Abstract
Background
In occupational studies, it is a known situation that technical and organizational attempts are used to prevent occupational accidents. Especially in the mining sector, if these attempts cannot prevent occupational accidents, personal protective equipment (PPE) becomes a necessity. Thus, in this study, the main objective is to examine the effects of the variables on the use of PPE and identify important factors.
Methods
A questionnaire was implemented and structural equation modeling was conducted to ascertain the significant factors affecting the PPE use of mining employees. The model includes the factors that ergonomics, the efficiency of PPE and employee training, and PPE usage habit.
Results
The results indicate that ergonomics and employee training have no significant effect (p > 0.05) on the use of PPE. The efficiency of PPE has a statistically meaningful effect (p < 0.05) on the use of PPE. Various variables have been evaluated in previous studies. However, none of them examined the variables simultaneously.
Conclusion
The developed model in the study enables to better focus on ergonomics and employee training in the PPE usage. The effectiveness of a PPE makes its use unavoidable. Emphasizing PPE effectiveness in OHS training and even showing them in practice will increase employees’ PPE usage. The fact that a PPE with high effectiveness is also ergonomic means that it will be used at high rates by the employee.
Keywords: Mining employees, Occupational accidents, Personal protective equipment, Structural equation modeling
1. Introduction
Mining is a hazardous activity and a miner is considered to be a constant conflict with unpredictable forces of nature as this profession involves working at one of the most hazardous environments in the world. Consequently, mining production lasts to be related to a high level of injuries, accidents, and illnesses [1]. Occupational health and safety is a significant social problem as occupational injuries may cause substantial human suffering and create a significant financial burden to the society [2]. Given the magnitude of the problem, it is important to understand the occupational health and safety approach which mainly focuses on issues related to the behavior of employees [3].
A principal critical phase to develop a detailed safety and health program is to determine physical and health hazards in the workplace. This process is identified as a hazard assessment [4]. Personal protective equipment (PPE) represents clothing or an apparatus worn by employees to keep them from physical impact, fire, or chemicals and shows the latest way of defense [5]. Although the removal of hazard is the first precedence, it has been guessed that human fault is a contributing feature in 84% to 94% of industrial damage cases and one of the most widespread defects is the neglect to wear suitable PPE. Huge declines in occupational injuries and accidents may be attained by rising the occurrence of comparatively modest discretionary safety manners, such as PPE use [2].
Sapbamrer and Thammachai [6] stated that legal obligations are necessary to provide and encourage the use of PPE, and they also emphasized the importance of training that includes the benefits of using PPE. When engineering, work practice and administrative controls are not feasible or do not provide sufficient protection, employers must provide PPE to their employees and ensure its use [4]. Tetzlaff et al. [7] mentioned the use of PPE by employees as an important example of adhering to the safety management system and compliance. López-Toro et al. [8] emphasized that manufacturers in the agriculture and forestry sector should make the use of PPE mandatory both for the safe use of the devices and to reduce injuries that may occur during use. The positive feedback from managers and supervisors plays an important role in promoting the use of PPE [9].
In the mining sector, it has been stated that factors related to the design or maintenance of PPE or safety equipment also contribute to the occurrence of accidents [10]. Serious injuries in underground mining operations can be minimized with the use of appropriate PPE [11]. Zhang et al. [12] stated that the importance of personal protective equipment is overlooked in accidents that occur in coal mining enterprises, as a lack of safety culture. Ismail et al. [13], in their study, examined the ignoring of the use of PPE in the main causes of mining accidents in the category of unsafe behaviors.
According to OSHA, the proper use of PPE can prevent 37.6% of occupational injuries and diseases. 12%–14% of occupational injuries resulting in total disability are caused by employees not wearing appropriate PPE [14]. The use of PPE may lead to discomfort to employees due to sweat, visibility, breathe, or movement problems. These effects need to be fully assessed to predict PPE use. Multiple constituents cause the usage of multivariate models. Structural Equation Modeling which is a multivariate statistical technique can reveal the direct or indirect relations among exploratory factors and a dependent factor [15,16]. Discovering the relations in a single model is important and SEM is proficient to explain this kind of problem [17]. SEM has been substantially used in numerous areas including mining, marketing, ecology, psychology, banking, and safety behavior [[18], [19], [20], [21], [22]].
