

equipment per month. The primary equipment involved was wheel

loaders and trucks. This could be due to several factors such as poor

brake design or maintenance, too heavy of a load, driving at speeds

that are too high, not allowing adequate time/distance to reduce

speed, fires, or poor roadway conditions. It is expected that any time a

person jumps from a piece of equipment they are likely to be injured.

However, these injuries may be preventable through the design of

equipment (e.g., breaking mechanisms).

Themajority of injuries were fractures/chips or sprains/strains.While

fractures typically heal nicely and have no residual negative effects, some

sprains and strains, particularly of the low-back, can increase risk of

future incidents. A sprain or strain may also result in permanent damage

to soft tissue structures such as stretching of ligaments. This can make an

individual more susceptible to dislocations or other joint injuries. It also

makes sense that the individual body parts associated with the highest

frequency of injury were the back, shoulder, knee, and ankle since these

joints are often strained or sprained. According to the National Safety

Council's, 2007 edition ofInjury Facts (National Safety Council, 2007), the

cost (medical and indemnity combined) of individual injuries to the low

back, shoulders, knee, and ankle were $21,367, $21,120, $18,495, and

$12,518, respectively for occupational injuries in 2003-2004. Based on

the number of injuries to these joints demonstrated by this analysis, it

can then be estimated that these injuries accounted for more than $6.5

million during 2006 and 2007 in the mining industry.

Several limitations should be discussed. These analyses were

conducted using only two years of injury data; thus, it is assumed that

these two years are representative of recent years. These analyses also

relied heavily on injury narratives, which are often vague and may be

interpreted differently by multiple individuals. This limitation was

minimized by having multiple reviewers agree on the categorization

of each narrative. Also, only reportable instances where a mine

worker fell from equipment were considered since the MSHA injury

database was utilized for these analyses. Thus, this study did not

consider the total frequency that individuals fell from equipment.

Instead, only those instances where an injury resulted are investigated. Finally, the lack of exposure data necessary to compute relative

risks should be noted. Computing relative risks may change the

ranking of research priorities; however, this is a common limitation of

studies that evaluate administrative databases. These data are often

not recorded, or the overall exposure data cannot be parsed to

calculate specific rates (e.g., hours per type of equipment).

5. Conclusions

The majority of fall from equipment injuries (>60%) occur at surface

mining facilities and typically involve large trucks, wheel loaders,

dozers, and conveyors/belts. Nearly 50% of injuries occur during the

ingress/egress process, with most during egress. Injuries are also

frequently associated with maintenance tasks. Common injury types

include fracture/chip and sprain/strain and the individual body parts

most commonly affected are the back, shoulders, knees, and ankles. The

severity of injury is independent of age and the median days lost is seven

days; however, there is a large range in severity, which was nearly a full

year in some cases.

From the data obtained in this study, several different research

areas have been identified for future work, which include balance and

stability control when descending ladders, equipment design for

maintenance tasks, and methods to adequately maintain control of

heavy duty equipment.

6. Disclaimer

The findings and conclusions in this study are those of the authors

and do not represent the views of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.

Acknowledgments

This project was funded by the National Institute for Occupational

Safety and Health.

References

Bjornstig, U., & Johnsson, J. (1992). Ladder Injuries: Mechanisms, Injuries and Consequences.

Journal of Safety Research, 23, 9−18.

Bloswick, D. (1999). Climbing Biomechanics. In S. Kumar (Ed.), Biomechanics in Ergonomics

(pp. 335−349). London: Taylor & Francis.

Bloswick, D., & Chaffin, D. (1990). An Ergonomic Analysis of Ladder Climbing Activity.

International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 6, 17−27.

Bloswick, D., & Crookston, G. (1992). The effect of Personal, Environmental and Equipment

Variables on Preferred Ladder Slant. In S. Kumar (Ed.), Biomechanics in Ergonomics

(pp. 1015−1020). London: Taylor & Francis.

Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2008). [Data file] Received from http://www.bls.gov/iif/

oshwc/osh/case/osnr0031.pdf

Cham, R., & Redfern, M. (2001). Lower Extremity Corrective Reactions to Slip Events.

Journal of Biomechanics, 34(11), 1439−1445.

Chang, W. -R., Chang, C. -C., Matz, S., & Son, D. (2004). Friction Requirements for Different

Climbing Conditions in Straight Ladder Ascending. Safety Science, 42, 791−805.

Chang, C. -C., Chang, W. -R., & Matz, S. (2005). The effects of Straight Ladder Setup and

Usage on Ground Reaction Forces and Friction Requirements during Ascending and

Descending. Safety Science, 43, 469−483.

Dewar, M. (1977). Body Movements in Climbing a Ladder. Ergonomics, 20(1), 67−86.

Fathallah, F., & Cotnam, J. (1998). Impact Forces during Exit from Commercial Vehicles.

Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 42nd Annual Meeting,

Chicago, IL.

Fathallah, F., & Cotnam, J. (2000). Maximum Forces Sustained during Various Methods of

Exiting Commercial Tractors, Trailers, and Trucks. Applied Ergonomics, 31, 25−33.

Fathallah, F., Gronqvist, R., & Cotnam, J. (2000). Estimated Slip Potential on Icy Surfaces

during Various Methods of Exiting Commercial Tractors, Trailers, and Trucks. Safety

Science, 36, 69−81.

Giguere, D., & Marchand, D. (2005). Perceived Safety and Biomechanical Stress to the

Lower Limbs when Stepping Down from Fire Fighting Vehicles. Applied Ergonomics,

36, 107−119.
Hakkinen, K., Pesonen, J., & Rajamaki, E. (1988). Experiments on Safety in the Use of

Portable Ladders. Journal of Occupational Accidents, 10, 1−19.

Hammer, W., & Schmalz, U. (1992). Human Behavior when Climbing Ladders with

Varying Inclinations. Safety Science, 15, 21−38.

Hoozemans, M., de Looze, M., Kingma, I., Reijneveld, C., de Korte, E., van der Grinten, M.,

et al. (2005). Workload of Window Cleaners using Ladders Differing in Rung

Separation. Applied Ergonomics, 36, 275−282.

Jacobson, J., Redfern, M., Furman, J., Whitney, S., Sparto, P., Wilson, J., et al. (2001).

Balance NAVE: a Virtual Reality Facility for Research and Rehabilitation of Balance

Disorders.

Kane, R., Ouslander, J., & Abrass, I. (1994). Essentials of Clinical Geriatrics. New York:

McGraw Hill.

Kowalk, D., Duncan, J., & Vaughan, C. (1996). Abduction-Adduction Moments at the

Knee during Stair Ascent and Descent. Journal of Biomechanics, 29(3), 383−388.

McIntyre, D. (1983). Gait Patterns during Free Choice Ladder Ascents. Human Movement

Science, 2, 187−195.

Mine Safety and Health Administration. (2007). [Data file] Injury Database. Washington,

DC: Author.

Murphy, P. L., Sorock, G. S., Courtney, T. K., Webster, B. S., & Leamon, T. B. (1996). Injury

and Illness in the American Workplace: A Comparison of Data Sources. American

Journal of Industrial Medicine, 30(2), 130−141.

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. (2008). Mining Facts - 2006.

Washington, DC: Author.

National Safety Council. (2007). Injury Facts (pp. 55). Itasca, IL: Author.

Partridge, R., Virk, A., & Antosia, R. (1998). Causes and Patterns of Injury from Ladder

Falls. Academic Emergency Medicine, 5(1), 31−34.

Patenaude, S., Marchand, D., Samperi, S., & Belanger, M. (2001). The effect of the

Descent Technique and Truck Cabin Layout on the Landing Impact Forces. Applied

Ergonomics, 32, 573−582.

Randolph, R. (1997). Safety Analysis of Surface Haulage Accidents - Part 1. Holmes

Safety Association Bulletin May-June 1-7.

Redfern, M., & DiPasquale, J. (1997). Biomechanics of Descending Ramps. Gait &

Posture, 6, 119−125.

Redfern, M., Jennings, J., Martin, C., & Furman, J. (2001). Attention Influences Sensory

Integration for Postural Control in Older Adults. Gait & Posture, 14(3), 211−216.

Redfern, M., Yardley, L., & Bronstein, A. (2001). Visual Influences on Balance. Journal of

Anxiety Disorders, 15(1–2), 81−94.

Redfern, M., Moore, P., & Yarsky, C. (1997). The Influence of Flooring on Standing

Balance among Older Persons, Human Factors. Journal of the Human Factors and

Ergonomics Society, 39(3), 445−455.

Redfern, M., Muller, M., Jennings, J. R., & Furman, J. (2002). Attentional Dynamics in

Postural Control during Perturbations in Young and Older Adults. Journals of

Gerontology. Series A, Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences, 57, B298−B303.

Schlesinger, A., Redfern, M., Dahl, R., & Jennings, J. R. (1998). Postural Control, Attention

and Sleep Deprivation. NeuroReport, 9(1), 49−52.

Shepherd, G., Kahler, R., & Cross, J. (2006). Ergonomic Design Interventions - A Case

Study Involving Portable Ladders. Ergonomics, 49(3), 221−234.

Wiehagen, W., Mayton, A., Jaspal, J., & Turin, F. (2001). An Analysis of Serious Injuries to

Dozer Operators in the U.S. Mining Industry. DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 2001-

126. Washington, DC: National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.

Yang, B., & Ashton-Miller, J. (2005). Factors affecting Stepladder Stability during a

Lateral Weight Transfer: A Study in Healthy Young Adults. Applied Ergonomics, 36,

601−607.