Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tose20
International Journal of Occupational Safety and
Ergonomics
ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tose20
Simulation-based assessments of fire emergency
preparedness and response in virtual reality
Ebo Kwegyir-Afful, Tajudeen Ola Hassan & Jussi I. Kantola
To cite this article: Ebo Kwegyir-Afful, Tajudeen Ola Hassan & Jussi I. Kantola (2021): Simulation-
based assessments of fire emergency preparedness and response in virtual reality, International
Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics, DOI: 10.1080/10803548.2021.1891395
To link to this article:  https://doi.org/10.1080/10803548.2021.1891395
© 2021 Central Institute for Labour
Protection - National Research Institute
(CIOP-PIB). Published by Informa UK
Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
Published online: 19 Mar 2021.
Submit your article to this journal 
Article views: 1161
View related articles 
View Crossmark data
Citing articles: 1 View citing articles 
International Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics (JOSE), 2021
https://doi.org/10.1080/10803548.2021.1891395
Simulation-based assessments of fire emergency preparedness and response in virtual reality
Ebo Kwegyir-Afful a∗, Tajudeen Ola Hassan a and Jussi I. Kantola b
aSchool of Technology and Innovations, University of Vaasa, Finland; bFaculty of Science and Engineering, University of Turku,
Finland
The current study aimed at evaluating the prospects of a three-dimensional gas power plant (GPP) simulation in an immer-
sive virtual reality (IVR) environment for fire emergency preparedness and response (EPR). To achieve this aim, the study
assessed the possibility of safety situational awareness, evacuation drills and hazard mitigation exercises during a fire emer-
gency simulation scenario. The study likewise evaluated the safety and ergonomics of the environment while addressing this
aim. We employed the virtual reality accident causation model (VR-ACM) for the assessment with 54 participants individ-
ually in IVR. Participants were grouped into two according to whether they had work experience in engineering or not. The
obtained results suggested that IVR can be realistic and safe, with the potential for presenting hazardous scenarios necessary
for fire EPR. Furthermore, the results indicated that there were no statistically significant differences in the perceptions of
both groups regarding the prospects of IVR towards EPR.
Keywords: three-dimensional simulation; fire evacuation drills; ergonomics; simulation-based; immersive virtual reality;
emergency preparedness and response
1. Introduction
Several compelling findings suggest that there has been
a significant reduction in accident rates and an increase
in safety awareness and litigation avoidance due to active
and robust occupational safety practices [1–3]. Such emer-
gency practices play important roles by ensuring that work-
ers and employers are well equipped and prepared during
hazards [2]. For this reason, industries and safety standards
regard emergency preparedness and response (EPR) key to
safety countermeasures [4,5]. Evidence also implies that
the absence of safety training (ST), inadequate ST or a lack
of relevant EPR contributes to increasing industrial injuries
and fatalities during emergencies [2,4]. This notwithstand-
ing, exposing workers to hazardous situations in live sec-
tions can be dangerous and too costly [6]. Consequently,
the status quo of EPR logically, but rarely, involves prac-
tice by doing. However, an immersive virtual reality (IVR)
technology can present three-dimensional (3D) computer
simulations of objects, processes and events realistically
for experiential and engaging encounter. IVR thus serves
as a suitable option in situations that are either too expen-
sive or impractical for direct hazard assessments necessary
for EPR [5,7,8].
Grounded in methodologies, IVR thrives on the inter-
est, realism and enthusiasm that subjects experience during
an immersive encounter [9,10]. Furthermore, IVR provides
real-time experience of computer-generated environments
*Corresponding author. Email: ebo.kwegyir-afful@uwasa.fi
needed in simulation-based (SB) assessments [11–13].
Coupled to this, the technology presents information
retention capabilities and benefits of experiential learning
that exceed traditional methods [14–16]. Besides, evidence
suggests that IVR is the best currently known method
for assessments regarding hazard identifications and acci-
dent reconstructions [9]. Accordingly, Dale’s theory of the
learning pyramid specifies between 75 and 90% absorp-
tion and retention as subjects ‘practice by doing’ [17,18].
For this reason, research related to employee develop-
ment places IVR assessments in the category of practice
by doing [19]. Thus, IVR serves as a useful alternative
with captivating tasks towards enhancing EPR [20,21]. For
this reason, IVR is currently gaining popularity in edu-
cation and industry for risk assessments, design reviews
and training [12,18,22]. Despite these growing potentials,
applications of EPR are confined mainly to specific high-
risk industries such as construction, mining, aviation and
healthcare [16,23,24].
Traditional EPR methods are limited to classroom
learning, and this has disadvantages in realism and with-
out response to interactions [16]. Such traditional methods
are rather common for risk assessments in gas power plants
(GPPs), where the gas system has been noted as a high
fire risk [16,21]. Therefore, activities of EPR in conditions
with no accidental exposure renders the practice minimally
effective [2]. This study therefore targeted investigating the
© 2021 Central Institute for Labour Protection - National Research Institute (CIOP-PIB). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/
by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed,
or built upon in any way.
2 E. Kwegyir-Afful et al.
prospects of EPR in a 3D simulation of a GPP in IVR.
To achieve this aim, we employed the virtual reality (VR)
accident causation model (ACM), which incorporates a
series of events for triggering fire outbreaks. This model
was employed for designing and implementing fire EPR
that constitutes situational awareness (SA), fire evacua-
tion drills (FED) and fire hazard mitigations. We further
formulated four research questions (RQs) for testing the
prospects of the exercise:
• RQ1: What levels of safety SA necessary for fire
hazard detection can be attained in an IVR GPP
simulation?
• RQ2: How effective will an IVR simulation environ-
ment of a GPP be for EPR?
• RQ3: How safe and ergonomically viable is the IVR
environment for fire EPR?
• RQ4: Are there significant differences in the results
of RQ1, RQ2 and RQ3 between participants with
engineering work experience and participants with-
out any engineering work experience?
We structured the rest of the article as follows to
address these questions. In the next section, the background
provides an overview of the pertinent literature on IVR,
FED and hazard mitigations followed by the methodol-
ogy and theoretical framework related to EPR. Next, we
present the conceptual model of the study that describes the
structure and empirical framework of the research. Subse-
quently, explanations of the experiment procedure and data
gathering methods are presented. Thereafter, results are
presented that elaborate and discuss the research findings
regarding the four hypotheses. Finally, the study con-
cludes in retrospect with theoretical as well as practical
contributions and implications while examining the study
limitations and suggestions for further research.
2. Background research
Fire EPR constitutes fire hazard identification and risk
assessments, and relies on the requirements of Occupa-
tional Health and Safety Management Systems (OHSMS)
enshrined in Standard No. ISO 45001:2018 [25] for the
prevention of accidents and safety practices [26]. For this
reason, it is mandatory for an International Organization
for Standardization (ISO)-certified facility to ensure that
all emergency preparedness plans, training and provisions
are developed and assessed continuously for the health and
safety of workers, employers and visitors [26].
Factory EPR includes adequate emergency exits, as
well as accessibility to the exits, stairs and walkways in
preparation for exiting the facility during emergencies [27].