Several methods such as decision-making process, correlation analysis, regression analysis, principal component analysis, experimental measurement, univariate and bivariate analyses were conducted to evaluate the PPE usage [2,3,9,[23], [24], [25], [26]]. From related literature research [3,9,14,24,27,28], four variables were determined to construct the model. In this study, the main purpose is to examine the effects of these variables on the use of PPE and to identify which of the factors are important.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study design
The research model includes four constructs namely ergonomics, employee training, the efficiency of PPE, and the PPE usage habit. The research framework is presented in Fig. 1. The four model constructs were explained below:
-
1.
Ergonomics: PPE must be designed and manufactured to comply with the predictable situations of the use so the intended user can implement the hazard related activity.
-
2.
The efficiency of PPE: PPE should be designed and manufactured in such a manner that it will be easy to stop at the correct position on the user, taking into account the movements to be made and the shape of the body during work, and remain in place for the intended use.
-
3.
Employee training: Training helps employees in obtaining the essential knowledge, skills, and attitude to be capable of using the required PPE [29].
-
4.
PPE usage habit: While examining the various accidents as well as their claims and causes, it is observed that most of these accidents are because employees did not use the required PPE.
Fig. 1.
Research framework.
2.2. Data collection
A questionnaire was developed in the study, and the data were examined. The reliability and validity assessments were conducted for this objective. There are several statistical methods for determining the survey's reliability. This is conducted by evaluating the reliability of the answers to all of the questions on a survey as a whole, as well as the replies to each individual question. Internal consistency is the most commonly used means of determining reliability. The method examines the correlation or link between the responses to items on a survey. The Cronbach's α test was used to determine the measurement items' reliability. Construct validity is a statistical technique for determining if test measures what it claims to measure. Barlett's test of sphericity (BTOS) and Kaiser–Meyer–Oklin (KMO) values were also used to assess the construct validity [30]. The questionnaire was applied to the company’s employees operating in the mining sector in Turkey. Although there were 115 initial participants, 15 questionnaires were excluded due to missing values, and 100 participants' data were used for the final analysis. Tabachnick and Fidell [30] suggested that when the variable number is not too large, sample size between 100 and 200 is sufficient. The participants were asked to answer according to a 5-point Likert scale ranging from “strongly disagree” (1) to “strongly agree” (5). Table 1 represents the demographic characteristics of employees.
Table 1.
Demographic data of participants
Category | Item | Frequency |
---|---|---|
Marital status | Single | 8 |
Married | 92 | |
Age | 20–25 | 2 |
26–31 | 5 | |
32–37 | 11 | |
38–43 | 25 | |
44–49 | 28 | |
50+ | 29 | |
Level of education | Elementary school | 64 |
Intermediate school | 18 | |
High school | 16 | |
Graduate | 1 | |
Post graduate | 1 | |
Work experience (year) | 1–5 | 32 |
6–10 | 37 | |
11–15 | 20 | |
16–20 | 2 | |
20+ | 9 | |
Sum | 100 |
A pre-test was conducted in the company to (1) aid respondents in their understanding of each item, improve its contents, and texts, (2) minimize ambiguity, and (3) avoid the use of redundant and unneeded measuring indicators. Pre-tests of the initial 20-item questionnaire were carried out with 50 employees. Questions of the survey were presented as detailed in Table 2.
Table 2.
