56 ProfessionalSafety AUGUST 2011 www.asse.org.docx

56 ProfessionalSafety AUGUST 2011 www.asse.org
Losing Balance
Upon Standing
Do Construction Workers
Perceive the Problem?
By Angela T. DiDomenico, Raymond W. McGorry,
Michael F. Blair and Yueng-Hsiang Huang
T
he construction industry is one of the larg-
est sectors of the U.S. economy, employing
7,439,000 people in 2009 (BLS, 2009). Al-
though worksite safety has improved, incidents
continue to occur, causing numerous fatalities and
injuries to workers.
Falls account for
the most fatalities
and are the sec-
ond most common
cause of nonfatal
workplace injuries
in the construction
industry (CPWR,
2007). Loss of bal-
ance often is a
contributing factor
in falls (Hsiao &

Simeonov, 2001),
although it is not
always clear what
factors cause the
imbalance. One
possible factor is
the transitory na-
ture of construction
work activities that
requires workers to
perform tasks in awkward postures and frequently
transition to a standing posture before proceeding
to the next task and/or location.
OSHA has requirements regarding fall protec-
tion ranging from training to personal fall protec-
tion devices. Fall protection devices may be active
[e.g., personal fall arrest systems (PFAS) such as
horizontal and vertical lifelines] or passive systems
(e.g., guardrails and safety nets).
In general, fall protection is used to react to a
loss of balance and eliminate or minimize injury. A
proactive approach is for workers to perceive situ-
ations that place them at risk so they can employ
techniques to maintain balance. At this time, it is
unclear to what extent workers can perceive fall
risks, particularly those associated with standing
up after working in a nonerect posture.
What Factors Affect Balance?
Maintaining balance is a critical factor for suc-
cessful task performance; it requires information

from the visual, vestibular (detects motion of the
head-in-space) and proprioceptive (senses relative
position of body parts) systems (Danis, Krebs, Gill-
Body, et al., 1998). Sensory input is integrated to
provide the individual with information that influ-
ences balance control and allows for compensatory
movements necessary to maintain postural control
(Cobb, 1999). These movements depend on the in-
tegrity of the musculature and the effectiveness of
processing within the central nervous system (Hor-
ak, Shupert & Mirka, 1989). In general, stable con-
IN BRIEF
•Falls are a serious concern within the construc-
tion industry. This study explored factors affecting
perceptions of balance upon standing from different
working postures.
•Data were collected on perceptions of balance
upon standing, fall protection measures employed
and factors affecting balance. Ratings of perceived
balance were significantly affected by working
posture, construction trade and age of worker.
•Construction workers identified measures they
use to maintain balance, including those that do not
require additional equipment, such as transitioning
to an intermediate posture prior to standing.
•Findings may lead to recommendations for rede-
sign of tasks or tools to reduce the use of certain
working postures, and mitigate fall risks through
a proactive approach of maintaining balance and
reducing the occurrence of falls.
Angela T. DiDomenico, Ph.D., CPE, has been a research
scientist
at the Liberty Mutual Research Institute for Safety in
Hopkinton, MA,

since 2003. She holds a Ph.D. in Industrial and Systems
Engineering/
Human Factors from Virginia Tech. DiDomenico conducts
research
within the slips and falls domain.
Raymond W. McGorry, M.S.B.E., PT, CPE, is a senior research
scientist in the Center for Physical Ergonomics at Liberty
Mutual
Research Institute for Safety.
Michael F. Blair is a technical consultant for Liberty Mutual
Group,
currently working exclusively with United Parcel Service in the
New
England region.
Yueng-Hsiang Huang, Ph.D., is a senior research scientist at
Liberty
Mutual Research Institute for Safety. She holds a Ph.D. in
Industrial/
Organizational Psychology from Portland State University. She
is
a member of Society for Industrial and Organizational
Psychology,
American Psychological Association, Society for Occupational
Health
Psychology, and editorial board of Accident Analysis and
Prevention.
Construction Safety
Peer-Reviewed
http://www.asse.org

www.asse.org AUGUST 2011 ProfessionalSafety 57
trol of posture and balance is automatic for healthy
individuals, although alterations to sensory inputs
may make maintaining balance more challenging.
Transitions between postures can affect all three
sensory systems involved in maintaining balance.
Altering the orientation of the head influences vi-
sual input and has been shown to challenge balance
control in healthy working-age adults (age 22 to 50)
due to a decreased ability to discern the orientation
of the head and body with respect to gravitational
vertical (Paloski, Wood, Feiveson, et al., 2006).
Changing proprioceptive feedback also can af-
fect balance as shown in studies that examined
the after-effects of standing on an inclined sur-
face (Kluzik, Horak & Peterka, 2007; Mezzarane &
Kohn, 2007); walking on an inclined surface (Ler-
oux, Fung & Barbeau, 2002; Wade & Davis, 2005);
and standing on compliant surfaces (Simeonov,
Hsiao & Hendricks, 2009). The interaction of all
these factors at an elevation make maintaining bal-
ance control more difficult, yet critical in the pre-
vention of falls.
Survey Development
The research team developed a written pencil
and paper survey with assistance from subject-
matter experts. Information from semistructured
interviews was obtained from current construction
workers (i.e., painter, mason, plumber) and loss
prevention construction specialists (i.e., technical