Coupled to these, the requisite knowledge, skill and expe-
rience for exiting a facility are vital for accident prevention
and survival during emergency evacuations [22]. These are
outlined as follows:
• familiarity with the environment, emergency safety
procedures and exits;
• realization of situations that necessitate evacuation;
• understanding of the basic guidance during and after
emergencies;
• emergency hazard mitigation procedures [7,11,26].
2.1. Safety evacuation assessment
Several issues require consideration when designing facil-
ities regarding safety evacuations in EPR. Some of these
are as follows:
• evacuation drills do not have to be a boring repetition
of annual lectures [6,27];
• transfer of tacit safety knowledge can be a major
challenge [6];
• although VR provides state-of-the-art methods for
EPR, it should never completely replace traditional
classroom training [16];
• despite the interesting and authentic learning out-
comes that VR provides, applications for EPR in
immersive environments require basic gaming skills
which can be challenging to some participants [27].
2.2. Immersive VR environments
Complete immersion in a 3D simulation environment
is possible through a stereoscopic head-mounted display
(HMD) headset built with gesture and weight sensors to
attain true interactivity for both virtual and constructive
(VC)-type simulations [10]. Embedded in the HMD are
several sensors for detecting and tracking users’ orientation
to enhance the immersive experience [7]. This implies that
users of the VR technology can navigate from one place
to another as well as manipulate objects and receive sen-
sory (visual and auditory) feedback [19,28]. As a result,
simulated 3D images, scenarios and sounds in IVR create
a feeling of presence for real-time response [29]. Presence
in a simulation context refers to the experience that one
immersed in the virtual environment receives while physi-
cally present in another [9,29]. IVR succeeds in this man-
ner by interacting with simulations of real-world scenarios
while providing real-time learning responses [30,31]. Con-
sequently, major industries in automobile, construction and
aviation employ immersive technologies for training and
risk assessment with success [10,24]. IVR and computer
simulations are also useful in determining accessibility of
facilities during emergencies [19], as well as for improv-
ing user ergonomics [8]. For this reason, the technology
enables participants to identify hazardous situations while
implementing appropriate safety countermeasures during
chaotic real-life situations [6,31], thereby making it suit-
able for providing experiential encounter for skill enhance-
ment [3,12]. Evidence also suggests that IVR simulations
International Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics (JOSE) 3
are engaging and interesting; as a result, applications pro-
vide participatory, pedagogical and behavioural learning
outcomes that promote cognitive learning [10,22,23].
2.3. Simulation-based fire evacuation exercise
According to Kinateder et al. [32], three vital issues require
consideration when setting up IVR exercises:
• the possibility of simulation-induced sickness (SS);
• ergonomics of the environments and gadgets;
• validation of the effectiveness of the exercises for
real-life emergencies [32].
These provide a useful basis for designing and imple-
menting IVR environments successfully for fire safety
evacuation exercises [27]. Scholars have long administered
the simulator sickness questionnaire (SSQ) to participants
after SB experiments to determine SS [20,33,34]. Bhide
[27] developed a framework for fire evacuation training
using a desktop computer with the mouse and keyboard
as controllers. The work employed the SSQ for evaluat-
ing the safety of the simulation environment. Obtained
results indicated that participants exhibited better sustained
attention and interest in the virtual realm than in the
conventional classroom environment. In the same way,
Rzez´niczek et al. [34] employed the SSQ for determining
the levels of SS before and after a motion car simulator
experiment. Likewise, Cha et al. [20] developed a VR fire
simulator that displays fire dynamics based on data con-
version techniques for training in fire response and rescue
activities.
2.4. Presence in fire evacuation simulations
Timely evacuation procedures are important during emer-
gencies in GPPs. This is heightened by how quickly and
effectively a hazardous situation can be brought to the
awareness of occupants of the plant [2]. For this reason,
it is prudent to access levels of SA in immersive appli-
cations where emergency actions are required, such as in
fire EPR [9]. A method widely utilized for assessing the
level of presence is the Slater–Usoh–Steed questionnaire
(SUSQ). The SUSQ is also frequently employed for eval-
uating awareness during training and risk assessments in
simulation environments [7,23,35]. Interestingly, SB EPR
in combating fire indicates that participants exhibit similar
levels of learning in simulations to those in actual scenarios
[7,36].
3. Methods
3.1. Research framework, hypotheses and assessmentmodel
This section explains our EPR assessment model, hypothe-
ses and research methodology, as shown in Figure 1. The
model is built on a modified version of Bhide’s [27] vir-
tual 3D emergency fire evacuation training design, and
also based on Dhalmahapatra et al.’s [12] VR-ACM com-
prising SB modelling, recognition of impending hazards
and, finally, assessments. Although the ACM was origi-
nally designed for accident investigations, the VR-ACM
is as suitable for assessing awareness and preparedness for
fire emergencies [12,37]. Figure 1 consists of the following
three parts and elaborates our study methodology:
• identification (i.e., recognition of the problem, RQs
and hypotheses formulation);
• virtual environment, explaining the experiment pro-
cedure characterized by a maintenance task in IVR,
accident causation, awareness of the situation, evac-
uation and hazard mitigation in the GPP simulation;
• evaluation of the experience, where participants
answer the 15-item questionnaire regarding the
exercise.
The evaluation, firstly, assesses participants’ levels of
SA that answer RQ1 as stated in H 1 (see Section 3.5
for details of H 1–H 4). We adapted related questions from
the SUSQ that are extensively utilized in analysing SA.
Next was the evaluation of H 2 in answer to RQ2, which
assesses the effectiveness of FED and the hazard miti-
gation exercises in IVR. In this way, H 2 also evaluates
the success or otherwise of the immersive exposure. The
questionnaire for assessing H 2 was derived from Kirk-
patrick’s three-stage model for evaluations. Thirdly, RQ3
seeks to discover the safety and ergonomics (SE) of the
simulation environment as stated in H 3 and relies on the
SSQ for measuring VR-induced symptoms and effects
(VRISE). VRISE occur if one exposed to a virtual sim-
ulation generates symptoms like motion sickness. The
SSQ was designed by Kennedy et al. [38] and mea-
sures three distinct factors: nausea, oculomotor disturbance
and disorientation. Notably, whereas the main hypothe-
ses of this study (i.e., H 1, H 2 and H 3) focus essen-
tially on SA, FED with mitigation and ergonomics, and
are related to the ACM in the immersive environment,
the moderator hypothesis (H 4) relies on the independent
variable work experience in engineering. Therefore, H 4
evaluates the differences in answers to RQ1, RQ2 and
RQ3 between participants with engineering work expe-
rience and participants without any engineering work
experience.
Although literature served as the main source of infor-
mation for this model, we were privileged to interview two
experts in EPR about GPPs, on preparedness for emer-
gencies and FED. Key issues obtained in the interviews
highlighted gas leakage and the location of the main gas
valve outside the plant. Other points gathered were the
importance of early recognition of fire hazards in the
assessment for possible mitigation. On the other hand,
information gathered about the evacuation drills during
4 E. Kwegyir-Afful et al.
Figure 1. Conceptual model of the study.