Questions of the survey
Construct | Indicator | Item |
---|---|---|
Ergonomics | ERG1 | Dust masks make it difficult to breathe during work |
ERG2 | Eye spectacles hinder viewing due to lens fogging | |
ERG3 | Body protectors restricts movements in areas that require active work | |
ERG4 | PPE are easy to access | |
ERG5 | Dust masks and eye spectacles fit on face completely | |
ERG6 | Hearing protectors hinder speaking and hearing | |
Efficiency of PPE | EP1 | Eye protectors protect eyes from various harmful substances and impacts |
EP2 | Working clothes are suitable for seasonal conditions | |
EP3 | Dust masks provide protection completely against fine dusts | |
EP4 | Hearing protectors reduce the sound pressure level of the noise adequately | |
EP5 | Body protectors are adequately durable against chemical splash and tearing | |
EP6 | PPE are integrated with each other | |
Employee training | ET1 | I have information about the risks in work environment |
ET2 | I have sufficient training in PPE usage | |
ET3 | I change PPE periodically | |
ET4 | I carefully protect and keep all my PPE for my next work | |
ET5 | I have information about occupational safety and health | |
PPE usage habit | PUH1 | I wear body protectors regularly |
PUH2 | I use dust mask and eye protector in all working conditions | |
PUH3 | I use hearing protection in noisy environment |
2.3. Data analysis
Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was implemented on survey data to determine the latent variables or the causal variables under which numerous features were classified. EFA comprises of factor rotation, extraction, and factor loadings. Factor extraction includes the identification of the causal variables that sufficiently describes the observed association between the attributes. There are multiple techniques related to factor extraction in the literature. In the present article, the principal component extraction method was chosen since we aim to reveal the most suitable number of factors that clarify the largest quantity of difference between the studied attributes. The rotation method used in the present article is varimax.
Suitability of the data for EFA was implemented using ’BTOS and KMO measure. The result of the KMO value larger than 0.5 is accepted appropriate for EFA. BTOS having value of p < 0.01 is accepted appropriate for EFA [31].
In the literature, there are a variety of views on factor load limit values. The higher the factor weight, the greater the question's ability to describe the relevant factor, and hence the factor's reliability. To say that an item accurately measures a construct or factor, the factor load value must be 0.30 or above. In general, factor loading values of 0.60 and higher, regardless of sign, are regarded "high," whereas loading values of 0.30–0.59 are considered "medium." For different sample sizes, the researcher can use the idea of statistical power to establish factor loadings that are considered significant. Factor loadings of 0.55 and above are significant in a sample of 100 respondents [32]. When an object has a low factor load, it means it is not closely associated with that factor. The following are the results of evaluations based on factor loading values [33]:
-
•
It is considered "good" if the factor load is 0.55 (explaining 30% of the variance).
-
•
It is considered "mediocre" if the factor load is 0.45 (explaining 20% of the variance).
-
•
It is considered "poor" if the factor load is 0.32 (explaining 10% of the variance).
The factor loading of each variable should be at least 0.57. This is the minimum rate declared in the literature and signifies the good association between attributes and latent factors [23]. Factor loadings for this study were assessed to be 0.57 and above, in accordance with the above findings.
Composite reliability (CR) and average variance extracted (AVE) were calculated to assess the validity of the scale. Nunally and Bernstein [34] suggested a value of 0.70 or higher for CR and according to Segars [35], it is accepted sufficient if AVE is 0.50 or higher. The dependability of the constructs was tested using Cronbach Alpha coefficient. Cronbach Alpha evaluates the internal consistency of the factors in data. Cronbach Alpha value of 0.70 or higher is considered acceptable [36]. EFA, KMO, Barlett’s test of sphericity and reliability analysis were performed in the statistical software SPSS 24. Table 3 illustrates the results of the EFA.
Table 3.
Results of exploratory factor analysis
Construct/Indicator | Items | Factor loading | Cronbach alpha | CR | AVE |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Ergonomics | 0.929 | 0.885 | 0.562 | ||
ERG1 | I1 | 0.768 | |||
ERG2 | I2 | 0.816 | |||
ERG3 | I3 | 0.718 | |||
ERG4 | I4 | 0.694 | |||
ERG5 | I5 | 0.701 | |||
ERG6 |
I6 |
0.792 |
|||
Efficiency of PPE | 0.889 | 0.847 | 0.526 | ||
EP1 | I7 | 0.704 | |||
EP2 | I8 | 0.673 | |||
EP3 | I9 | 0.732 | |||
EP4 | I10 | 0.730 | |||
EP5 | I11 | 0.785 | |||
EP6 |
∗ |
||||
Employee training | 0.820 | 0.807 | 0.514 | ||
ET1 | I12 | 0.783 | |||
ET2 | I13 | 0.616 | |||
ET3 | I14 | 0.754 | |||
ET4 | I15 | 0.705 | |||
ET5 |
∗ |
||||
PPE usage habit | 0.883 | 0.794 | 0.563 | ||
PUH1 | I16 | 0.747 | |||
PUH2 | I17 | 0.761 | |||
PUH3 | I18 | 0.742 |
These variables were deleted. The factor loadings of the indicators: EP6: 0.397, ET5: 0.489.
