BoulosM. N. K.HetheringtonL.WheelerS. (2007). Second Life: an overview of the potential of 3-D virtual worlds in medical and health education. Health Information & Libraries Journal, 24, 233-245.
2.
CarimG.C.SaurinT.A.HavingaJ.RaeA.DekkerS.W.A.HenriqsonE. (2016). Using a procedure doesn’t mean following it: A cognitive systems approach to how a cockpit manages emergencies. Safety Science, 89, 147-157.
3.
DekkerS.W.A. (2003). Failure to adapt or adaptations that fail: contrasting models on procedures and safety. Applied Ergonomics, 34, 233-238.
4.
DekkerS.W.A. (2005). Ten questions about human error: A new view of human factors and system safety. Lawrence Erlbaum, New Jersey.
5.
DuarteE.RebeloF.WogalterM.S. (2010). Virtual reality and its potential for evaluating warning compliance. Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing, 20, 526-537.
6.
HendricksJ.W.PeresS.C.NevilleT.J. (2018). The impact of hazard statement design characteristics in procedures on compliance, HFES, Philadelphia, PA.
7.
HendricksJ.W.PeresS.C.KannanP.AhmedL.MannanM.S. (2019). A survey of process safety workers' attitudes, behaviors, and outcomes: Moving beyond human error and toward a systems model, AICHE, New Orleans, LA.
8.
HuX.GriffinM.A.BertuleitM. (2016). Modeling antecedents of safety compliance: Incorporating the technological acceptance model. Safety Science, 87, 292-298.
9.
JamiesonG.AMillerC.A. (2000). Exploring the “culture of procedures”. Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Human Interaction with Complex Systems (pp 141-145). Beckman Institute: Urbana, IL.
10.
ReasonJ. (1990). Human error. Cambridge University Press: NY.
11.
SasangoharF.PeresS. C.WilliamsJ. P.SmithA.MannanM. S. (2018). Investigating written procedures in process safety: Qualitative data analysis of interviews from high risk facilities. Process Safety and Environmental Protection, 113, 30-39.