Note: 3D = three-dimensional; EPR = emergency preparedness and response; GPP = gas power plant; IVR = immersive virtual
reality; VR = virtual reality.
the interviews dealt with communicating evacuation routes
precisely before the drills and keeping the emergency
plan up to date as well as providing adequate evacua-
tion routes in the plant. These interviews enabled a more
practical and realistic perspective to our virtual assessment
model.
3.2. The 3D immersive environment
We developed our model for the plant with the aid of
Fusion 360 version 2.0.9305 3D designing software and
Unreal real-time game engine version 4.2 (UE4) that
enabled creating simulations for the assessment. A Win-
dows 10 Enterprise, 64-bit computer (ASUS, Taiwan) with
an Intel Core i7-7700 Quad-Core processor at 3.6GHz
processing speed, having a GTX 1070 graphics card, pow-
ered the simulation. Two base stations (HTC Vive, China)
relayed the plant simulation for participants to experience
full immersion through an HMD and hand-held controllers
(HTC Vive, China) with gesture sensors. The 3D simu-
lation environment constituted a conceptual power plant,
powered by three gas-fired engines.
3.3. Assessment procedure
The exercise began by first explaining the IVR envi-
ronment, the tasks for the assessment and the personal
emergency evacuation plan (PEEP) individually to all
participants and allowed questions. The explanation also
covered the IVR techniques regarding the HMD, con-
trollers and drills as well as the questionnaire based on
the EPR. Participation was voluntary, and confidentiality of
the participants’ identity was guaranteed. Upon agreement,
both researchers and participants signed the informed con-
sent form. Consequently, we collected participants’ demo-
graphic information (Table 1) based on the anonymity and
non-traceability criteria. Participants then wore the HMD
head set, which allows 3D views of the simulated plant
depending on the angle of sight. One of the participants
had to discontinue the exercise after commencement since
she could not see clearly through the HMD headset with-
out her eyeglasses. The participants were then divided into
the two groups according to their work experience in the
field of engineering. This was because those who work in
the engineering field are usually perceived to have some
International Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics (JOSE) 5
Table 1. Demographic characteristics of study participants.
Demographic
factor Value
Age 18–28 years = 37 (68.52%), 29–39
years = 13 (24.07%), 39 years and
older = 4 (7.41%)
Gender Females = 13 (24.07%), males = 41
(75.93%)
Study level First degree = 22, master’s degree = 24,
PhD = 8
Work experience Participants without engineering work
experience = 21 (38.89%), participants
with engineering work experience = 33
(61.11%)
occupational safety knowledge or skills that are relevant to
the current exercise.
3.4. Fire evacuation and mitigation assessments
The exercise in VR proceeded as follows:
• Both groups of participants were initially tasked with
replacing the air filter of the third engine in the plant.
• During the filter replacement, the accident simula-
tor triggered dense smoke because of fire eruption,
which quickly populated the plant. This smoke was
caused by gas leakage from the second engine in the
plant.
• Upon sensing the emergency, participants were to
evacuate the plant through the nearest door exit.
• After safely exiting the plant, participants were then
tasked to isolate the power source by shutting the
emergency valve.
These procedures were to be implemented through
the premeditated PEEP, which incorporated identification
of key escape routes with specific evacuation procedures
and, finally, mitigation of the impending hazard. Detec-
tion of fire was purely by the awareness of participants and
the model purposefully omitted gas detectors, alarms and
sirens. The reason for this was to test levels of SA at the
onset of the fire hazard. The simulated smoke hazard was
relevant to the awareness and preparedness for fire emer-
gencies since smoke inhalation is attributed as the leading
cause of death during fire outbreaks [11]. Secondly, early
detection of gas leakage with subsequent mitigation is nec-
essary in GPP EPR to avert the possibility of explosion.
Evacuation from the plant (Figure 2) was possible with the
aid of handheld controllers that enabled participants in the
operating equipment to manoeuvre, walk and open doors in
the plant. The second part of the assessment involved miti-
gation of the fire outbreak. The mitigation process involved
moving outside the plant and closing the gas valve as seen
in Figure 3 to stop fuelling the ignited fire.
3.5. Data collection and analysis
The 54 students who took part in the assessment were from
four universities in Vaasa, Finland (Table 1). We targeted
four universities to obtain a wide diversity of participants.
Table 1 also presents the demographics of the partici-
pants who comprise the two groups: students without any
engineering work experience; and students with some engi-
neering work experience. The exercise took place between
November 2018 and February 2020 at the Technoboth-
nia Virtual Reality Research and Development Laboratory,
which is equipped with state-of-the-art equipment needed
for the exercise. After performing the task outlined in
Section 3.4, participants finally evaluated the prospects of
the exercise as well as the SE of the IVR environment.
Assessment was obtained on a 5-point Likert scale ranging
from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree.
3.5.1. Analysis of safety SA
SA in the context of occupational safety refers to the
awareness of individuals to the surrounding conditions due
to their ability in identifying potential risks and hazardous
situations ahead of possible dangers [9]. Notably, SA is
relevant in situations where quick information process-
ing is vital with serious consequences for inaction or poor
decisions [15]. The three levels of SA considered for this
assessment, according to the SUSQ guidelines [24], consti-
tute: level 1, perception potentials of hazardous conditions
in the environment; level 2, comprehension of the condi-
tion; level 3, links to future projections in the event of the
perceived condition occurring. We posit the following in
answer to the levels of SA that are attainable in the plant
simulation as stated in RQ1:
• H 1: substantial levels of SA necessary for fire hazard
recognition are attainable in an IVR GPP simulation
environment.
• Measures: we measured participants’ level of SA
(Q1–Q5) by portions of the SUSQ that, as afore-
mentioned, measures and ascertains the depth of
presence and exposure in virtual environments [24].
Table 3 presents the data obtained for the SA. We
obtained Cronbach’s α = 0.725.
3.5.2. Assessment of the evacuation exercises
The evacuation exercise consisted of three parts; recogni-
tion, response and evacuation [7]. Participants rated their
experience by their ability to evacuate from the plant from
the time the fire broke out, by their ability to sense the
danger and find the nearest exit for evacuation within the
maximum evacuation time limit of 2.5min as stipulated in
the fire safety guides for factories and warehouses [39].
Closing the main gas valve (Figure 4) that pumps natu-
ral gas to the engine successfully halts the fire hazard and
concludes the assessment. In answer to RQ2 linked to the
6 E. Kwegyir-Afful et al.
Figure 2. A participant evacuating the power plant at the onset of fire.
Figure 3. A participant closing the main gas valve to arrest the fire hazard.
International Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics (JOSE) 7
Figure 4. Completion of the EPR assessment.
Note: EPR = emergency preparedness and response.
effectiveness of the evacuation and mitigation exercises,
we hypothesize the following.
• H 2: compelling fire evacuation and mitigation exer-
cises are feasible in IVR GPP simulations.
• Measures: to measure the effectiveness of the evac-
uation and mitigation drills in our questionnaire,
we derived Q6–Q10 (Table 4) pursuant to Kirk-
patrick’s three steps for evaluating successes or oth-
erwise of exercises. The steps are reaction (level 1),
learning (level 2) and behaviour and results (level
3) [40,41]. These steps have been employed for
measuring experiential learning effectively in vir-
tual emergency evacuation exercises. We obtained
Cronbach’s α = 0.705.