The result of KMO is obtained to be 0.920 and the outcome of BTOS indicates the value of p < 0, which means the survey data are suitable for factor analysis. All factor loadings in Table 3 are larger than 0.57, representing an acceptable significant level of internal validity. One question from the efficiency of PPE and one question from employee training was deleted since factor loadings of these variables are below 0.57. The factor loadings of the scale are at an acceptable significant level. Cronbach Alpha values are higher than 0.70 of all constructs, which indicate good reliability of data. CR and AVE values of the constructs are higher than minimum levels of 0.70 and 0.50, respectively.
2.4. Confirmatory factor analysis
Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) is a multivariate statistical methodology utilized to reveal comprehensively a model analyzed by EFA. CFA was used to test the measurement model for each construct and evaluate the relationships between latent variables and their indicators. In this study, CFA was conducted using AMOS 24 software. The analysis was constructed using the maximum likelihood approach. CFA verifies the factor structure using numerous statistical measures that check the goodness of the model fit. Several goodness-of-fit indices suggested by numerous investigators were utilized to determine the model fit, including the goodness-of-fit index, the comparative fit index (CFI), the root mean squared error of approximation and the χ2/df. Table 4 shows the measures used to test these indices.
Table 4.
Measures used to test the goodness of model fit [21]
Fit index | Good fit value | Acceptable value |
---|---|---|
/df | ≤3 | ≤4-5 |
GFI | ≥0.90 | 0.89–0.85 |
CFI | ≥0.97 | ≥0.95 |
RMSA | ≤0.05 | 0.06–0.08 |
Relations between latent and measurement variables are depicted in the measurement model. Three constructs (latent variables) in the measurement model namely ergonomics, the efficiency of PPE, employee training are inter-related, as indicated by the two-headed arrows. Besides, 18 observed variables were enclosed in squares. The numbers on arrows depict the correlation coefficient between the latent variables and the standardized regression weights of the observed variables. The symbols e1– e15 are seen as errors in the measurement model.
Measurement model results were χ2/df = 1.688, goodness-of-fit index = 0.847, CFI = 0.942 and RMSA = 0.083. Results show that the initial model needed to be modified. Fig. 2 displays the outcome of the modified measurement model.
Fig. 2.
Modified measurement model.
The modified measurement model results were χ2/df = 1.359, GFI = 0.883, CFI = 0.971 and RMSA = 0.060. Based on these results, all the goodness of fit values is in the acceptable range, which implied the validity of the modified measurement model.
2.5. Structural model
A common subject in the arrangement and determination of structural models is that an acceptable measurement model is desired before assessing a structural equation model [37]. According to these limitations, a model was constructed providing the goodness-of-fit in the study. Considering the impact of ergonomics (ERG), the efficiency of PPE (EP) and employee training (ET) constructs to the PPE usage habit (PUH), a structural model was suggested in Fig. 3. As a part of SEM, it is essential to improve the hypothesis demonstrating the correlation between the latent variables. Hypotheses of the study as follows:
H1
: Important positive relation presents between ergonomics and PPE usage habits.
H2
: Important positive relation presents between the efficiency of PPE and PPE usage habit.
H3
: Important positive relation presents between employee training and PPE usage habit.
The structural model results are χ2/df = 1.419, GFI = 0.856, CFI = 0.960, and RMSA = 0.065. The goodness of fit values is in a suitable range, which indicated a satisfactory fit between the structural model and the data. The results of the hypotheses were given in Table 5.
As the p values are higher than 0.05 in the relations of ERG and ET with the PPE use, it is determined that there is no statistically meaningful relationship. Thus, H1 and H3 hypotheses of the research were not supported. It has also resulted that the efficiency of PPE has a positive and statistically meaningful effect on PPE use (β = 0.733; p < 0.05). Hence, H2 hypothesis was supported based on this finding.
Fig. 3.
Structural model.
Table 5.
Results of the hypotheses
Hypothesis | Path | β | p | Result |
---|---|---|---|---|
H1 | ERG → PUH | 0.064 | 0.713 | Not supported |
H2 | EP → PUH | 0.733 | ∗∗∗ | Supported |
H3 | ET → PUH | 0.022 | 0.889 | Not supported |
β = Standardized Regression Weights, p = Significant Probability. ∗∗∗ Significant probability value less than 0.001.