consultants) of an insurance company.
Cognitive interviews were conducted to examine
the meaning of survey items (for clarification pur-
poses) and the extent to which these items reflect
the domain being investigated. This process was
implemented to maximize content and face validity.
Participants were recruited for their expertise
in and familiarity with the construction industry.
Questionnaire items were revised based on sub-
ject-matter experts’ comments and suggestions.
The revised survey was completed by 10 current
construction workers who represented the target
participant population to ensure sufficient under-
standing of the questions and determine an ex-
pected range of responses. This feedback was used
to finalize the survey questions and format.
Survey Topics
The survey was divided into three main sec-
tions. The first section was used to evaluate the
workers’ perceived sense of balance after stand-
ing from a working posture. Photos of 10 different,
nonerect working postures were presented (Figure
1). Standing was included as the 11th posture fol-
lowing the nonerect postures and used as a point
of comparison. General pictorial representations
were intentionally used without specific tasks,
tools, PPE, etc., to allow for generalizability across
trades and tasks.
For each posture, the workers estimated how
much time each posture was used during a typi-

cal month. If participants indicated that they used
a given posture, they were asked to rate their per-
ceptions of balance upon standing after working in
that posture. Details regarding the five-point Lik-
ert-type rating scale (1 = unstable, 2 = somewhat
unstable, 3 = neither unstable nor stable, 4 = some-
what stable, 5 = stable) used to obtain perceptions
of balance can be found in DiDomenico, McGorry,
Huang, et al. (2010).
The second set of questions examined the meth-
ods that construction workers used to maintain
balance when a threat to balance is perceived. The
final set of questions explored contextual factors that
Pictorial representations of the 10 nonerect working postures
included in the survey: a) reclined kneeling; b) lying on back;
c) lying on stomach; d) sitting on level surface; e) upright
kneel-
ing—knee(s) on ground; f) lying on either side; g) sitting on el-
evated surface; h) bent over at waist; i) forward kneeling—
hand(s)
on ground; j) squatting.
Figure 1
Nonerect Working Postures
http://www.asse.org
may increase risk
of falling, includ-
ing environmental,

task and personal
factors. Partici-
pants were asked
to indicate in the
affirmative or neg-
ative for each fac-
tor. Data were also
collected regarding
each construction
worker’s trade, age,
gender and years of
experience.
Survey
Administration
Workers were
recruited from 10
construction trades
with an emphasis
on trades directly
involved in build-
ing construction.
All currently em-
ployed construction workers who comprehended
English were eligible. Participation was completely
voluntary and recruitment occurred at five jobsites
and through local advertisements. Prior to taking
the survey, all participants completed an informed
consent procedure approved by the Liberty Mutual
Research Institute for Safety’s Institutional Review
Board.
One hundred and ninety-six workers in the
northeastern U.S. participated in the study. An ef-

fort was made to have a similar number of partici-
pants from each construction trade complete the
survey with a minimum of 10 workers from each
trade taking part. Of participants, 97% were men,
a proportion representative of the construction in-
dustry as a whole. Workers surveyed averaged 15.9
(SD = 11.5) years’ experience within the construc-
tion industry and 13.5 (SD = 11.1) years’ experi-
ence within their current trade.
Table 1 summarizes participant demographics,
including the distribution within the three age cat-
egories used during analysis. Participants complet-
ed the survey in approximately 15 to 20 minutes.
Responses from seven participants were removed
due to insufficient data, resulting in 189 usable sur-
veys and a completion rate of 96.4%.
Results & Interpretation
Ratings of Perceived Balance
by Working Posture
Postures were ranked across all con-
struction trades according to the fre-
quency of use during a typical working
month (Figure 2), although the rate
of use for many postures was not the
same across trades. Ratings of perceived
balance (RPBs) averaged 4.1 [1.1] or
“somewhat stable” when examining all
postures and trades. RPBs provided were
statistically different among the various
postures, indicating that the working
posture maintained prior to standing has
a perceived influence on balance and the

vulnerability to fall risk immediately fol-
lowing the transition in posture.
Figure 3 illustrates the RPBs for each
posture. Post-hoc testing indicated that
bent over at waist, squatting and forward
kneeling resulted in the lowest RPBs,
whereas working while sitting on level
surfaces and standing were associated
with the highest RPBs.
Transitioning from one posture to
another requires adjustment within
multiple sensory systems during or im-
mediately following the transition to
return the body to balance equilibrium.
Bending at waist, squatting and forward
kneeling may create a heavier burden
on multiple sensory systems, decreasing
balance and resulting in lower RPBs.
Input to the vestibular system is affect-
ed by movement of the head, and devia-
tions of the head from a neutral position
Table 1
Participant
Demographics
Note. n = 189. aOne value missing for age.
Percentage of time each working posture was reported to be
used during a
typical month.