3.5.3. SE of the assessment environment
We combined questions of possible SS and user friend-
liness according to the SSQ to answer Q11–Q15. These
questions, as explained earlier, consider disorientation
and the oculomotor impact of VRISE as well as the
ergonomics of the set-up. Oculomotor impact refers to
fatigue, headache, concentration and the difficulty one
encounters in focusing [23]. Besides, our simulation exper-
iment was set up according to the health and safety instruc-
tions of the HMD safety regulatory guide in compliance
with protecting the safety and well-being of participants
during immersive exercises. Adhering to these regulations
is essential, considering that a technology employed for
assessing and promoting safety needs to ensure substan-
tial safety levels during the assessments. For example,
improper adjustment of the VR headset to a ‘bad fit’ on
participants can lead to blurred images and poor optical
presentation, which increases VRISE [15]. Secondly, it
was necessary to provide supervision and adequate guid-
ance to participants during the exercise to prevent the
immediate danger posed to participants. The immersed
participants are blinded to the natural environments during
8 E. Kwegyir-Afful et al.
Table 2. Descriptive statistics of measured variables.
Sample statistics
Variable N M SD Minimum Maximum
Engineering work experience 54 0.611 0.492 0 1.000
Situational awareness 54 4.226 0.485 2.200 5.000
FED/hazard mitigation 54 4.293 0.449 3.200 5.000
Safety and ergonomics 54 4.226 0.396 3.000 5.000
Overall perception 54 4.248 0.354 3.200 4.867
Note: FED = fire evacuation drills.
fully immersive exercises and this can lead to crashes or
falls [42]. Thirdly, the total assessment tasks were sched-
uled to last less than 25min per participant. This initiative
was a measure we instituted in view of the positive cor-
relation that exists between exposure time and VRISE
[41]. The evaluation of SSQ and the ergonomics of the
experiment answer RQ3, and we therefore posit:
• H 3: an IVR environment can be safe and ergonomi-
cally viable for assessing fire EPR.
• Measures: we measured any possibility of VRISE
and the simulation environment ergonomics with
portions of the SSQ [38]. Table 2 presents the
descriptive statistics of measurements while Table 5
presents the results in answer to RQ3, which satisfies
H3. We obtained Cronbach’s α = 0.713.
3.5.4. The moderating factor ‘engineering work
experience’
Whether a participant had some engineering work experi-
ence or not was the key factor employed in moderating H 1,
H 2 and H 3, which correspond, respectively, to SA, FED
and mitigation, and SE of the simulation environment.
The difference in the responses between the two groups
answers H 4. It was necessary to analyse H 4 given the
general notion that work experience influences the safety
response [43].
3.5.5. Effects of engineering work experience on
prospects of SB fire EPR
It is commonly believed that engineering work experience
correlates positively to safety culture and safety behaviour
[4]. However, as previously noted, studies into the relation-
ship between engineering experience and perception and
the prospects of IVR towards EPR are silent. In unravelling
this perception, we thus posit:
• H 4: participants with engineering work experience
perceive IVR to be more beneficial for EPR than
those without any engineering work experience.
• Measures: we measured the differences between the
two groups by testing the independent-sample t test
between the M of both groups for the three factors
under consideration. This involves comparing the M
results of H 1, H 2 and H 3, which represent SA, FED
and mitigations, and SE, respectively, for both sam-
ple groups. The obtained results answers H 4. Table
6 presents the outcome.
3.6. Assessment evaluation
We evaluated our model by analysing the responses to the
15 items presented in Tables 3–6. These tables answer H 1–
H 4 according to RQ1–RQ4, respectively. Furthermore, we
computed interaction effects of the independent variable
‘engineering work experience’ to test the simultaneous
Table 3. Results of SA for both participating groups.
Response to H1: situational awareness
necessary for fire hazard recognition
Without WEE (n = 21) With WEE (n = 33)
Safety situational awareness M SD M SD
Q1 Presence levels in the simulation 4.095 0.625 4.061 0.747
Q2 Awareness levels while working 4.286 0.644 4.364 0.859
Q3 Awareness of the plant situation 4.524 0.602 4.333 0.854
Q4 Recognition of the fire hazard 4.238 0.539 4.061 0.789
Q5 Action upon recognition of hazard 4.191 0.602 4.182 0.528
Total 4.267 0.390 4.200 0.538
Note: SA = situational awareness; WEE = work experience in engineering.
International Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics (JOSE) 9
Table 4. FED and mitigation results for both groups of participants.
Response to H2: feasible fire
evacuation and mitigation drills in IVR
Without WEE (n = 21) With WEE (n = 33)
Evacuation drills and mitigations M SD M SD
Q6 Personal emergency evacuation plan 4.286 0.717 4.212 0.740
Q7 Evacuation routes and signs during fire 4.333 0.483 4.182 0.846
Q8 Mitigation action to arrest the hazard 4.429 0.508 4.182 0.635
Q9 Applicability of skills to life situations 4.286 0.717 4.515 0.566
Q10 Interesting and engaging experience 4.286 0.644 4.273 0.626
Total 4.324 0.440 4.273 0.460
Note: FED = fire evacuation drills; IVR = immersive virtual reality; WEE = work experience in
engineering.
Table 5. Results of SE for the two groups.
Response to H3: safety/ergonomics of
the immersive exercises and environment
Without WEE (n = 21) With WEE (n = 33)
Safety and ergonomics M SD M SD
Q11 Safety of VR technology/environment 4.143 0.478 4.152 0.619
Q12 Ease of the controls/navigation in the VR 4.476 0.680 4.364 0.549
Q13 Favourable learning conditions in the VR 3.952 0.669 4.152 0.566
Q14 Feeling uncomfortable during exposure 4.238 0.539 4.303 0.637
Q15 Feeling uncomfortable after exposure 4.143 0.655 4.273 0.452
Total 4.190 0.435 4.248 0.374
Note: SE = safety and ergonomics; VR = virtual reality; WEE = work experience in engineering.
effects on the dependent variables SA, FED and mitiga-
tions, and SE. This was for the purpose of evaluating
the impact of the dependent variables on the indepen-
dent variables [44]. We further computed the independent
variables in two successive steps to control possible con-
fusing effects. During evaluation, answers to Q14 and
Q15 in Table 5 were reverse coded due to the nega-
tive connotation present in the question format. SAS EG
version 7.1 was utilized in performing the analysis for
both population groups. To ascertain the significance of
M values in Table 6, we employed a 95% confidence
interval according to Cox and Lewis [45] throughout our
analysis.
4. Results
This section presents the results of the three assessments as
provided by the participants, which answer RQ1–RQ3 as
hypothesized by H 1–H 3, respectively, and are moderated
by RQ4 for H 4. These results are presented in Tables 2–
5, which present the measured average values of responses
for identifying the central position within each group of
answers. Next, four independent-sample t tests were con-
ducted to determine the similarities between the results
of participants with some work experience and partici-
pants without any work experience, which answers RQ4,
as presented in Table 6.