3. Results
The predicted positive influence of ERG on the PPE use (H1 hypothesis) was not supported because the ERG construct was not significantly related to the PPE use (p > 0.05). This indicates that ERG does not affect the PPE use of employees. Based on the research findings by Akbar-Khanzadeh et al. [14], despite all the huge stages in making PPE more attractive, better fitting or light-weight, approximately half of the employees searched did not admit their PPE as comfortable. Thus, safety managers need to provide more support including PPE manufacturers’ specifications and focus on the best likely products to achieve a particular safety task.
The predicted positive influence of the efficiency of PPE on the PPE use (H2 hypothesis) was supported because the efficiency of PPE showed a significant influence on PPE use (p < 0.05). This indicates that the efficiency of PPE affects the PPE use of employees. This result is relevant to a control system that has been conducted by safety managers. This control system showed a positive effect on PPE use. With the control program, the efficiency of the equipment is regularly provided according to the feedback from employees and accident analysis. On the other hand, specific drawbacks of using PPE such as disorder, exhaustion, and so on can be discovered in the very early stage. Jagt et al. [27] indicated the requirement of such a control program to improve the efficiency of PPE.
The predicted positive influence of ET on the PPE use (H3 hypothesis) was not supported because the ET construct was not significantly related to the PPE use (p > 0.05). This indicates that ET does not affect the PPE use of employees. Training should contain a component of theory along with practice in using the equipment and should be implemented compliant with the recommendations and directions provided by the PPE manufacturer. According to Newill et al. (1989), even those highly educated unsuccessful to use their PPE. Mayer and Korhonen [38] suggested focusing more on the proper selection of the devices and on the information and training of employees on the manner of wearing PPE. Lack of comfort is a major factor in the reported observation [6]. In a study by Murphy et al. [39], whether offered as the manufacturer’s printed directions, a short video training session specific to the product or as a one-on-one training session was evaluated using eight hearing groups and four hearing protection devices. After receiving individual instruction, poorly performing subjects were able to properly insert the earplugs and achieve sufficient attenuation. The focus of this study was to acquire more about the factors that influence employees' PPE usage patterns in a mining firm. The factors determined as part of the study's scope are specific to the operating conditions under which the study is conducted and will vary between enterprises. In the company, PPE usage training is held on a regular basis. The factor loading of the relevant item (ET2) reveals the outcome of regular training. Furthermore, the employees have a sufficient understanding of the work environment (Factor loading of ET1: 0.783). Thus, the factor load of the ET5 item was low as a result of this condition. When OHS knowledge is considered together with other characteristics, the study reveals that employees having appropriate information about risks and having enough PPE training are more efficient in forecasting usage behaviors.
4. Discussions
The prominence of the efficiency factor in the usage of PPE allowed a research topic to be combined: training alone may not be sufficient and, thus, the development of training programs should be conducted together with the efficiency of PPE. Both the design of vocational training programs and the prevention of occupational accidents in OHS programs benefit from the intersection of these two topics. This research is based not only on employee occupational health and safety training, but also on the impact of effectiveness on PPE usage, which is the ultimate goal of increasing PPE usage. This OSH learning model based on the activity-training theory is beneficial for assuring productivity in a work organization and generating long-term solutions that promote the development of job skills, including OHS components.
According to study results, education should be combined with other forms of intervention, such as engineering and ERG. To achieve a positive outcome, management's safety training, support, goal-setting, providing feedback to stimulate application of newly acquired knowledge, and incentives or prizes to reinforce performance are critical. Workers who have been trained to protect themselves from specific workplace dangers may still be damaged [40,41]. According to the findings of this study, education alone is ineffective in the usage of personal protective equipment. In addition to insufficient training provided to employees in the enterprises, employees' improper usage of personal protective equipment lowers the effectiveness of the PPE, even when it is chosen in accordance with norms and regulations. This condition has a negative impact on the utilization of personal protective equipment. A good training program can mitigate this harmful influence.