Reclined kneeling
17.3%
Bent over at waist
12.2%
Forward kneeling
7.3%
Upright kneeling
7.2%
Squa�ng
5.7%
Si�ng on
elevated surface
4.4%
Si�ng on level surface
1.7%
Lying on stomach
1.6%
Lying on side
1.3%
Lying on
back
0.7%
Figure 2
Working Postures Use

http://www.asse.org
affect neck proprioception (Norre, 1995).
When maintaining and transitioning be-
tween postures, the sensory organs with-
in muscles, ligaments and joints of the
lower extremities respond to static and
dynamic stimuli associated with load-
ing and stretching of the musculoskeletal
system. In addition, the cardiovascular
and peripheral vascular systems may be
affected after maintaining certain work-
ing postures for prolonged periods .
Ratings of Perceived Balance
by Construction Trade
RPBs provided by the various trades
were significantly different when aver-
aged across all postures. Floor installers
and sheet metal workers reported sig-
nificantly lower RPBs as compared to
carpenters and drywall installers, who
reported the highest RPBs overall.
Further investigation identified spe-
cific postures which differed for each
trade that were perceived to be more
problematic. Sheet metal workers per-
ceived lower levels of balance associated
with forward kneeling (RPB = 3.3) and
lying on back (RPB = 3.0), whereas floor installers

provided significantly lower RPBs for bent over at
waist (RPB = 2.7). Furthermore, plumbers recog-
nized lying on stomach (RPB = 2.7) and sitting on
level surface (RPB = 3.0) as precursors to potential
imbalance, and iron workers provided lowest RPBs
for squatting (RPB = 3.2).
Even though the utilization of postures is not
identical among trades due to the diversity of the
work performed, results suggest that no inherent
difference exists between construction trades in
self-reported RPBs upon standing. Differences in
RPBs averaged across postures seem to stem from
the differences in the tasks performed and the pos-
tures required to complete those tasks.
Ratings of Perceived Balance by Age Groups
RPBs among the three age categories were sig-
nificantly different, with older workers reporting
higher RPBs. Construction workers age 48 and
older reported higher levels of balance upon stand-
ing (mean RPB = 4.4) as compared to younger col-
leagues (mean RPB = 4.0).
The 10% shift in RPBs may not reflect a greater
ability to maintain balance. Differences in tasks
performed, survivor effect and adaptation of tasks
for the older workers may account for the variations
in perceptions. Older workers may have had more
opportunities to identify potentially risky situations
and have learned how to adapt their behavior.
These adaptations to the performance of tasks
may help explain why the two postures with the
lowest balance ratings (bent over at waist and

squatting) had the largest disparity in balance rat-
ings between younger and older workers. Famil-
iarity with the tasks and feelings of imbalance also
may lessen the effect and perceptions over time as
a worker’s tenure increases.
These ideas are substantiated by the fact that
no significant effect of age was found when each
posture was evaluated separately. Over time and
with experience, workers may reduce the use of
certain postures that cause imbalance either by re-
designing the task or altering the tools necessary
to complete the task (e.g., using a drill extension
that allows the employee to stand while working at
ground level). Another adaptation to reduce imbal-
ance after transitioning from a “risky” posture (e.g.,
bent over at waist or squatting) may be to reduce
the speed of the movement or utilize visual cues.
Fall Prevention Measures
Fall prevention and protection measures avail-
able and used were dependent on the trade and
the task being performed. Of the construction
workers surveyed, only 21.7% reported using fall
protection devices. As expected, the responses
varied across trades, with electricians, masons and
plumbers indicating almost no use of such devices.
When available, 53.8% of workers indicated that
they hold on to an object or work surface to help
maintain balance. These results did not vary sub-
stantially across trades.
When workers must maintain balance without
external assistance, 34.6% of respondents indicated

that they pause in an intermediate posture before
standing up completely from an awkward or un-
comfortable posture, and 47.5% pause after stand-
ing up to regain balance before continuing to work
or moving to the next location. Results indicate that
many workers are aware of the potential imbalance
created by transitioning to a standing position and
alter behavior to mitigate the risk of falling.
Mean balance ratings (1 = unstable; 5 = stable) for each
working posture are
averaged across all construction workers.
0
1
2
3
4
5
R
a�
n
gs
o
f
p
er

