Citation

Lortie M, Rizzo P. Safety Sci. 1998; 31(1): 31-57.

Copyright

(Copyright © 1998, Elsevier Publishing)

DOI

unavailable

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

The objectives of this paper were to document how accident data are usually classified, whether this system makes it possible to classify all the data contained in the accident reports, and to examine the classification problems encountered. The first part reviews the variables retained and descriptors used by the accident studies published over the past 10 years. This synopsis showed that the types of data considered and the manner in which they were classified varied greatly between the studies. Data on the accident circumstances (e.g. activity and incidents) were seldom considered, while accident and injury data were extensively analyzed. The second part analyzes the vocabulary and data reported by injured handlers in 580 accident descriptions. Possible grouping vocabulary strategies were explored and the importance of the implicit nature of data was evaluated. This revealed that the vocabulary used by the injured was both rich and variable. For example, over 80 terms were used to describe one activity. While some grouping strategies to classify data could be developed for the worksite or incidents, it was particularly difficult to identify a logic for grouping activity data. Also, the analysis showed that many important data are of an implicit nature. A literal or automatic classification of terms may, therefore, lead to significant biases. Furthermore, although data on incidents were frequently reported, this type of data is generally disregarded by most accident studies. Finally, the paper discusses various classification problems that emerged.