Determining Warning Label Content and Format Using Emea

Abstract

Error Modes and Effects Analysis (EMEA) is a recently developed procedure intended to help practitioners systematically apply cognitive guidelines regarding the appropriate content and format of a warning sign or label. The EMEA procedure includes elements of Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA), task analysis, and Rasmussen's SRK levels of performance taxonomy. The first step in EMEA is to identify inappropriate or missing responses within particular stages of user or purchaser interaction with the product. Focus then shifts to identifying the frequency and effect of each inappropriate or missing response, its behavioral basis stratified by the level of task performance at which it might occur, and existing and potential intervention strategies. Two case studies are presented illustrating the application of this approach.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Altman

J.W.

(1967). “Classification of Human Error,” Symposium on Reliability of Human Performance in Work, Askgren

W. B.

(ed), Wright Patterson AFB, Ohio: Aerospace Medical Labs, Technical Report No. 67–88.

Flanagan

J.C.

(1949). Critical requirements: A new approach to employee evaluation, Personnel Psychology, 2, pp. 419–425.

Frantz

J.P.

Rhoades

T.P.

Lehto

M.R.

(1999). “Warnings and Risk Communication,” Chapter 14 in Practical Considerations Regarding the Design and Evaluation of Product Warnings, Wogalter

Dejoy

Laughery

, Taylor and Francis.

Lehto

M.R.

(1991). “A Proposed Conceptual Model of Human Behavior and its Implications for the Design of Product Warnings,” Perceptual and Motor Skills, Vol. 73, pp. 595–611.

Lehto

M. R.

(1992). “Designing warning signs and warning labels: Part 1 - Guidelines for the practitioner,” International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, Vol. 10, pp. 105–113.

Lehto

M.R.

(1996). “Designing Warning Signs and Labels: A Theoretical/Scientific Framework,” Journal of Consumer Safety, Vol. 3, No. 4, pp. 205–216.

Lehto

M.R.

Foley

J.P.

(1991). “Risk-Taking, Warning Labels, Training, and Regulation: Are They Associated With the Use of Helmets by All-Terrain Vehicle Riders?,” Journal of Safety Research, Vol. 22, No. 4, pp. 191–200.

Lehto

M.R.

Miller

J.M.

(1997). “Principles of Prevention: Safety Information,” in Chapter 56, Accident Prevention, ILO Encyclopedia of Occupational Health and Safety, fourth edition, Stellman

J. M.

, International Labour Office, Geneva, Switzerland, pp. 56. 33–56.38.

Lehto

M.R.

Papastavrou

(1993). “Models of the Warning Process: Important Implications Towards Effectiveness,” Safety Science, Vol. 16, pp. 569–595.

10.

Lehto

M.R.

Salvendy

(1995). “Warnings: A supplement not a substitute for other approaches to safety,” Ergonomics, Vol. 38, No. 11, pp. 2155–2163.

11.

Rasmussen

(1986). Information Processing and Human-Machine Interaction, North-Holland.

12.

Reason

, 1990, Human Error, Cambridge University Press.

13.

Suokas

Rouhiainen

(1984). “Work Safety Analysis: Method description and user's guide,” Technical Research Centre of Finland, Research Report 314.