ce
iv
ed
b
al
an
ce
Figure 3
Mean Balance Ratings
http://www.asse.org
Factors Affecting Balance
Contextual factors can influence a worker’s
ability to maintain balance upon standing and in
general. Table 2 lists several of these factors and
indicates the percentage of construction workers
who believe balance is more difficult to maintain
under these conditions. Overall responses and
those for each construction trade are presented.
More than half of the respondents (57.4%) indi-
cated that maintaining balance was more difficult
when they were tired. In addition, 56% indicated
that it was more difficult to maintain balance after
standing up quickly. Construction workers must

perform tasks in a wide variety of environments
under diverse conditions, and different factors may
be more important to different workers depending
on their trade.
Considerations & Limitations
The measures within this study were derived
from self-reports of current construction workers.
Previous research has indicated limitations in ob-
taining valid self-report exposure estimates from
individual workers, especially those involved in
highly variable tasks (Hunting, Haile, Nessel, et al.,
2010). Level of physical effort and manual mate-
rial handling can be collected, but assessments are
only accurate for detecting the absence or presence
of an exposure with minimal accuracy regarding
intensity, duration or frequency (Stock, Fernandes,
Delisle, et al., 2005).
Therefore, it is not known whether RPBs cor-
related to direct quantitative measures of balance,
such as postural sway, or whether participants
were able to accurately recall feelings of imbalance
associated with various working postures, espe-
cially those that are not used
frequently (Unge, Hansson,
Ohlsson, et al., 2005).
An attempt was made to ad-
equately sample workers from
a variety of construction trades
to provide a general descrip-
tion of perceptions; however,
no observational data of indi-

vidual construction workers
were collected to link to spe-
cific ratings. In addition, no
considerations were made for
differences in body mass index,
footwear, loads, PPE or other
job-specific factors that may
influence balance.
Personality traits (e.g., ma-
chismo) and psychosocial fac-
tors associated with the largely
male-dominated construction
industry also may have influ-
enced responses. Several con-
struction workers expressed a
Potential Threats to Balance Upon
Standing From a Working Posture
It may not be possible to improve balance perception through
training, but it is possible to inform workers about safer
postures
that they can utilize and factors that may make it more difficult
to
maintain balance in the workplace. The postures investigated in
this study are listed below in rank order with those creating the
most perceived imbalance at the top.
Working Posture
•Bent over at waist
•Squatting
•Forward kneeling
•Reclined kneeling
•Upright kneeling
•Lying on stomach
•Lying on back

•Sitting on level surface
•Lying on either side
•Sitting on elevated surface
•Standing
Factors Affecting Balance
•Fatigue
•Standing up very fast
•Working on uneven or
irregular surface
•Carrying a load
•Extreme temperatures
•Adverse weather conditions
(e.g., fog)
•Glare
•Working at elevation
•Working with arms overhead
•Dim lighting
Table 2
Difficulty Maintaining Balance
Percentage of participants who indicated the listed task or
environmental factors made it more difficult to maintain bal-
ance while working.
Note. n = 189.
http://www.asse.org
belief that providing lower balance ratings indi-
cated a weakness or potential problem with their
ability to successfully perform their job. Such

beliefs could inflate RPBs; however, such a bias
would likely be systematic across conditions and,
thus, would not change the effects of the factors
investigated.
Summary & Application
Contextual demands on a construction site make
it beneficial, if not necessary, for workers to have
good balance, especially those who are required
to work on physically constrained surfaces or at
heights (e.g., I-beams and roof tops) where a fall
can result in serious injury or death. Maintaining
balance on a level surface also is critical, especially
when workers must contend with debris or con-
struction materials nearby that may cause a slip or
trip hazard. It is possible that individuals with good
balance self-select into these trades and only those
who can mitigate fall risks and perform tasks safely
remain for long tenures.
Many factors can influence worker perceptions
of balance upon standing from a working posture.
One such factor is the working posture used to
perform the task. This will depend on the trade,
job within the trade, task being performed and the
individual performing the task. Survey results sug-
gest that perception of balance differs depending
on the posture, with bent over at waist, squatting
and forward kneeling causing the most imbalance
upon standing.
Ongoing research will evaluate potential asso-
ciations between workers’ perceptions and force-
plate-measured changes in postural sway, an
indicator of balance. The effect of age also will be