The factor load value is a coefficient that explains the link between the items and the factors. The load values of the factors in which the items occur are expected to be high. If a group of items is significantly linked with a factor, this indicates that the items as a whole measure the construct in issue. When an item's factor loading value is low, it means the item isn't highly related to the factor in question. The fact that an object has a low factor loading merely suggests that it is judged ineffective for measuring that construct. Keeping an unnecessary component in a model will have an impact on the model's fitness index in SEM [42,43]. Thus, the focus of this research is to find out which factors are important in the emergence of a PPE usage habit using a scale whose reliability and validity were verified via explanatory factor analysis. The model's starting point is pure theory, with the goal of giving a strong model fit index to correctly interpret the study results. The elements that affect construct validity were removed from the analysis in the literature and the model was tested [44].
5. Conclusions
Application of SEM was demonstrated to determine the efficient factors on PPE usage for employees particularly in the mining environment in the present study. Preventing occupational accidents can be achieved via the analysis of multiple factors simultaneously. Thus, it is essential to use a technique that regards multiple criteria to explain the problem such as SEM.
The results of the survey were analyzed using Exploratory and Confirmatory Factor Analysis. Finally, the structural model was constructed to examine the impact of ERG, efficiency of PPE and ET variables on the PPE use variable. The results of the hypotheses explain that the efficiency of PPE, with the factor loading of 0.733, is the most effective factor. ERG and ET factors are not efficient on the PPE use due to insignificant p values (p > 0.05).
Many studies have been carried out by various variables. However, none evaluated these variables simultaneously, especially in one model. The developed model in the present study enables some guidance to companies to better focus on ERG and ET to improve employees’ PPE usage. The PPE use can considerably be gained with consideration of combined ergonomic design and a detailed training program. Risks employees may encounter in case of not being used PPE should be emphasized in occupational health and safety training. Future studies need to develop the structural models in which employees actively participated in different sectors.
Ethics approval
Ethical approval of the study was gained from the Ethics Committee of Eskisehir Osmangazi University with the number 2020-01.
Conflict of Interest
On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.
Contributor Information
Nilufer Kursunoglu, Email: nilufer.kursunoglu@batman.edu.tr.
Seyhan Onder, Email: sonder@ogu.edu.tr.
Mustafa Onder, Email: monder@ogu.edu.tr.
References
- 1.Onder S. Evaluation of occupational injuries with lost days among opencast coal mine workers through logistic regression models. Saf Sci. 2013;59:86–92. doi: 10.1016/j.ssci.2013.05.002. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Olson R., Grosshuesch A., Schmidt S., Gray M., Wipfli B. Observational learning and workplace safety: the effects of viewing the collective behavior of multiple social models on the use of personal protective equipment. J Saf Res. 2009;40(5):383–387. doi: 10.1016/j.jsr.2009.07.004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Demirbilek T., Çakır O. Individual and organizational variables affecting the use of personal protective equipment. Dokuz Eylul Univ Fac Econ Administrative Sci J. 2008;23(2):173–191. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/deuiibfd/issue/22740/242722 [Internet]. [cited 2020 July 20] Available from: [Google Scholar]
- 4.OSHA . OSHA 3151-12R; 2004. Personal protective equipment.https://www.osha.gov/sites/default/files/publications/osha3151.pdf [Internet] [cited 2021 June 26]. Available from: [Google Scholar]
- 5.Sutton I. Gulf Professional Publishing; Virginia (USA): 2017. Plant design and operations: personal protective equipment; p. 598. [Google Scholar]
