This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Lusk, S. L. Articles by Early, M. R. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Lusk, S. L. Articles by Early, M. R. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Effectiveness of an Intervention to Increase Construction Workers' Use of Hearing Protection

University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan

Oi Saeng Hong

University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan

David L. Ronis

University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan

Brenda L. Eakin

University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan

Madeleine J. Kerr

University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota

Margaret R. Early

Oakland University, Rochester, Michigan

In this project we tested the effectiveness of a theory-based intervention (video, pamphlets, and guided practice session) to increase the use of hearing protection devices (HPDs) among Midwestern construction workers and a national group of plumber/pipefitter trainers. Posttest measures were collected 10--12 months following this intervention. Pender's Health Promotion Model (1987) provided the conceptual basis for development of the training program. A total of 837 highnoise- exposed workers were included in the analysis: 652 regional Midwestern construction workers and 185 national plumber/pipefitter trainers. Effectiveness of the intervention was determined through the sequence of analyses recommended by Braver and Braver (1988) for the Solomon Four-Group Design. Analysis of variance and covariance of postintervention use and intention to use HPDs and a meta-analytic test were done. These analyses indicated that the intervention significantly increased use of HPDs but had no effect on intention to use HPDs in the future. Pretesting had no effect on use. Actual or potential applications of this research include guidance in the development of successful theorybased interventions to increase use of HPDs.

Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, Vol. 41, No. 3, 487-494 (1999)
DOI: 10.1518/001872099779610969


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				J. Edelson, R. Neitzel, H. Meischke, W. Daniell, L. Sheppard, B. Stover, and N. Seixas Predictors of Hearing Protection Use in Construction Workers Ann. Hyg., August 1, 2009; 53(6): 605 - 615. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				W E Daniell, S S Swan, M M McDaniel, J E Camp, M A Cohen, and J G Stebbins Noise exposure and hearing loss prevention programmes after 20 years of regulations in the United States Occup. Environ. Med., May 1, 2006; 63(5): 343 - 351. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				V. H. Barkauskas, S. L. Lusk, and B. L. Eakin Selecting Control Interventions for Clinical Outcome Studies West J Nurs Res, April 1, 2005; 27(3): 346 - 363. [Abstract] [PDF]

				P. M. Arezes and A. S. Miguel Individual Perception of Noise Exposure and Hearing Protection in Industry Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, January 1, 2005; 47(4): 683 - 692. [Abstract] [PDF]

				P. M. AREZES and A. S. MIGUEL Hearing Protectors Acceptability in Noisy Environments Ann. Hyg., August 1, 2002; 46(6): 531 - 536. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]