Table 6. Results of independent-sample t tests between variables.
Variable M of WEE M of no WEE Mdn 95% confidence interval t df p
SA 4.200 4.267 0.067 [−0.207, 0.340] 0.489 52 0.627
FED 4.273 4.324 0.051 [−0.203, 0.308] 0.404 52 0.688
SE 4.248 4.190 0.058 [−0.281, 0.166] −0.521 52 0.605
MOP 4.240 4.26 0.02 [−0.180, 0.220] 0.199 52 0.843
Note: FED = fire evacuation drills; Mdn = median; MOP = mean overall perception; SA = situational awareness; SE = safety and
ergonomics; WEE = work experience in engineering.
10 E. Kwegyir-Afful et al.
4.1. Descriptive statistics
Table 2 presents the combined results for both groups
regarding the M and SD of the empirical ranges for the
key study variables of all 54 participants. The table also
presents the results of the general impression of all respon-
dents to the entire assessment at the overall M percep-
tion row. We achieved a measure of reliability in internal
consistency of 0.706.
4.2. Responses to the levels of SA
Table 3 presents the levels of SA in the immersive envi-
ronment according to the SUSQ, which also elaborates
the individual questions for SA and answers H 1. We also
computed participants’ preferences according to the Likert-
scale items in percentages due to the low number of par-
ticipants. Overall, 90.74% of responses from both groups
combined scored ‘strongly agree’ or ‘agree’ to the ques-
tions according to Table 3. Only 1.85% of the responses
registered ‘strongly disagree’ or ‘disagree’, and 7.41%
were undecided regarding the question which answers H 1.
4.3. Results of FED and mitigations
The results of the questions pursuant to the effectiveness
of FED and mitigation drills for both groups of partici-
pants are presented in Table 4. These questions concerned
participants’ interest, skill and knowledge acquired, which
synchronizes to Kirkpatrick’s three steps for evaluations
and answers RQ2. The total responses of both groups to
the questions presented in Table 3 and Table 4 represent
the overall success or otherwise of the assessment regard-
ing the effectiveness of IVR for EPR. The analysis of the
results from Table 4 according to the independent-sample
t test produced results of 0.404 with p = 0.688 (Table 6)
for answering RQ4.
4.4. Results of SE in IVR
The results obtained from the questions related to SE
according to H 3 answers RQ3, and Table 5 elaborates the
SE of the entire IVR exercise. In this case, the results
present findings on whether the simulation environment
was safe for EPR. Specifically, Table 5 presents partic-
ipants’ perception of SS because of VRISE. This per-
ception, as explained earlier in Section 3, assessed the
three general categories of VRISE from the SSQ with the
ergonomics of IVR.
4.5. Work experience in engineering on prospects ofSB fire ST
Regarding H 4, which purports that participants’ work
experience in engineering affects their perception of the
prospects of IVR for EPR, we conducted an independent-
sample t test on all three dependent variables – i.e., SA,
FED and mitigation, and SE – based on the independent
variable ‘work experience in engineering’. This analysis
measures M of both groups for the three dependent vari-
ables to determine whether evidence exists to suggest any
significant differences between the perceptions of partic-
ipating groups. We obtained the individual values of the
three factors as presented in Table 6, with an overall
p = 0.843 at a significant α level of 0.05.
5. Discussion
5.1. Examination of the obtained results
This section explains the results presented in Section 4
regarding the effectiveness of the IVR simulation environ-
ment for SA, preparedness and response for fire emergen-
cies, and the possible effect of engineering work experi-
ence on the examined factors. These were investigated as
SA, FED and mitigation, and SE during the assessment.
The obtained results individually indicated that the main
ingredients of a fire EPR plan – safety awareness, safety
knowledge and safety mitigation skills – can be mimicked
in a real-time IVR simulation environment for improving
plant safety.
5.1.1. SA analysis in IVR
Referring to the results presented in Table 3 that answer
RQ1 about feasible levels of SA necessary for fire
detection, the overall M of 4.267 (from 1 = poor to
5 = excellent) implies that a high level of SA was expe-
rienced during the immersive encounter by both partici-
pating groups. These values do not also vary greatly from
M according to the obtained total SD of 0.390 and 0.538,
respectively, for both groups. This implies an appreciable
level of agreement amongst participants, and also reflects
significant comprehension between time and space for par-
ticipants during the immersive experience, which affirms
H 1, in answer to RQ1, that substantial levels of SA neces-
sary for fire detection can be attained through a 3D simula-
tion of a GPP in an IVR environment. SA was assessed
based on the underlining factors of perception, compre-
hension and projection. These three factors are the main
ingredient that the SUSQ assesses. The results also suggest
that the plant simulation set-up provides an enabling envi-
ronment for assessing risks and for recognizing hazards in
the intended plant design. Besides, these results conform to
previous findings in the field by, e.g., Slater et al. [33], who
employed the SUSQ to analyse the relationship that exists
between physiological responses and breaks in the pres-
ence of 20 participants and found a significant difference
between the experimental phase and the actual training.
Similarly, Giglioli et al. [23] compared the sense of pres-
ence and performance with the SUSQ for subjects in an
ecological task, while Lee Chang et al. [9] likewise anal-
ysed the impact of simulation against lectures for training
by employing the presence tool. This suggests that IVR
International Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics (JOSE) 11
is feasible for SA and therefore applicable for EPR in a
plant simulation. Such assessments are critical for ensur-
ing safety in high-risk fire-prone facilities. The exercise
has also enabled participants to understand the impor-
tance of emergency preparedness, for maintaining high
safety awareness of one’s working environment. Implica-
tions are that IVR can present 3D simulations realistically
for experiencing hazardous situations necessary for EPR.
Such situations make it possible to act accordingly and
receive real-time response for learning, which hitherto
was not possible with traditional classroom methods for
comprehending SA during risk assessments.
5.1.2. Analysis of FED and the mitigation exercises
The results for H 2 with respect to RQ2 concerning the
effectiveness of FED and the mitigation drills also indicate
a positive trend. Primarily, the combined high M of 4.293
realized in Table 2 for both groups as well as the total M
values of 4.324 and 4.273 presented in Table 4, according
to the Likert scale from 1 to 5 based on Kirkpatrick’s eval-
uation model, significantly indicate a positive trend. This
suggests that the immersive environment can be effective
for FED and mitigation, which thus confidently accepts
and affirms H 2. The results also revealed that participants
received full experience of close to real scenarios in a safe
and controlled environment without any distractions while
immersed. Besides, the exercise has demonstrated that sim-
ulating a real plant fire hazard with immediate feedback
for realizing the consequences of following or not follow-
ing safety procedures provides the platform necessary for
experiential learning. This implies that specific hazardous
scenarios can be simulated for more critical IVR safety
assessments before definitive construction of the intended
facility. Moreover, the combined responses register that
the immersive experience offers participants the privilege
to prove their knowledge at the onset of a fire emergency
and receive instant feedback. Furthermore, the immersive
encounter has exposed participants to the need of prepared-
ness for decisive actions during a fire emergency. These
results are also consistent with research that employs IVR
towards FED and mitigation, e.g., Smith and Ericson [36],
Tian et al. [40], Torda [35], Patel and Dennick [46] and Lee
Chang et al. [9].
