Citation

Lesch MF. Proc. Hum. Factors Ergon. Soc. Annu. Meet. 2005; 49(19): 1795-1799.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2005, Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, Publisher SAGE Publishing)

DOI

10.1177/154193120504901909

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

In order to avoid critical misunderstandings, comprehension of warning symbols must be assessed prior to use. This study implemented a new method for testing warning symbols -- a semantic relatedness task with paired-response contingent scoring. The participant views the symbol with a label and is asked whether the label conveys the meaning of the symbol. On some trials the label is correct whereas, on others, distractors are presented. A symbol is "understood" only if the respondent accepts the correct answer and rejects all alternatives. 48 participants were tested on twenty-eight warning symbols using a semantic relatedness task and a staged questionnaire (Davies et al., 1998). Three types of knowledge were assessed: 1) the symbol's verbal label, 2) required or prohibited actions, and 3) consequences of failing to comply. There was a strong correspondence in scores across the two methods. It is concluded that the semantic relatedness task is an attractive alternative to open-ended and multiple-choice test methods.

Language: en