investigated experimentally to determine whether
balance improves with age or whether other fac-
tors, such as a survivor effect or adaptation of task
performance, contribute to the difference.
Recommendations for Practitioners
This survey revealed that postural transitions may
present a risk of loss of balance. The results identify
simple and common techniques used to minimize
imbalance following transitions to standing.
When a threat to balance occurs, workers who
are able to perceive the risk may be able to mitigate
it by transitioning to more stable postures before
standing or pausing for a few seconds after stand-
ing to regain balance. Understanding how task
and environmental factors affect balance also is
important to minimizing loss of balance. Maintain-
ing balance was reported by more than half of the
construction workers surveyed to be more difficult
when tired or after standing up fast.
If workers can perceive a threat to balance pri-
or to a fall, proactive maneuvers may be able to
prevent falls and minimize risk of injury, includ-
ing redesigning tasks or tools to reduce the use
of working postures associated with higher self-
reported levels of imbalance upon standing or
minimize exposure to contextual factors that may
increase imbalance. PS
References
Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). (2009). Employed
persons by detailed occupation, sex, race, and Hispanic

or Latino Ethnicity. Washington, DC: U.S. Department
of Labor, Author. Retrieved July 6, 2010, from www.bls
.gov/cps/cpsaat11.pdf.
Cobb, S.V.G. (1999). Measurement of postural
stability before and after immersion in a virtual environ-
ment. Applied Ergonomics, 30, 47-57.
Danis, C.G., Krebs, D.E., Gill-Body, K.M., et al.
(1998). Relationship between standing posture and
stability. Physical Therapy, 78(5), 502-517.
DiDomenico, A., McGorry, R.W., Huang, Y.H., et
al. (2010). Perceptions of postural stability after transi-
tioning to standing among construction workers. Safety
Science, 48, 166-172.
Horak, F.B., Shupert, C.L. & Mirka, A. (1989).
Components of postural dyscontrol in the elderly: A
review. Neurobiology of Aging, 10, 727-738.
Hsiao, H. & Simeonov, P. (2001). Preventing falls
from roofs: A critical review. Ergonomics, 44(5), 537-561.
Hunting, K.L., Haile, E., Nessel, L., et al. (2010).
Validity assessment of self-reported construction tasks.
Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene, 7(5),
307-314.
Kluzik, J., Horak, F.B. & Peterka, R.J. (2007).
Postural after-effects of stepping on an inclined surface.
Neuroscience Letters, 413(2), 93-98.
Leroux, A., Fung, J. & Barbeau, H. (2002). Postural
adaptation to walking on inclined surfaces: Normal
strategies. Gait and Posture, 15, 64-74.

Mezzarane, R.A. & Kohn, A.F. (2007). Control of
upright stance over inclined surfaces. Experimental Brain
Research, 180(2), 377-388.
Norre, M.E. (1995). Head extension effect in static
posturaography. The Annals of Otology, Rhinology and
Laryngology, 104(7), 570-573.
Paloski, W.H., Wood, S.J., Feiveson, A.H., et al.
(2006). Destabilization of human balance control by
static and dynamic head tilts. Gait and Posture, 23(3),
315-323.
Simeonov, P., Hsiao, H. & Hendricks, S. (2009).
Effectiveness of vertical visual reference for reducing
postural instability on inclined and compliant surfaces at
elevation. Applied Ergonomics, 40(3), 353-361.
Stock, S.R., Fernandes, R., Delisle, A., et al. (2005).
Reproducibility and validity of workers’ self-reports of
physical work demands. Scandinavian Journal of Work,
Environment & Health, 31(6), 409-437.
The Center for Construction Research and Train-
ing (CPWR). (2007). The construction chart book: The
U.S. construction industry and its workers (4th ed.).
Silver Spring, MD: Author.
Unge, J., Hansson, G.A., Ohlsson, K., et al. (2005).
Validity of self-assessed reports of occurrence and dura-
tion of occupational tasks. Ergonomics, 48(1), 12-24.
Wade, C. & Davis, J. (2005, Sept.). Transitioning
sloped surfaces: The effects of roofing work on balance
and falls. Professional Safety, 50(9), 45-50.

http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat11.pdf
http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat11.pdf
http://www.asse.org
Copyright of Professional Safety is the property of American
Society of Safety Engineers and its content may
not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv
without the copyright holder's express written
permission. However, users may print, download, or email
articles for individual use.
BOS 3651, Total Environmental Health and Safety Management
1
Course Description
A comprehensive study of the essential components needed in
developing an effective safety management system.
Examines the cultural aspects of integrating total safety
management into all levels of an operation.
Course Textbook
Manuele, F. A. (2014). Advanced safety management: Focusing
on Z10 and serious injury prevention (2nd ed.). Hoboken,

NJ: Wiley.
Course Learning Outcomes
Upon completion of this course, students should be able to:
1. Develop effective safety management policy statements,
goals, and objectives.
2. Evaluate the impact that the role of accountability has on
performance management in in safety management
programs.
3. Analyze the importance of clarity in the assignment of safety
related responsibilities in safety management
programs.
4. Examine the components of an effective hazard prevention
and control system.
5. Apply risk management principles to reduce the impact of
workplace hazards.
6. Relate continuous improvement principles to safety
management concepts.
7. Examine management tools necessary to implement effective
safety management systems.
Credits
Upon completion of this course, the students will earn three (3)
hours of college credit.