5.1.3. SE assessment of the IVR environment
This section explains the results obtained while assess-
ing the SE of the IVR environment for EPR. Regarding
the possibilities of VRISE, which answers RQ3, the M
values of 4.190 and 4.248 obtained for both participating
groups according to the SSQ results presented in Table 5
suggest appreciable levels of safety and ergonomic via-
bility experienced by participants during the immersive
exercise. These values were likewise obtained with the 5-
point Likert scale as was employed in assessing responses
to RQ1 and RQ2. The values advocate participants’ per-
ception, which affirms H 3 that the immersive environment
provided safe conditions with negligible effects of SS, usu-
ally present in VRISE, and therefore is suitable for fire
EPR. It is also necessary to explain that the high values
obtained from participants presented in Table 5, regarding
the safety of the VR environment, were partly due to the
safety measures employed in the experiment.
The following explains the measures in accordance
with the safety and regulatory guidance (HTC Vive, China)
for the HMD headset [47]. Firstly, we adhered to the
minimum age of 18 years during our inclusion criteria,
purposefully to prevented possibilities of seizures, which
according to the manual are a factor common in children
[47]. Secondly, a virtual translucent wall in the immersion
served as a guide to participants despite the physical guid-
ance researchers provided for each participant throughout
the exercise. This inherent feature in the HMD set-up is
a safety guide for informing users of the safe area, in the
actual world, to prevent the possibility of falling or crash-
ing into an object. Thirdly, we ensured that the HMD was
secured comfortably on each participant before running the
simulation. This was to prevent poor optical presentation
and blurred images since both factors increase SS. Simi-
larly, we prevented hearing discomfort or loss by keeping
the volume of the earpiece moderate, considering that lis-
tening to loud sounds for a long time can damage the ear.
We also limited the total exposure time to 25min accord-
ing to the HTC factory-recommended exposure time of
less than 30min per immersion with a 10-min break if
needed [47]. Additionally, we ensured that the headset
was cleaned by sanitizing after every immersion, consid-
ering that the HMD is usually worn tightly on the user’s
scalp. Adhering to these safety measures contributed to
increasing the safety and eliminating the health and risks
potentials of the IVR environment. It was interesting to
note that, apart from one participant who had to pull out
of the assessment due to an eyeglasses issue, the remain-
ing 54 participants completed the assessment successfully.
This, coupled with their tabulated responses, indicates that
there were no substantive symptoms such as fatigue, nau-
sea, drowsiness, increased salivation, visual abnormalities
like eye strain and double vision or any symptoms similar
to motion sickness.
5.1.4. Effects of engineering work experience
This section explains the results obtained for RQ4, which
sought to compare the results between the two participat-
ing groups. To achieve this, we compared the M of SA,
FED and mitigation, and SE representing H 1, H 2 and H 3,
respectively, for both groups to determine any significant
differences between their perceptions. For the SA, since p
= 0.6272 (Table 6) is greater than α = 0.05, we can con-
clude that no differences exist between the perceptions of
both groups regarding SA. Secondly, the results obtained
12 E. Kwegyir-Afful et al.
for FED and mitigation provided p = 0.688, which is
equally greater than α = 0.05. This contrast also signifies
no compelling differences between the two groups regard-
ing answers to RQ2. Considering the results of SE, which
answer RQ3, the obtained p = 0.605 in Table 6 is also
greater than the significance α = 0.05. This also indicates
that no statistical differences exist between the perception
of both groups to the levels of SE. Likewise, the over-
all M perception of the combined responses of all three
RQs, which answers RQ4, according to H 4, shows p =
0.843 which is much greater than the significance α =
0.05. We can therefore conclude that there are no signifi-
cant differences in the perception between the two groups
for all three factors under consideration. In this vein, H 4,
which purports that work experience in engineering affects
the perception of the prospects of IVR for EPR, lacks sub-
stance and we can therefore confidently reject that notion.
However, these similarities signify that the application of
3D simulation in IVR for EPR is not only suitable for those
who have prior safety engineering exposure, but is equally
suitable for novices.
5.2. Results validity
We employed a purification process to check the construct
validity of our results. Secondly, our data have undergone
other purification processes comprising three stages:
• A check on the convergent validity; this was met
since p values for all items presented in Table 6 were
always high and significant. Besides, the standard
errors of these items were relatively low.
• A check on discriminant validity based on the
examined 95% confidence interval for each pair of
constructs did not include 1.00 at any instant, as
Anderson and Gerbing [48] explain.
• We verified the construct reliability, which was sat-
isfactory as all constructs evaluated exhibited Cron-
bach’s α greater than 0.70. Collectively, the com-
bined results demonstrate that common method bias
was unlikely to be a cause for concern in the current
study.
Furthermore, the results for H 1, H 2 and H 3 are consis-
tent with IVR simulation in related research works, e.g.,
Bilotta et al. [49] Bhide [27] and Nedel et al. [28], all of
whom discovered that participants perceive SB fire evac-
uations in immersive environments positively. Likewise,
Rzez´niczek et al. [34] and Borrego et al. [37] produced
appreciable values when evaluating the effects of VRISE
during assessments by administering the SSQ.
5.3. Limitations of the study
This study has some limitations worth noting. As a latitu-
dinal study, the research did not test participants’ retention
of lessons over any period. Several studies, e.g., Berg and
Vance [29], Bilotta et al. [49], Lee Chang et al. [9] and
Cha et al. [20], however, have conducted such longitudinal
studies and there is therefore ample literature to support
the superiority of participants’ retention in the IVR envi-
ronment over conventional classroom methods. Another
limitation was that the detection of the fire hazard in the
form of gas leakage that caused smoke in the simulation
was possible only by sight and not by smell, and there-
fore has the potential to limit SA in the IVR environment.
Besides, the plant simulation eliminated some dynamic
automated processes in an actual GPP that were not rel-
evant to this assessment but could affect the overall plant
EPR. Next, participants were able to move superficially in
the plant simulation during evacuations by hurdling over
objects and stairs as well as jumping from the first floor
to the ground floor in seconds. This is a practice that is
not feasible in reality. Despite these limitations, the study
nonetheless offers valuable contributions for enhancing
applications of IVR towards industrial fire EPR practices.
5.4. Contributions and implications
The study contributes practically and theoretically towards
EPR in several ways:
• The study has demonstrated that participants in an
IVR encounter of a 3D simulation environment can
experience real-time emergency scenarios for safety
preparedness and response at the factory concep-
tual stages. This is possible anywhere away from the
location of the intended facility.
• By providing proactive emergency and realistic sce-
narios, with engaging and interesting fire encounter,
the study adds to research findings regarding IVR
environments for enabling adequate preparedness
and planning, which helps promote factory safety
measures.
• Specifically, the study demonstrates the importance
of safety SA for survival during plant fire emer-
gencies. This underpins the essence of awareness
of immediate threats even when engaged in factory
demanding tasks.
