Research code: 62947
Ethics code: IR.TBZMED.REC.1398.383
TBZMED , rasoulzadehy@gmail.com
Abstract: (72 Views)
Introduction: This study is a descriptive-analytical cross-sectional study conducted on the firefighting occupation, with the participation of 12 firefighters, using the fuzzy logic technique with the HEART and SLIM methods.
Material and Methods: This study is cross-sectional and descriptive-anaiytical. The fuzzy HEART method was based on the tables, and the fuzzy SLIM method was based on the judgment of the firefighters. Thirty-nine sub-tasks were studied in 4 phases (Awareness, Evaluation, Egress and Recovery).
Results: Excel software was used to perform error probability calculations, and statistical tests of correlation and Kappa were used to analyze the data. In 35.9% of the sub-tasks, the human error probability and risk classification were identical. However, in 82.5% of the sub-tasks, the risk level assessed by the two methods was the same. The correlation coefficient of error probabilities between the two methods was 0.091, indicating a weak correlation. The Kappa statistical test results on the assessed risk levels showed a high agreement between fuzzy HEART and fuzzy SLIM (p-value < 0.05).
Conclusion: The results showed a weak correlation between the error probability estimated by the two methods, but a significant agreement between the estimated error risk. Considering the time-consuming nature of the fuzzy SLIM method, fuzzy HEART appears to be a suitable replacement for risk assessment.
Material and Methods: This study is cross-sectional and descriptive-anaiytical. The fuzzy HEART method was based on the tables, and the fuzzy SLIM method was based on the judgment of the firefighters. Thirty-nine sub-tasks were studied in 4 phases (Awareness, Evaluation, Egress and Recovery).
Results: Excel software was used to perform error probability calculations, and statistical tests of correlation and Kappa were used to analyze the data. In 35.9% of the sub-tasks, the human error probability and risk classification were identical. However, in 82.5% of the sub-tasks, the risk level assessed by the two methods was the same. The correlation coefficient of error probabilities between the two methods was 0.091, indicating a weak correlation. The Kappa statistical test results on the assessed risk levels showed a high agreement between fuzzy HEART and fuzzy SLIM (p-value < 0.05).
Conclusion: The results showed a weak correlation between the error probability estimated by the two methods, but a significant agreement between the estimated error risk. Considering the time-consuming nature of the fuzzy SLIM method, fuzzy HEART appears to be a suitable replacement for risk assessment.
Keywords: Human error probability, Risk assessment, Emergency situations, Fuzzy Logic, Fuzzy SLIM, Fuzzy HEART
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