Course Structure
1. Study Guide: Each unit contains a Study Guide that provides
students with the learning outcomes, unit lesson,
required reading assignments, and supplemental resources.
2. Learning Outcomes: Each unit contains Learning Outcomes
that specify the measurable skills and knowledge
students should gain upon completion of the unit.
3. Unit Lesson: Each unit contains a Unit Lesson, which
discusses lesson material.
4. Reading Assignments: Each unit contains Reading
Assignments from one or more chapters from the textbook
and/or outside resources.
5. Suggested Reading: Suggested Readings are listed in each
unit’s study guide. Students are encouraged to read
the resources listed if the opportunity arises, but they will not
be tested on their knowledge of the Suggested
Readings.
6. Learning Activities (Non-Graded): These non-graded
Learning Activities are provided to aid students in their
course of study.
7. Discussion Boards: Discussion Boards are part of all CSU
term courses. More information and specifications
can be found in the Student Resources link listed in the Course
Menu bar.
8. Unit Assessments: This course contains six Unit
Assessments, one to be completed at the end of Units I-III and
V-VII. Assessments are composed of written response

questions.
9. Unit Assignments: Students are required to submit for
grading Unit Assignments in Units IV, V, and VIII. Specific
information and instructions regarding these assignments are
provided below. Grading rubrics are included with
each assignment. Specific information about accessing these
rubrics is provided below.
BOS 3651, Total Environmental
Health and Safety Management
Course Syllabus
2
10. Ask the Professor: This communication forum provides you
with an opportunity to ask your professor general or
course content related questions.
11. Student Break Room: This communication forum allows for
casual conversation with your classmates.
CSU Online Library
The CSU Online Library is available to support your courses
and programs. The online library includes databases,
journals, e-books, and research guides. These resources are
always accessible and can be reached through the library
webpage. To access the library, log into the myCSU Student
Portal, and click on “CSU Online Library.” You can also
access the CSU Online Library from the “My Library” button on

the course menu for each course in Blackboard.
The CSU Online Library offers several reference services. E-
mail ([email protected]) and telephone
(1.877.268.8046) assistance is available Monday – Thursday
from 8 am to 5 pm and Friday from 8 am to 3 pm. The
library’s chat reference service, Ask a Librarian, is available
24/7; look for the chat box on the online library page.
Librarians can help you develop your research plan or assist you
in finding relevant, appropriate, and timely information.
Reference requests can include customized keyword search
strategies, links to articles, database help, and other services
Unit Assignments
Unit IV Project
Hazard Analysis and Risk Assessment Project
Be sure to read all of the instructions. There are two documents
to be prepared and submitted.
1. Following steps 1-11 of the Hazard Analysis and Risk
Assessment Guide in the course textbook (pp. 171-174),
develop a risk assessment for a serious workplace hazard with
which you are familiar, or use Addendum D to
Chapter 11 (pp. 202-206) to help you select a hazard. Evaluate
the hazard and its associated risks, and then
complete the Hazard Analysis and Risk Analysis Project form
(click here to access this form). To complete the
Initial Risk Assessment and Post Control Risk Assessment
sections, use the following codes based on the Risk

Assessment Matrix in Table 11.10 (p.180) of the textbook:
SEVERITY:
1 – Catastrophic
2 – Critical
3 – Marginal
4 – Negligible
PROBABILITY (Likelihood of Occurrence):
A – Frequent
B – Probable
C – Occasional
D – Remote
E – Improbable
RISK CODE:
H – High
S – Serious
M – Medium
L – Low
All sections of the form must be completed. Note that the “Post
Control Risk Assessment Measures” section
reflects the risk assessment AFTER applying the additional
control measures.
2. In a separate document of at least 500 words, explain the
reasoning behind how you filled out each section of the
form. Use references as needed to support the discussion.
mailto:[email protected]
https://online.columbiasouthern.edu/CSU_Content/Courses/Eme