• To the evolving scientific literature concerning the
utilization of IVR for fire emergency awareness
and response, the study demonstrates that realis-
tic situations and environments are possible, and
can therefore influence safety designs at the factory
conceptual stages.
• Likewise, the study contributes to the prospects of
SB risk assessments as well as plant hazard iden-
tifications that are both key to EPR. According to
Standard No. ISO 9001:2015 [50] and Standard No.
ISO 45001:2018 [25], EPR ought to continuously
improve for the purposes of promoting plant safety
countermeasures [26]. We are therefore confident
International Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics (JOSE) 13
that the findings presented in the experiment will
spur detailed research in this direction.
Despite these potentials, and in view of the numer-
ous limitations, however, the study does not propose that
the application of IVR for fire EPR should be a complete
alternative to the status quo of fire safety assessments.
Rather, it should serve as a complement to traditional EPR
assessments.
6. Conclusions
A VR-based fire emergency simulator has been developed
and utilized in assessing the prospects of IVR for fire
EPR. The model presents real-time 3D images, processes
and interactivity necessary for experimentations during fire
emergencies. The assessment constituted the following:
• safety SA, which studied the capacity of the immer-
sive environment in presenting realistic hazards
regarding the perception, comprehension and inter-
pretation of a fire emergency;
• FED and mitigations, which assessed the viability of
the immersive environment for EPR;
• SE of the IVR plant simulation environment.
The main purpose of the study was to examine the suit-
ability of IVR for EPR. Two groups participated in the
assessment: student participants with no engineering work
experience; and student participants with some work expe-
rience in engineering. The reason for these groups was to
analyse any differences in opinion for the three factors nec-
essary for EPR. Results of the assessment revealed that,
indeed, substantial levels of SA necessary for fire haz-
ard identifications were feasible in IVR. This was because
participants experienced appreciable levels of presence,
interactivity and fire hazard mitigation during the assess-
ment while immersed. Thus, our results conclude that
the IVR technology is capable and suitable for revealing
details of a plant design with the necessary dynamisms
for fire EPR. Our experiment, notwithstanding, revealed
no significant differences between perceptions of the two
participating groups, which implies that the immersive
technology is suitable for both groups equally for assessing
EPR. The study also confirmed that a simulation envi-
ronment can be safe and ergonomically suitable for fire
emergency assessment provided the VR equipment, safety
instructions, protocols and safety procedures are adhered
to.
6.1. Suggestions for future research
In the future, we hope to extend a fully immersive VR-
ACM for risk assessments and hazard mitigations in areas
where the technology is lacking. We also hope to train two
groups of participants in a prospective cohort study – one
group in an actual factory and the other group in an immer-
sive virtual environment of the same factory simulation –
and verify the differences in safety culture immediately
after training and over a period. The results will enable
us to verify the applicability of the technology for more
safety-related practices.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
ORCID
Ebo Kwegyir-Afful http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6829-1364
Tajudeen Ola Hassan http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6925-7731
Jussi I. Kantola http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8660-9068
References
[1] Sim ZH, Chook Y, Hakim MA, et al. Design of virtual
reality simulation-based safety training workshop. In: IEEE
International Symposium on Haptic, Audio and Visual
Environments and Games (HAVE); 2019 Oct 3–4; Subang
Jaya. p. 1–6. New York City: IEEE; 2020.
[2] Longo F, Nicoletti L, Padovano A. Emergency pre-
paredness in industrial plants: a forward-looking solution
based on industry 4.0 enabling technologies. Comput Ind.
2019;105:99–122. doi:10.1016/j.compind.2018.12.003
[3] de Amaral LR, Duarte E, Rebelo F. Evaluation of a vir-
tual environment prototype for studies on the effectiveness
of technology-based safety signs. In: Advances in Intelli-
gent Systems and Computing: International Conference on
Applied Human Factors and Ergonomics; 2017 Jun 24; Los
Angeles, California, USA. Springer; 2018. p. 100–111.
[4] Shackleton R. An examination of different measures of work
experience, and the relationship between previous experi-
ence and safety. Christchurch: University of Canterbury;
2016.
[5] Saw Bin W, Richardson S, Yeow PH. An ergonomics study
of a semiconductors factory in an IDC for improvement
in occupational health and safety. Int J Occup Saf Ergon.
2010;16:345–356. doi:10.1080/10803548.2010.11076849
[6] Kwegyir-Afful E, Lindholm M, Tilabi S, et al. Optimizing
occupational safety through 3-D simulation and immersive
virtual reality. In: Advances in Human Factors and Sim-
ulation. International Conference on Applied Human Fac-
tors and Ergonomics. 2019 Jun 2; Washington, DC, USA.
Springer; 2019. p. 97–107.
[7] Feng Z, González VA, Amor R, et al. Immersive virtual
reality serious games for evacuation training and research: a
systematic literature review. Comput Educ. 2018;127:252–
266. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2018.09.002
[8] Budziszewski P, Grabowski A, Milanowicz M, et al. Work-
stations for people with disabilities: an example of a virtual
reality approach. Int J Occup Saf Ergon. 2016;22:367–373.
doi:10.1080/10803548.2015.1131069
[9] Lee Chang A, Dym AA, Venegas-Borsellino C, et al.
Comparison between simulation-based training and lecture-
based education in teaching situation awareness. A random-
ized controlled study. Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2017;14:529–
535. doi:10.1513/AnnalsATS.201612-950OC
[10] Lucena AFE, Saffaro FA. Guidelines for exploring
construction sites in virtual reality environments for
14 E. Kwegyir-Afful et al.
hazard identification. Int J Occup Saf Ergon. 2020.
doi:10.1080/10803548.2020.1728951
[11] Bhide S, Riad R, Rabelo L, et al. Development of virtual
reality environment for safety training. In: IIE Annual Con-
ference Proceedings; Nashville, Tennessee, USA. Georgia:
Institute of Industrial and Systems Engineers (IISE); 2015.
p. 2302.
[12] Dhalmahapatra K, Das S, Maiti J. On accident causation
models, safety training and virtual reality. Int J Occup Saf
Ergon. 2020. doi:10.1080/10803548.2020.1766290
[13] Ahasan MR, Väyrynen S. Ergonomic aspects of a vir-
tual environment. Int J Occup Saf Ergon. 1999;5:125–134.
doi:10.1080/10803548.1999.11076415
[14] Getuli V, Capone P, Bruttini A, et al. BIM-based immer-
sive virtual reality for construction workspace planning: a
safety-oriented approach. Autom Constr. 2020;114:103160.
doi:10.1016/j.autcon.2020.103160
[15] Nichols S, Patel H. Health and safety implications of vir-
tual reality: a review of empirical evidence. Appl Ergon.
2002;33:251–271. doi:10.1016/S0003-6870(02)00020-0
[16] Choi S, Jung K, Do Noh S. Virtual reality applications in
manufacturing industries: past research, present findings,
and future directions. Concurrent Eng. 2015;23:40–63.
[17] Masters K. Edgar Dale’s pyramid of learning in medi-
cal education: further expansion of the myth. Med Educ.