- 6.Sapbamrer R., Thammachai A. Factors affecting use of personal protective equipment and pesticide safety practices: a systematic review. Environ Res. 2020;185:109444. doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2020.109444. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Tetzlaff E.J., Goggins K.A., Pegoraro A.L., Dorman S.C., Pakalnis V., Eger T.R. Safety culture: a retrospective analysis of occupational health and safety mining reports. Saf Health Work. 2021;12(2):201–208. doi: 10.1016/j.shaw.2020.12.001. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.López-Toro A.A., Pardo-Ferreira M.C., Martínez-Rojas M., Carrillo-Castrillo J.A., Rubio-Romero J.C. Analysis of occupational accidents during the chainsaws use in Andalucía. Saf Sci. 2021;143:105436. doi: 10.1016/j.ssci.2021.105436. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Lombardi D.A., Verma S.K., Brennan M.J., Perry M.J. Factors influencing worker use of personal protective eyewear. Accid Anal Prev. 2009;41(4):755–762. doi: 10.1016/j.aap.2009.03.017. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Sanmiquel L., Freijo M., Edo J., Rossell J.M. Analysis of work related accidents in the Spanish mining sector from 1982-2006. J Saf Res. 2010;41(1):1–7. doi: 10.1016/j.jsr.2009.09.008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Bansah K.J., Yalley A.B., Dumakor-Dupey N. The hazardous nature of small scale underground mining in Ghana. J Sustainable Mining. 2016;15(1):8–25. doi: 10.1016/j.jsm.2016.04.004. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Zhang J., Fu J., Hao H., Fu G., Nie F., Zhang W. Root causes of coal mine accidents: characteristics of safety culture deficiencies based on accident statistics. Process Saf Environ. 2020;136:78–91. doi: 10.1016/j.psep.2020.01.024. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Ismail S.N., Ramli A., Aziz H.A. Research trends in mining accidents study: a systematic literature review. Saf Sci. 2021;143:105438. doi: 10.1016/j.ssci.2021.105438. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Akbar-Khanzadeh F., Bisesi M.S., Rivas R.D. Comfort of personal protective equipment. Appl Ergon. 1995;3(26):195–198. doi: 10.1016/0003-6870(95)00017-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Flynn M.A., Keller B., DeLaney S.C. Promotion of alternative-sized personal protective equipment. J Saf Res. 2017;63:43–46. doi: 10.1016/j.jsr.2017.08.004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Li H., Liu Y., Peng K. Characterizing the relationship between road infrastructure and local economy using structural equation modeling. Transp Policy. 2018;61:17–25. doi: 10.1016/j.tranpol.2017.10.002. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Ouyang X., Lee S.Y., Connolly R.M. Structural equation modelling reveals factors regulating surface sediment organic carbon content and CO2 efflux in a subtropical mangrove. Sci Total Environ. 2017;578:513–522. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.10.218. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Renganathan R., Balachandran S., Govindarajan K. Customer perception towards banking sector: structural equation modeling approach. Afr J Bus Manage. 2012;6(46):11426–11436. doi: 10.5897/AJBM12.445. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Hesse K., Klingberg S. Examining the cognitive model of caregiving – a structural equation modelling approach. Psychiat Res. 2014;217:171–176. doi: 10.1016/j.psychres.2014.02.023. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Beaumelle L., Vile D., Lamy I., Vandenbulcke F., Gimbert F., Hedde M. A structural equation model of soil metal bioavailability to earthworms: confronting causal theory and observations using a laboratory exposure to field-contaminated soils. Sci Total Environ. 2016;569–570:961–972. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.06.023. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Yildiz E., Ulker Demirel E. Measuring the effects of brand authenticity dimensions on word-of-mouth marketing via brand image using structural equation modeling. Int J Business Soc Sci. 2017;8:121–130. https://www.ijbssnet.com/journals/Vol_8_No_3_March_2017/11.pdf [Internet]. [cited 2020 May 12] Available from: [Google Scholar]
- 22.Zaira M.M., Hadikusumo B.H.V. Structural equation model of integrated safety intervention practices affecting the safety behaviour of workers in the construction industry. Saf Sci. 2017;98:124–135. doi: 10.1016/j.ssci.2017.06.007. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Norris E., Myers L. Determinants of personal protective equipment (PPE) use in UK motorcyclists: exploratory research applying an extended theory of planned behavior. Accid Anal Prev. 2013;60:219–230. doi: 10.1016/j.aap.2013.09.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Wagner H., Kim A.J., Gordon L. Relationship between personal protective equipment, self-efficacy, and job satisfaction of women in the building trades. J Constr Eng M. 2013;139(10) doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000739. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Indasah, Maula N.Z., Dewi K.P. Relationship of behaviour in the use of personal protective equipment (APD), eating a healthy and balanced, and personal hygiene to health status of skin on scavengers in Tpa kediri. J Appl Environ Biol Sci. 2016;6(2):1–5. https://www.textroad.com/pdf/JAEBS/J.%20Appl.%20Environ.%20Biol.%20Sci.,%206(2)1-5,%202016.pdf [Internet]. [cited 2020 May 12] Available from: [Google Scholar]