rgency_Services/BOS/BOS3651/14G/UnitIV_InteractiveRiskAn
alysisFormNEW.pdf
3
Upload both the completed form and the discussion document.
Be sure that the discussion document is in APA format
with a title page and a reference page.
Information about accessing the Blackboard Grading Rubric for
this assignment is provided below.
Unit V Article Review
Search the CSU Online Library and locate an article related to
hazard identification and control. The Business Source
Complete, Academic Search Complete, and Academic OneFile
databases are good places to start your search. Try using
a variety of search terms (e.g., hazard identification, hazard
control, hazard prevention, industrial hazards, occupational
hazards, controlling hazards). Search terms can also be derived
from the information in Chapter 14 of the course
textbook.
The selected article must be from a professional or academic
journal, at least two pages in length, and published within
the last five years. Be sure that the article is specific to
occupational safety and health as some search terms may result
in
articles related to the finance and insurance industries.
Write a review that includes the following components:

concepts as presented in the textbook, and
usions and your own
opinions.
The assignment must be in APA format and at least two pages in
length (not including title and reference pages).
Unit VIII Course Project
1. Conduct an audit of the following safety management system
elements at your organization, or an organization
with which you are familiar and have access to the required
information:
SAFETY MANAGEMENT
SYSTEM ELEMENTS
ANSI/AIHA Z10
SECTIONS
COURSE
TEXTBOOK
CHAPTERS
1. Occupational Health and Safety

Management System
3.1.1 8
2. Occupational Health and Safety
Policy
3.1.2 8
3. Responsibility and Authority 3.1.3 8
4. Employee Participation 3.2 8
5. Review Process, Assessment,
and Prioritization
4.1, 4.2 9
6. Risk Assessment 5.1.1 11
7. Hierarchy of Controls 5.1.2 14
8. Design Review 5.1.3 15
9. Management of Change 5.1.3 19
10. Procurement 5.1.4 20
11. Monitoring and Measurement 6.1 21
12. Incident Investigation 6.2 22
13. Audits 6.3 23
14. Corrective and Preventive
Actions

6.4 23
15. Feedback to the Planning
Process
6.5 23
16. Management Review 7.1, 7.2 24
Below you will find some suggested sources for the objective
evidence to support your evaluation:
4
safe operating procedures, and job hazard
analyses
-mails or letters from management to employees,
safety meeting minutes, mishap logs, audit
reports, OSHA citations, inspection reports, risk assessments,
and training records.
employees
places to observe
conditions for yourself.

2. For each management system element, discuss the objective
evidence you found (or were unable to find).
Evaluate the effectiveness of the organization’s implementation
of each element against available reference
sources and best practice information. Use the following five-
tier evaluation scheme to rate each element:
action plans
-conformances need to be addressed,
positive trends/major elements in place
-Conformances Exist: Still needs focus
-conformances
exist
Appropriate references include the course textbook, textbooks
from other college-level courses, ANSI/AIHA Z10-
2012, other published consensus standards (ANSI, ASSE,
AIHA, ISO, NFPA, etc.), OSHA standards and
voluntary guidelines, and articles published in professional
journals. Blogs, Wikipedia, About.com, Ask.com and
other unmonitored Internet resources are not considered
scholarly references and should not be used. Please
contact your professor if you have any questions about the
appropriateness of a reference source.
3. If an element is found to be less than World Class, provide

recommendations for improvement. Be sure to use
appropriate scholarly reference sources to support your
recommendations.
4. Conclude the audit report with a summary of the overall
status of the organization’s safety management system.
The Course Project must be a minimum of seven pages and a
maximum of 10 pages in length, not including the title,
abstract, and reference pages. A minimum of five professional
references sources must be used.
APA Guidelines
The application of the APA writing style shall be practical,
functional, and appropriate to each academic level, with the
primary purpose being the documentation (citation) of sources.
CSU requires that students use APA style for certain
papers and projects. Students should always carefully read and
follow assignment directions and review the associated
grading rubric when available. Students can find CSU’s Citation
Guide in the myCSU Student Portal by clicking on the
“Citation Resources” link in the “Learning Resources” area.
This document includes examples and sample papers and
provides information on how to contact the CSU Success
Center.

Blackboard Grading Rubrics
Assignment Rubrics
One or more assignments in this course utilizes a Blackboard
Grading Rubric. A rubric is a tool that lists evaluation criteria
and can help you organize your efforts to meet the requirements
of an assignment. Your professor will use the Blackboard
Grading Rubric to assign points and provide feedback for the
assignment.
You are encouraged to view the assignment rubric before
submitting your work. This will allow you to review the
evaluation criteria as you prepare your assignments. You may
access the rubric in “My Grades” through the “Tools” button
in your course menu. Click the “View Rubric” link to see the
evaluation criteria for the assignment. Upon receiving your
assignment grade, you may view your grade breakdown and
feedback in the rubric.
5
CSU Grading Rubrics for Papers/Projects, Discussion Boards,
and Assessments
The Learning Resource area of the myCSU Student Portal
provides the rubrics, and information on how to use them, for
Discussion Boards, written response questions in Unit
Assessments, and Research Papers/Projects.
The course writing assignments will be graded based on the

