安全数据表作为危险交流工具:适用性和可读性评估

IF 3.5 3区 医学 Q1 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Kevin Ho, Thomas Tenkate
{"title":"安全数据表作为危险交流工具:适用性和可读性评估","authors":"Kevin Ho,&nbsp;Thomas Tenkate","doi":"10.1016/j.shaw.2024.01.006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Safety data sheets (SDSs) are hazard communication materials that accompany chemicals/hazardous products in the workplace. Many SDSs contain dense, technical text, which places considerable comprehension demands on workers, especially those with lower literacy skills. The goal of this study was to assess SDSs for readability, comprehensibility, and suitability (i.e., fit to the target audience).</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>The Suitability Assessment of Materials (SAM) tool assessed SDSs for suitability and readability. We then amended the SAM tool to further assess SDSs for comprehensibility factors. Both the original and amended SAM tool were used to score 45 randomly selected SDSs for content, literacy demand, graphics, and layout/typography.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>SDSs performed poorly in terms of readability, suitability, and comprehensibility. The mean readability scores were Flesch–Kincaid Grade Level (9.6), Gunning Fog index (11.0), Coleman–Liau index (13.7), and Simple Measure of Gobbledygook index (10.7), all above the recommended reading level. The original SAM graded SDSs as “not suitable” for suitability and readability. When the amended SAM was used, the mean total SAM score increased, but the SDSs were still considered “not suitable” when adding comprehensibility considerations. The amended SAM tool better identified content-related issues specific to SDSs that make it difficult for a reader to understand the material.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>In terms of readability, comprehensibility, and suitability, SDSs perform poorly in their primary role as a hazard communication tool, therefore, putting workers at risk. The amended SAM tool could be used when writing SDSs to ensure that the information is more easily understandable for all audiences.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":56149,"journal":{"name":"Safety and Health at Work","volume":"15 2","pages":"Pages 192-199"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2093791124000064/pdfft?md5=dfef9ecc6a0d21d0d3ae75b2ea5434ef&pid=1-s2.0-S2093791124000064-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Safety Data Sheets as a Hazard Communication Tool: An Assessment of Suitability and Readability\",\"authors\":\"Kevin Ho,&nbsp;Thomas Tenkate\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.shaw.2024.01.006\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Safety data sheets (SDSs) are hazard communication materials that accompany chemicals/hazardous products in the workplace. Many SDSs contain dense, technical text, which places considerable comprehension demands on workers, especially those with lower literacy skills. The goal of this study was to assess SDSs for readability, comprehensibility, and suitability (i.e., fit to the target audience).</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>The Suitability Assessment of Materials (SAM) tool assessed SDSs for suitability and readability. We then amended the SAM tool to further assess SDSs for comprehensibility factors. Both the original and amended SAM tool were used to score 45 randomly selected SDSs for content, literacy demand, graphics, and layout/typography.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>SDSs performed poorly in terms of readability, suitability, and comprehensibility. The mean readability scores were Flesch–Kincaid Grade Level (9.6), Gunning Fog index (11.0), Coleman–Liau index (13.7), and Simple Measure of Gobbledygook index (10.7), all above the recommended reading level. The original SAM graded SDSs as “not suitable” for suitability and readability. When the amended SAM was used, the mean total SAM score increased, but the SDSs were still considered “not suitable” when adding comprehensibility considerations. The amended SAM tool better identified content-related issues specific to SDSs that make it difficult for a reader to understand the material.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>In terms of readability, comprehensibility, and suitability, SDSs perform poorly in their primary role as a hazard communication tool, therefore, putting workers at risk. The amended SAM tool could be used when writing SDSs to ensure that the information is more easily understandable for all audiences.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":56149,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Safety and Health at Work\",\"volume\":\"15 2\",\"pages\":\"Pages 192-199\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2093791124000064/pdfft?md5=dfef9ecc6a0d21d0d3ae75b2ea5434ef&pid=1-s2.0-S2093791124000064-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Safety and Health at Work\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2093791124000064\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Safety and Health at Work","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2093791124000064","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景安全数据表(SDS)是工作场所化学品/危险产品随附的危害告知材料。许多安全数据表包含密集的技术性文字,这对工人的理解能力提出了相当高的要求,尤其是那些识字能力较低的工人。本研究的目标是评估安全数据单的可读性、可理解性和适用性(即是否适合目标受众)。方法材料适用性评估(SAM)工具评估安全数据单的适用性和可读性。然后,我们对 SAM 工具进行了修订,以进一步评估 SDS 的可理解性因素。我们使用原始和修正后的 SAM 工具对随机抽取的 45 份 SDS 进行了内容、读写能力要求、图形和布局/排版方面的评分。可读性的平均得分如下Flesch-Kincaid等级(9.6)、Gunning-Fox指数(11.0)、Coleman-Liau指数(13.7)和SMOG指数(10.7),均高于建议的阅读水平。原来的 SAM 将安全数据单的适用性和可读性评为 "不适合"。使用修订后的 SAM 后,SAM 的平均总分有所提高,但如果再加上可读性方面的考虑,SDS 仍被视为 "不合适"。结论 在可读性、可理解性和适用性方面,安全数据单在发挥其作为危险交流工具的主要作用方面表现不佳,因此给工人带来了风险。在编写安全数据单时,可以使用经修订的 SAM 工具,以确保所有受众都能更容易地理解信息。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Safety Data Sheets as a Hazard Communication Tool: An Assessment of Suitability and Readability

