# Estimating the Human Error Probability during Lifeboat Drills
## 3 Results
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline  & **SLI** & **Log(PoS)** & **PoS** & **HEP** \\ \hline T1.1 & 63.79 & \(-\)0.00816 & 0.98139 & 0.0186 \\ T1.2 & 63.39 & \(-\)0.00825 & 0.98119 & 0.0188 \\ T1.3 & 68.91 & \(-\)0.00703 & 0.98395 & 0.0160 \\ T2.1 & 65.47 & \(-\)0.00783 & 0.98212 & 0.0179 \\ T2.2 & 67.52 & \(-\)0.00738 & 0.98315 & 0.0169 \\ T2.3 & 59.82 & \(-\)0.00908 & 0.97931 & 0.0207 \\ T3.1 & 65.21 & \(-\)0.00515 & 0.98821 & 0.0118 \\ T3.2 & 69.81 & \(-\)0.00449 & 0.98972 & 0.0103 \\ T3.3 & 63.68 & \(-\)0.00537 & 0.98770 & 0.0123 \\ T3.4 & 62.20 & \(-\)0.00559 & 0.98722 & 0.0128 \\ T3.5 & 71.37 & \(-\)0.00426 & 0.99024 & 0.0098 \\ T4.1 & 67.94 & \(-\)0.01496 & 0.96613 & 0.0339 \\ T4.2 & 60.81 & \(-\)0.01820 & 0.95897 & 0.0410 \\ T4.3 & 73.44 & \(-\)0.01247 & 0.97169 & 0.0283 \\ T4.4 & 83.35 & \(-\)0.00798 & 0.98180 & 0.0182 \\ T4.5 & 60.41 & \(-\)0.01838 & 0.95856 & 0.0414 \\ T5.1 & 57.28 & \(-\)0.00476 & 0.98910 & 0.0109 \\ T5.2 & 72.59 & \(-\)0.00309 & 0.99290 & 0.0071 \\ T5.3 & 68.58 & \(-\)0.00353 & 0.99191 & 0.0081 \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 5: Estimated HEP for each lifeboat drill task. Figure 2: Probabilities of human error for the tasks involved in a lifeboat drill. that there is a high level of agreement between the experts' judgements (a result closer to 1 means a higher level of agreement). For sensitivity analysis, two-way ANOVA was performed using PSF weights as the dependent variable and PSF categories and tasks as the factors. The results showed that the assigned weights were significantly different between PSF categories (\(p<0.05\)) and significantly different between tasks (\(p<0.05\)) (Table 7). PSF ratings were the dependent variable, while PSF categories and tasks were the factors in rating analysis. According to the analysis results, the ratings significantly differ between PSF categories and between tasks (\(p<0.05\)) (Table 8). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multicolumn{6}{c}{**Tests of between-Subject Effects**} \\ \hline \multicolumn{6}{c}{**Dependent Variable: log(HEP)**} \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Source**} & **Type III Sum of Squares** & \multirow{2}{*}{**Df**} & **Mean Square** & \multirow{2}{*}{**F**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**_p_**} \\  & **Squares** & & & & \\ \hline Corrected model & 7.176  & 25 & 0.287 & 338.799 & \textless{}0.001 \\ Intercept & 485.371 & 1 & 485.371 & 572,858.058 & \textless{}0.001 \\ Experts & 0.003 & 7 & 0.000 & 0.554 & 0.792 \\ Tasks & 7.173 & 18 & 0.399 & 470.339 & \textless{}0.001 \\ Error & 0.107 & 126 & 0.001 & & \\ Total & 492.654 & 152 & & & \\ Corrected total & 7.283 & 151 & & & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 6: Results of two-way ANOVA for inter-judge consistency. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multicolumn{6}{c}{**Tests of between-Subject Effects**} \\ \hline \multicolumn{6}{c}{**Dependent Variable: Weights**} \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Source**} & **Type III Sum of Squares** & \multirow{2}{*}{**Df**} & **Mean Square** & \multirow{2}{*}{**F**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**_p_**} \\  & **Squares** & & & & \\ \hline Corrected model & 38,920.737  & 22 & 1769.124 & 6.183 & \textless{}0.001 \\ Intercept & 497,822.411 & 1 & 497,822.411 & 1739.805 & \textless{}0.001 \\ PSF & 24,225.747 & 4 & 6056.437 & 21.166 & \textless{}0.001 \\ Tasks & 14,694.989 & 18 & 816.388 & 2.853 & \textless{}0.001 \\ Error & 20,601.853 & 72 & 286.137 & & \\ Total & 557,345.000 & 95 & & & \\ Corrected total & 59,522.589 & 94 & & & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 7: Results of two-way ANOVA for sensitivity analysis.