CSU Grading Rubric for all types of writing assignments,
unless otherwise specified within assignment instructions. In
addition, all papers will be submitted for electronic evaluation
to rule out plagiarism. Course projects will contain project-
specific grading criteria defined in the project directions.
To view the rubrics, click the Academic Policies link on the
Course Menu, or access them through the CSU Grading
Rubric link found in the Learning Resources area of the myCSU
Student Portal.
Communication Forums
These are non-graded discussion forums that allow you to
communicate with your professor and other students.
Participation in these discussion forums is encouraged, but not
required. You can access these forums with the buttons in
the Course Menu. Instructions for subscribing/unsubscribing to
these forums are provided below.
Click here for instructions on how to subscribe/unsubscribe and
post to the Communication Forums.
Ask the Professor
This communication forum provides you with an opportunity to
ask your professor general or course content questions.
Questions may focus on Blackboard locations of online course
components, textbook or course content elaboration,
additional guidance on assessment requirements, or general
advice from other students.
Questions that are specific in nature, such as inquiries regarding
assessment/assignment grades or personal

accommodation requests, are NOT to be posted on this forum. If
you have questions, comments, or concerns of a non-
public nature, please feel free to e-mail your professor.
Responses to your post will be addressed or e-mailed by the
professor within 48 hours.
Before posting, please ensure that you have read all relevant
course documentation, including the syllabus,
assessment/assignment instructions, faculty feedback, and other
important information.
Student Break Room
This communication forum allows for casual conversation with
your classmates. Communication on this forum should
always maintain a standard of appropriateness and respect for
your fellow classmates. This forum should NOT be used to
share assessment answers.
Grading
Discussion Boards (8 @ 2%) = 16%
Unit Assessments (6 @ 8%) = 48%
Unit IV Project = 10%
Unit V Article Review = 10%
Unit VIII Course Project = 16%
Total = 100%
Course Schedule/Checklist (PLEASE PRINT)
The following pages contain a printable Course Schedule to

assist you through this course. By following this schedule,
you will be assured that you will complete the course within the
time allotted.
https://online.columbiasouthern.edu/CSU_Content/common_file
s/instructions/DB/Create_New_Thread_Subscribe.pdf
6
Course Schedule
By following this schedule, you will be assured that you will
complete the course within the time allotted. Please keep
this schedule for reference as you progress through your course.
Unit I Introduction to Safety Management Systems
Review:
de
-Graded): See Study Guide
Read:
-2012
Operational Goal

Discuss:
Discussion Board question by
Saturday, Midnight (Central Time)
Discussion Board response by
Tuesday, Midnight (Central Time)
ssessment by Tuesday, Midnight (Central Time)
Notes/Goals:
Unit II Serious Injury Prevention and Human Error Reduction
Review:
Read:
in Serious Injury and Fatality
Prevention
-Technical Model

Discuss:
Notes/Goals:
7
Course Schedule
Unit III Planning, Leadership, and Employee Involvement
Review:
Learning Activities (Non-Graded): See Study Guide

Read:
-Do-Check-Act Concept (PDCA)
Participation: Section 3.0 of Z10
Chapter 9: Planning: Section 4.0 of Z10
Z10
Discuss:
Notes/Goals:
Unit IV Hazard Analysis and Risk Assessment

Review:
Read:
Assessment: Sections 4.2 and 5.1.1 of Z10
ts in Standards
and Guidelines: Sections 4.2 and 5.1.1
of Z10
Discuss:
d Comment: Comment on another student’s
Notes/Goals:

8
Course Schedule
Unit V Controlling Hazards and Risks
Review:
Read:
1.2 of Z10
Discuss:
Submit:
Notes/Goals:

Unit VI Reducing Risks Though the Design Process
Review:
Read:
5.1.4 of Z10
Sections 4.0, 4.2,
5.1.1, 5.1.2, and Appendix F
Discuss:
t on another student’s
Notes/Goals:

9
Course Schedule
Unit VII Integrating Safety Management and Operational
Management
Review:
Read:
—Emphasizing the Design
Process: Section 5.1.3 of Z10
Discuss:
mit your response to the

(Central Time)
Notes/Goals:
Unit VIII Auditing and Management Review
Review:
Read:
Z10
ter 22: Incident Investigation: Section 6.2 of Z10
Discuss:
se to the

ime)
Notes/Goals:

56 ProfessionalSafety AUGUST 2011 www.asse.org.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to 56 ProfessionalSafety AUGUST 2011 www.asse.org.docx

Similar to 56 ProfessionalSafety AUGUST 2011 www.asse.org.docx (20)

More from evonnehoggarth79783

More from evonnehoggarth79783 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

56 ProfessionalSafety AUGUST 2011 www.asse.org.docx