2020;54:22–32. doi:10.1111/medu.13813
[18] Michalos G, Karvouniari A, Dimitropoulos N, et al. Work-
place analysis and design using virtual reality techniques.
CIRP Ann. 2018;67:141–144. doi:10.1016/j.cirp.2018.
04.120
[19] Aromaa S, Väänänen K. Suitability of virtual pro-
totypes to support human factors/ergonomics evalua-
tion during the design. Appl Ergon. 2016;56:11–18.
doi:10.1016/j.apergo.2016.02.015
[20] Cha M, Han S, Lee J, et al. A virtual reality based fire train-
ing simulator integrated with fire dynamics data. Fire Saf J.
2012;50:12–24. doi:10.1016/j.firesaf.2012.01.004
[21] Qi-quan W, Xiang-dou Y. Risk analysis and control mea-
sure of gas power generation enterprise. Int J Sci Qual Anal.
2017;3(2):15. doi:10.11648/j.ijsqa.20170302.12
[22] Rost AK, Alvero MA. Participatory approaches to work-
place safety management: bridging the gap between behav-
ioral safety and participatory ergonomics. Int J Occup Saf
Ergon. 2018;26:1–28.
[23] Giglioli IAC, Vidal CB, Raya MA. A virtual versus an
augmented reality cooking task based-tools: a behavioral
and physiological study on the assessment of executive
functions. Front Psychol. 2019;10.
[24] Si-Hao L, Wen-Juan T, Jian-Ying M, et al. Safety cli-
mate measurement at workplace in China: a validity
and reliability assessment. Saf Sci. 2008;46(7):1037–1046.
doi:10.1016/j.ssci.2007.05.001
[25] International Organization for Standardization (ISO). Occu-
pational health and safety management system: require-
ments with guidance for use. Geneva: ISO; 2018. Standard
No. ISO 45001:2018.
[26] Karkoszka T. Emergency preparedness and response in
metallurgical processes. Metalurgija. 2020;59(2):215–217.
[27] Bhide S. Fire safety and emergency evacuation training
for occupants of building using 3D virtual simulation [dis-
sertation]. Orlando (FL): University of Central Florida;
2017.
[28] Nedel L, de Souza VC, Menin A, et al. Using immer-
sive virtual reality to reduce work accidents in developing
countries. IEEE Comput Graph Appl. 2016;36(2):36–46.
doi:10.1109/MCG.2016.19
[29] Berg LP, Vance JM. Industry use of virtual reality in
product design and manufacturing: a survey. Virtual Real.
2017;21(1):1–17. doi:10.1007/s10055-016-0293-9
[30] Landers RN, Auer EM, Helms A, et al. Gamification of
adult learning: gamifying employee training and develop-
ment. Cambr Handbook Technol Emp Behav. 2019: 271–
295. doi:10.1017/9781108649636.012
[31] Kintu D, Kyakula M, Kikomeko J. Occupational safety
training and practices in selected vocational training institu-
tions and workplaces in Kampala, Uganda. Int J Occup Saf
Ergon. 2015;21(4):532–538. doi:10.1080/10803548.2015.
1085226
[32] Kinateder M, Ronchi E, Nilsson D, et al. Virtual real-
ity for fire evacuation research. In: Federated Conference
on Computer Science and Information Systems; 2014 Sep
7–10; Warsaw. New York City: IEEE; 2014. p. 313–
321.
[33] Slater M, Guger C, Edlinger G, et al. Analysis of physiolog-
ical responses to a social situation in an immersive virtual
environment. Presence Presence (Camb). 2006;15:553–569.
doi:10.1162/pres.15.5.553
[34] Rzez´niczek P, Lipiak A, Bilski B, et al. Exploring the
participant-related determinants of simulator sickness in
a physical motion car rollover simulation as measured
by the simulator sickness questionnaire. Int J Environ
Res Public Health. 2020;17:7044. doi:10.3390/ijerph1719
7044
[35] Torda A. CLASSIE teaching – using virtual reality to incor-
porate medical ethics into clinical decision making. BMC
Med Educ. 2020;20(1):1–8. doi:10.1186/s12909-020-022
17-y
[36] Smith S, Ericson E. Using immersive game-based virtual
reality to teach fire-safety skills to children. Virtual Real.
2009;13(2):87–99. doi:10.1007/s10055-009-0113-6
[37] Borrego A, Latorre J, Llorens R, et al. Feasibility of a walk-
ing virtual reality system for rehabilitation: objective and
subjective parameters. J Neuroeng Rehab. 2016;13(2):68.
doi:10.1186/s12984-016-0174-1
[38] Kennedy RS, Lane NE, Berbaum KS, et al. Simulator
sickness questionnaire: an enhanced method for quanti-
fying simulator sickness. Int J Aviat. 1993;3(3):203–220.
doi:10.1207/s15327108ijap0303_3
[39] Rasbash D, Ramachandran G, Kandola B, et al. Evaluation
of fire safety. Chichester: Wiley; 2004.
[40] Tian Y, Liu H, Yin J, et al. Evaluation of simulation-
based training for aircraft carrier marshalling with learn-
ing cubic and Kirkpatrick’s models. Chinese J Aeronaut.
2015;28(1):152–163. doi:10.1016/j.cja.2014.12.002
[41] Alliger GM, Janak EA. Kirkpatrick’s levels of training crite-
ria: thirty years later. Person Psychol. 1989;42(2):331–342.
doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1989.tb00661.x
[42] Chittaro L, Corbett CL, McLean G, et al. Safety knowl-
edge transfer through mobile virtual reality: a study of
aviation life preserver donning. Saf Sci. 2018;102:159–168.
doi:10.1016/j.ssci.2017.10.012
[43] Eiter BM, Bellanca JL. Identify the influence of risk
attitude, work experience, and safety training on hazard
recognition in mining. Trans Soc Min Metall Explor Inc.
2020;37(6):1931–1939.
[44] Hauke J, Kossowski T. Comparison of values of Pear-
son’s and Spearman’s correlation coefficients on the
same sets of data. Quaest Geogr. 2011;30(2):87–93.
doi:10.2478/v10117-011-0021-1
[45] Cox D, Lewis P. The statistical analysis of series of
events: monographs on applied probability and statistics.
The annals of mathematical statistics. London: Wiley; 1966.
International Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics (JOSE) 15
[46] Patel R, Dennick R. Simulation based teaching in inter-
ventional radiology training: is it effective? Clin Radiol.
2017;72(3):266.e7–266.e14. doi:10.1016/j.crad.2016.10.
014
[47] Casterson S. HTC Vive; a guide for beginners. Glasgow:
Conceptual Kings; 2016.
[48] Anderson JC, Gerbing DW. Structural equation modeling
in practice: a review and recommended two-step approach.
Psychol Bull. 1988;103(3):411–423. doi:10.1037/0033-
2909.103.3.411
[49] Bilotta FF, Werner SM, Bergese SD, et al. Impact and imple-
mentation of simulation-based training for safety. Sci World
J. 2013. doi:10.1155/2013/652956
[50] International Organization for Standardization (ISO). Qual-
ity management systems – requirements. Standard No. ISO
9001:2015. Chico (CA): Paton Professional; 2020.