- 26.Kearney G.D., Xu X., Balanay J.A.G., Allen D.L., Rafferty A.P. Assessment of personal protective equipment use among farmers in eastern North Carolina: a cross-sectional study. J Agromedicine. 2015;20(1):43–54. doi: 10.1080/1059924X.2014.976730. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Jagt K.V.D., Tielemans E., Links I., Brouwer D., van Hemmen J. Effectiveness of personal protective equipment: relevance of dermal and inhalation exposure to chlorpyrifos among pest control operators. J Occup Environ Hyg. 2004;1:355–362. doi: 10.1080/15459620490449710. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Meydan C.H., Şeşen H. 2nd ed. Detay Publishing; Ankara (Turkey): 2015. Structural equation modeling Amos applications; p. 144. [Google Scholar]
- 29.Occupational Safety and Health Branch Labour Department . 2009. Chemical safety in the workplace, Guidance notes on personal protective equipment (PPE) for use and handling of chemicals.https://www.labour.gov.hk/eng/public/os/C/equipment.pdf [Internet] [cited 2021 May 15]. Available from: [Google Scholar]
- 30.Tabachnick B.G., Fidell L.S. 6th ed. Pearson New International Edition; USA: 2013. Using multivariate statistics; p. 1072. [Google Scholar]
- 31.Gupta V., Kapur P.K., Kumar D. Modeling and measuring attributes influencing DevOps implementation in an enterprise using structural equation modeling. Inform Software Tech. 2017;92:75–91. doi: 10.1016/j.infsof.2017.07.010. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Hair J.F., Jr., Black W.C., Babin B.J., Anderson R.E. 7th ed. Pearson Education; Upper Saddle River: 2010. Multivariate data analysis: a global perspective. [Google Scholar]
- 33.Comrey A.L., Lee H.B. 2nd ed. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.; 1992. A first course in factor analysis. [Google Scholar]
- 34.Nunally J.C., Bernstein I.H. 3rd ed. McGraw-Hill.; New York (USA): 1994. Psychometric theory; p. 736. [Google Scholar]
- 35.Segars A. Assessing the unidimensionality of measurement: a paradigm and illustration within the context of information systems research. Omega, Lnternational J Manage Sci. 1997;25(1):107–121. doi: 10.1016/S0305-0483(96)00051-5. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 36.Schmitt N. Uses and abuses of coefficient alpha. Psychol Assess. 1996;8(4):350–353. doi: 10.1037/1040-3590.8.4.350. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 37.Kline R.B. 3rd ed. Guilford Publishing; New York (USA): 2010. Principles and practice of structural equation modeling; p. 427. [Google Scholar]
- 38.Mayer A., Korhonen E. Assessment of the protection efficiency and comfort of personal protective equipment in real conditions of use. Int J Occup Saf Ergo. 1999;5(3):347–360. doi: 10.1080/10803548.1999.11076425. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39.Murphy W.J., Stephenson M.R., Byrne D.C., Witt B., Duran J. Effects of training on hearing protector attenuation. Noise Health. 2011;13:132–141. doi: 10.4103/1463-1741.77215. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40.Fiend M.A., Kohn J.P. 4th ed. Scarecrow Press; USA: 2007. Fundamentals of occupational safety and health. [Google Scholar]
- 41.MacFarlane E., Chapman A., Benke G., Meaklim J., Sim M., McNeil J. Training and other predictors of personal protective equipment use in Australian grain farmers using pesticides. Occup Environ Med. 2008;65(2):141–146. doi: 10.1136/oem.2007.034843. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 42.Kline P. Routledge; Abingdon-on-Thames: 1994. An easy guide to factor analysis. [Google Scholar]
- 43.Zainudin A. 4th ed. University Technology MARA Press; Kelantan: 2012. A handbook on SEM: structural equation model- ling using amos graphics. [Google Scholar]
- 44.Seo H., Lee Y., Kim J., Jee N. Analyzing safety behaviors of temporary construction workers using structural equation modeling. Saf Sci. 2015;77:160–168. doi: 10.1016/j.ssci.2015.03.010. [DOI] [Google Scholar]