Background

Safety data sheets (SDSs) are hazard communication materials that accompany chemicals/hazardous products in the workplace. Many SDSs contain dense, technical text, which places considerable comprehension demands on workers, especially those with lower literacy skills. The goal of this study was to assess SDSs for readability, comprehensibility, and suitability (i.e., fit to the target audience).

Methods

The Suitability Assessment of Materials (SAM) tool assessed SDSs for suitability and readability. We then amended the SAM tool to further assess SDSs for comprehensibility factors. Both the original and amended SAM tool were used to score 45 randomly selected SDSs for content, literacy demand, graphics, and layout/typography.

Results

SDSs performed poorly in terms of readability, suitability, and comprehensibility. The mean readability scores were Flesch–Kincaid Grade Level (9.6), Gunning Fog index (11.0), Coleman–Liau index (13.7), and Simple Measure of Gobbledygook index (10.7), all above the recommended reading level. The original SAM graded SDSs as “not suitable” for suitability and readability. When the amended SAM was used, the mean total SAM score increased, but the SDSs were still considered “not suitable” when adding comprehensibility considerations. The amended SAM tool better identified content-related issues specific to SDSs that make it difficult for a reader to understand the material.

Conclusions

In terms of readability, comprehensibility, and suitability, SDSs perform poorly in their primary role as a hazard communication tool, therefore, putting workers at risk. The amended SAM tool could be used when writing SDSs to ensure that the information is more easily understandable for all audiences.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Safety and Health at Work
Safety and Health at Work Social Sciences-Safety Research
CiteScore
6.40
自引率
5.70%
发文量
1080
审稿时长
38 days
期刊介绍: Safety and Health at Work (SH@W) is an international, peer-reviewed, interdisciplinary journal published quarterly in English beginning in 2010. The journal is aimed at providing grounds for the exchange of ideas and data developed through research experience in the broad field of occupational health and safety. Articles may deal with scientific research to improve workers'' health and safety by eliminating occupational accidents and diseases, pursuing a better working life, and creating a safe and comfortable working environment. The journal focuses primarily on original articles across the whole scope of occupational health and safety, but also welcomes up-to-date review papers and short communications and commentaries on urgent issues and case studies on unique epidemiological survey, methods of accident investigation, and analysis. High priority will be given to articles on occupational epidemiology, medicine, hygiene, toxicology, nursing and health services, work safety, ergonomics, work organization, engineering of safety (mechanical, electrical, chemical, and construction), safety management and policy, and studies related to economic evaluation and its social policy and organizational aspects. Its abbreviated title is Saf Health Work.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信